Sitting of 30 June 1994

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

  LONDON DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [Lords].(By Order.)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 7 July.

  FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL. (By Order.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 7 July.

FINAL REPORT OF THE MAY INQUIRY
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Final Report of the Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the convictions arising out of the bomb attacks in Guildford and Woolwich in 1974, by the Right honourable Sir John May.—[Mr. Howard.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he takes in setting the corporation tax rate in Britain of that of the United Kingdom's major competitors; and if he will make a statement.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pays careful attention to the corporation tax rates in the United Kingdom's major competitor countries. The United Kingdom's main rate of corporation tax is the lowest of any major industrial country.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only do we have the lowest rate of corporation tax for larger firms of any country in the European Community, but our corporation tax regime for smaller firms is also the most generous in the whole of Europe? Is it not also true that the Labour party is pledged to increase the rate of tax on businesses and make them closer to the levels in other Community countries, which would increase business costs and destroy jobs?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right on each count. The socialist manifesto for the European elections made precisely the commitment to which he refers. My hon. Friend is also right to say that our corporation tax rates compare well with those elsewhere in the world. That is partly why we have such a successful record in attracting inward investment, which has created more than half a million jobs in Britain over the past 14 years.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If everything is so wonderful, why do we have a trade deficit?
    Mr. Dorrell: Part of the reason why we have falling unemployment, and inflation under better control than at any time for a quarter of a century, is that the Government have taken the decisions necessary to put economic disciplines in place. That is why the economic forecast published this week gives one of the best outlooks for the British economy in living memory.

    Inflation
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation in the United Kingdom; and what is the rate for France, Germany and Italy.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): Inflation in the United Kingdom is currently 2.6 per cent. That compares with 1.7 per cent. in France, 3 per cent. in Germany and 4.1 per cent. in Italy.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. It is clear that the policies being pursued by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government have resulted in inflation falling significantly below the European Community average. Does my hon. Friend agree that low inflation is the foundation for economic growth and that economic growth equals more jobs and greater prosperity for all the British people?
    Mr. Nelson: Yes, I agree. Our economic performance, not least on inflation, is the envy of the rest of Europe. Certainly the European Commission expects the United Kingdom to be the only country to combine stronger growth with low inflation both this year and next.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current policy on interest rates.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England regarding interest rates.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The minutes of my discussions with the Governor which precede my decisions on interest rates are now published. I refer both hon. Members to the minutes published on 22 June.
    Mr. Griffiths: If there is any confidence in the Chancellor's policies, why are longer-term interest rates in this country rising faster than those in Italy, America, Germany, France and other comparable countries?
    Mr. Clarke: There has been some rise in long-term interest rates throughout the western world. In my opinion, that has happened because the markets have overreacted to fears of inflation in north America and across western

    929
    Europe. The best reaction that I can give is the one that I am giving—to introduce the most open system of monetary policy in the world, so that people can see that we are setting our monetary policy on a basis that will deliver the low inflation target to which the Government are committed. The exchanges a few moments ago made it clear that we are well on the way to delivering that.
    Mr. Skinner: At the beginning of this year, the interest rate on 10-year bonds in Britain was just over 6 per cent. It is now almost 8½ per cent. That is a massive increase by any standards, and higher than that in most industrialised countries. Does that not mean that the next move in interest rates will be up and not down? That will mean more unemployment. We have more taxes at the end of this year and more taxes next year. The best advice that I can give the Chancellor is to take the Chief Secretary with him to the meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England because the Chief Secretary is telling a story in other parts of the world different from the one that the Chancellor is spreading here.
    Mr. Clarke: Apparently, the Chief Secretary and I have to go to Spain and Germany respectively before anyone takes any notice of our speeches. Leaving that to one side, however, the fact is that we have the lowest short-term rates in this country since 1972. Since the beginning of this year, long-term rates have gone up, for the reasons I have just given. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, they have come down again to the present level of about 8½ per cent., and they will stay down if we can make it clear to the markets that we have control of inflation, as we most undoubtedly have. We do not have a problem, because the fundamentals are more sound than they have been here for a generation. Indeed, I have just revised upwards my forecast for economic growth and revised downwards my forecast for inflation because we have the best combination of circumstances for the medium future that we have had for many years.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to remind his advisers, especially those in the Bank of England, that the present weakness of the United States dollar against the Japanese yen and European currencies is not a cause for a fundamental reappraisal of our policy of trying to get lower short-term interest rates? The weakness results from the delay, caused by the Japanese financial year window-dressing—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. A question, please.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand that the weakness results from the repatriation of Japanese yen on the sale of US Treasury bills, some of which funds are now being put into European investment instruments, because the Japanese expect European interest rates to continue to fall?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sure that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will take that point forward in long conversations for the remainder of the afternoon. Our position in the exchange markets has been extremely steady. Our position is well appreciated abroad because we have the fundamentals right. I will continue to set British monetary policy on the basis of British conditions, looking at our money supply, our asset values and our exchange rates, and getting the balance right in
    930
    strengthening recovery which can be sustained because it is based on a low target for inflation. We are well on course for that at the moment.
    Madam Speaker: After those long exchanges, I would like a direct question from Mr. Taylor.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: I will endeavour to oblige, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that stability in interest rates at the short end is entirely dependent on his maintaining the current fiscal balance to avoid there being a return of inflationary fears? That means not only a restraint on public expenditure, but a continuation of the current policy towards taxation.
    Mr. Clarke: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Beith: To make that absolutely clear, does the Chancellor agree that the pressure to use higher interest rates to restrain inflation will be very much greater if, at a time when the economy is becoming more active, there is the expectation of tax cuts? Had he better not warn those of his hon. Friends, other than the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), that the expectation of tax cuts could damage his chances of keeping interest rates down?
    Mr. Clarke: The need for brevity has prevented me from being as expansive as I would have wished, both to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). There is a very great deal in what they say. That is why I keep reiterating my determination to deliver our fiscal policies and to return to this Government's agenda of tax cutting only when it is sensible to do so because we have public spending and public borrowing under control through the prudent combination of policies that we are now pursuing.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that many of us are very relieved to hear that monetary conditions in this country will be set according to British conditions? If there were ever such a disaster as a single currency, for which my right hon. and learned Friend has been campaigning for the past 30 years, would we not then have our monetary policy set according to European conditions?
    Mr. Clarke: I missed my hon. Friend in Bonn, as he has heard me on that subject many times before over the past 20 or 30 years, but he will be glad to know that I did not take the matter any further yesterday. I made it clear that we would address the subject only in the context of the views of the British Parliament of that time and that I thought that the Bundestag and the Bundesrat of the day would expect the same right if ever the same situation arose. I believe that the German constitutional court would insist on that. I said to my German audience that in my opinion we were right to opt out of the artificial timetable towards economic monetary union, and that events have proved us right. I also said that it was a waste of time going back to blueprints for economic and monetary union, and that we should get on with the business of convergence on low inflation and healthy public finances. As usual, I was commended by my German audience for my frankness and candour in explaining the British position to them.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: On the Chancellor's speech in Bonn last night, and on the question not so much of a Britain at the heart of Europe as of divisions at the heart of

    931
    the Treasury, will the Chancellor now take the opportunity to disown the view of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that
    "a single currency threatens our sovereignty, is unwanted, is impossible and the principle unacceptable"
    —yes or no?
    Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary tells me that that is not an accurate quotation. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is obviously doing myself and my right hon. Friend the courtesy of actually reading our speeches, as opposed to the interpretation put on them. He will profit by doing so and he will see clearly from both our speeches what the consistent policy of the Government is towards the kind of arrangements in the European Union that we British Conservatives want to see and which we demonstrated last weekend that we are determined to attain.

    Budget Deficit
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many years it will take, on current tax and growth rates, to eliminate the budget deficit.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): In the Budget, the public sector borrowing requirement was projected to fall rapidly over the next few years and to be broadly in balance by 1998–99.
    Mr. Trimble: That is a simple calculation on certain assumptions and not a forecast which, of course, would be subject to the same vagaries and infirmities as are normal in Treasury forecasts. Is it not the case that if we have to wait until 1998–99 to get the Budget under control, there will be no scope for the sort of tax cuts on which the chief Secretary's friends are dependent, unless there is either an increase in the rate of growth or a significant reduction in expenditure?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to vagaries; that is why the Budget Red Book sets out a series of different cases with higher and lower growth. If we had higher growth, the PSBR would obviously be eliminated somewhat earlier. The hon. Gentleman is simply underlining what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has already said—that there can be no question of tax cuts until it is prudent for that to be considered by the Government.
    Mr. Sykes: Does my right hon. Friend think that growth rates in this country will be helped by yesterday's disgraceful rail strike and does he agree with the Labour Front-Bench spokesman who recently described Jimmy Knapp as a hero?
    Mr. Portillo: It is most extraordinary to have a rail strike being inflicted on the British travelling public and to see the failure by those people who are contending for the Labour party leadership to condemn outright the strike, the damage that it is doing to the British economy and the inconvenience that it is causing to the British people.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Given the impact of the European economy on domestic growth rates, does the Chief Secretary believe in a single currency in principle —yes or no?
    Mr. Portillo: I have nothing to add to what I said on that subject before. My right hon. Friend and learned
    932
    Friend the Chancellor and I have both made it perfectly clear from the Dispatch Box that that will be a matter for decision by this Parliament if and when the matter is put to Britain, which will not be in this Parliament but in a future British Parliament.

    Retail Prices Index
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which were the last two calendar years in which the retail prices index remained below 2 per cent. for the entire year.
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which last two years the retail prices index last remained below 2 per cent. for the entire calendar year.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Only two calendar years since the war have seen the headline inflation rate below 2 per cent. in every month; 1993 was one, and we have to go back almost 50 years to 1946 for the other.
    Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that since 1990 the average family mortgage bill has fallen by £37 per week? Does he agree that new house buyers and the housing market in general are being severely hampered by high interest rates on long-term borrowing? When will the financial market wake up to our policy of low inflation and reduce interest rates on long-term borrowing?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The main practical impact so far of higher long-term rates as a result of the fall in bonds has been a raising of the level of fixed-rate mortgages, which are becoming very popular, which has flattened off demand—temporarily, I am sure—in the housing market in this country. Obviously, we need to see stability in the financial markets for that reason and for many other reasons. Our best contribution to stability is to keep emphasising that the fundamentals are right in this country and that we are committed both to healthy public finances and to continuing to meet our low inflation target. I repeat our commitment to do that.
    Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his record on inflation. Inflation expectations are lower than they were at the time of the last Budget, and lower again than at the time when public expenditure totals were settled in last year's public spending round. At a time of such low inflation, how can we justify such large prospective increases in public expenditure as 4.6 per cent. next year and 6.2 per cent. the year after that? Should we not put the brakes on?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right about the direction of inflation. Everyone has been revising downward their forecasts for inflation—not only the Treasury, but independent forecasters, my panel of advisers, and so on —as the year has gone on. Among other things, that offers beneficial prospects for the level of public spending. Last year's public spending round took £15 billion out of our then public spending plans, and the Cabinet has just agreed to confirm the figures that we have published as ceilings for the coming round. We are all determined to ensure that we deliver as tight a fiscal policy as is consistent with unavoidable expenditure and our policy commitments in the coming autumn round.
    Mr. Sheldon: Will the Chancellor recall the evidence given by the Governor of the Bank of England to the

    933
    Treasury and Civil Service Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) called the Governor an "inflation nutter"? Without agreeing with the words used by my hon. Friend on that occasion, does the Chancellor agree that by publishing so fully the details of his discussions with the Governor he has put much of the weight on the Governor of the Bank of England, to his own discredit and disadvantage? Is it not clear that there are other matters, such as investment incentives for manufacturing industry, which should be playing a larger part in the Government's policies?
    Mr. Clarke: We believe that low inflation is an essential prerequisite for growth, prosperity and jobs in this country. That is why we are aiming at sustained recovery, but with low inflation to underpin it and give it a better chance of permanence. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the minutes of the exchanges that I have with the Governor, from which he will see how much we agree on the conditions that we have to balance and bear in mind. The right hon. Gentleman may then better understand why we have been so successful over the past 12 months in getting the balance so right that the rate of growth exceeded the rate of inflation last year, which has happened in only four years since 1970 and plainly will do so again in 1994.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Chancellor agree that there has been a huge rise in those items that could be termed the basic necessities of life, such as water rates, council house rents and, of course, energy costs as a result of the imposition of value added tax on fuel, which affect people on low incomes disproportionately and are not affected so much by the retail prices index?
    Mr. Clarke: Within the retail prices index at any given stage, some items go up faster than others. In fact, energy prices have gone down compared with other prices in most of the past few years. The poorer sections of society and all retirement pensions have, of course, been cushioned against the effects of VAT on fuel by the compensation in the Budget.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is not the Government's excellent record threatened by the ever-increasing and inflationary demands from Brussels? Has the Chancellor seen the paper put privately before the Select Committee this week which said that our gross contribution in 1995 will rise by £2,000 million—or £3 per week per family—and that it has been calculated that the agricultural budget will break through the legal limits imposed at Edinburgh by more than £1,000 million. Is there nothing that we can do to contain that extravagance and the inflation coming to us from Brussels?
    Mr. Clarke: The Edinburgh ceilings are tight—much tighter than those that the Commission was demanding, and far below its minimum expectations—and they will be strictly adhered to. I say that not just on behalf of this Government, but on behalf of other Governments who are determined to ensure that we see those ceilings applied in practice.
    The variations from year to year to which my hon. Friend refers are largely caused by fluctuations in the pattern of payments. Different payments come in different years, causing an up and down fluctuation. [Interruption.] I cannot possibly give the list of causes for that, but one of the key causes is that our partners' financial year—the calendar year—is not the same as ours. Payments therefore
    934
    fluctuate wildly from one year to other. [Interruption.] Some people can never be convinced. Anyone who knows the Edinburgh ceilings knows that the idea that they are responsible for a further £2 billion of contributions is palpable nonsense.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Given the interrelationship between European monetary policy and the rate of inflation, will the Chancellor now stop shuffling around and tell the House whether he agrees with the Chief Secretary, who said in a GMTV interview on the question of a single currency that for him, "That's impossible"? Does the Chancellor agree or not?
    Mr. Clarke: I did not hear the interview, but my experience is that quotations from interviews by the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members are likely to be wildly misleading and are unlikely to be accurate.
    When we discuss economic and monetary union in Europe—whichever Minister is involved—we point out how right we were to opt out of the timetable and that we must get on with convergence on low inflation and healthy public finances, and not fresh blueprints for union. We make it quite clear that if ever the issue comes back of going to stage 3 of economic and monetary union, it will come to the British Parliament of the day. I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in that I do not remotely believe that that will be the Parliament of which we are currently all Members.
    Mr. Batiste: Against the background of low inflation, is it not clear that inflationary pay demands in the public sector simply cannot be accepted? Would it not support the international perception of sterling as a strong currency if Opposition Front-Bench Members would condemn inflationary pay demands?
    Mr. Clarke: The level of pay settlements in the public sector is consistent with our success in getting inflation under control, our control of public spending and our developing better quality services as private industry recovers with the same level of settlements also.
    I find it absolutely incredible that the Labour party, which is posing as a responsible and modernised party, cannot bring itself even to say that an 11 per cent. interim claim based on alleged past improvements should be condemned. Quite plainly, as has been pointed out, the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are openly supporting industrial action against the public in support of such a claim.

    Local Authority Capital Receipts
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is proposing to relax the current restrictions on the proportion of local authority capital receipts which can be applied for investment in housing and other capital projects.
    Mr. Portillo: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has no such plans.
    Mr. Raynsford: Why are the Chief Secretary and his colleagues at the Department of the Environment so negative? The Prime Minister rightly pointed out that too many people are begging on our streets because they have no homes. Is it not time to get the unemployed back to

    935
    work building the homes needed for the homeless and to release local authority capital receipts to make that possible?
    Mr. Portillo: We are not in the least bit negative. The fact that 179,000 social housing units are being provided over three years, which is well in excess of our manifesto commitment, rather proves that point. What we are positive about is controlling public sector borrowing. We are positive about establishing stable economic conditions, but the Labour party does not even understand that terminology.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authority receipts should first be applied to paying off the appalling debts of local authorities controlled by the Labour party? Does he agree that it is those spendthrift authorities—put in power by the supporters of the Labour party, who frequently do not pay their council tax—that are unable to budget properly and provide proper housing, which should be condemned?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. The local authorities whose spending of receipts is being controlled are those authorities that have large debts. They ran up those debts generally in the 1930s and the 1960s in order to build houses. When those authorities sell those houses again, it is not appropriate for them to retain the same level of debt. That is rather like saying that if someone borrows to buy a house he can have a large mortgage, but that if he sells that house and does not buy another one, it is, of course, no longer appropriate for him to continue to hold that level of mortgage. It is absolutely absurd for the Labour party to believe that those receipts can be spent without increasing public spending and public borrowing.

    Negative Equity
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the impact of the rate of inflation on negative equity in the housing market.
    Mr. Nelson: House prices have clearly increased since their trough in the first half of 1993, reducing negative equity. The latest estimate is that the number of households with negative equity has fallen by nearly 30 per cent. since the first quarter of 1993.
    Mr. Battle: The housing market continues to bump along in the depths of the recession. Is not the Minister aware that 800 families lose their homes through repossession every week? Is not he aware that one in 17 families are in serious arrears with their mortgages and that 1.5 million families have negative equity on their homes? Does not he accept that the Chief Secretary's proposals to abolish or further restrict income support payments to home owners who lose their jobs will not only kill off the housing market but throw thousands of families on to the streets?
    Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts, particularly about the number of people with negative equity, because there are now 500,000 fewer people with negative equity and he should welcome that. The fact is that court repossessions have fallen by 55 per cent. since 1991 and arrears have been reduced by nearly
    936
    10 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should welcome those improvements instead of suggesting that we should in some way inflate the property market to try to get rid of negative equity. That would be no answer to the problems of those with negative equity.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major reasons why the level of negative equity and debt overhang is coming down so rapidly, contrary to what the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has suggested, is that many people have prudently maintained their monthly payments at the same level even though interest rates have been falling?
    Mr. Nelson: Yes. Many people have been able to reduce their negative equity, not so much because house prices have increased but because they have been able to reduce their indebtedness. The fact that we have been able to get interest rates down by such a significant extent is worth £160 a month off mortgage payments. That has meant that, in many cases, people have been able to reduce the negative equity in their property. That is reflected in the excellent figures and progress to which I referred earlier.
    Mr. Darling: Does the Chancellor agree with the Governor of the Bank of England's assessment that interest rates are likely to rise? If that is the case, what will that do to the housing market and to the recovery?
    Mr. Nelson: I never speculate, and nor will my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the future level of interest rates. What we do say is that the prospects for a revival in house prices—a gentle, not a massively inflationary increase—and the prospects for improving activity and transaction in that market are more likely to be served by a sound and steady recovery in the economy. We are seeing just that and it is clearly illustrated in the summer economic forecast published earlier this week. All that suggests that the forecasts, not just of the Government but of outside organisations such as the house builders, that house prices will continue to rise this year and next, will be met to the health and welfare of the housing market and home owners.
    Mr. Duncan: In view of the Chancellor's two most recent speeches, will my hon. Friend convey to him my particular congratulations on his Mansion House speech? Does he accept that the question calls for a dangerous regime in which people will be deluded about the value of their assets? They will consider their houses as a source of riches on which they can regularly draw, but, in reality, they will achieve an economy in which productive resources are denied the long-term investment which this country so desperately requires.
    Mr. Nelson: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that nobody in the House would seek to sustain the argument that the price of properties should consistently rise by more than inflation or the economy as a whole. Such a course would simply divert resources into fixed rather than productive assets. There would also be serious implications for first-time buyers, for whom properties would become much less affordable. There must be a relationship between the growth of the economy, the level of inflation and house prices. We do not want that to get out of synch.

    VAT (Fuel)
    Mr. Harvey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to introducing measures to reverse the increase in VAT on fuel in April 1995.
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): Parliament considered that matter and legislated last year.
    Mr. Harvey: As the Government are committed to reducing taxation when economic circumstances allow, will they give a commitment to the House today that, when that happy day is reached, their first priority will not be to attract headlines by cutting income tax but rather to reduce VAT on domestic fuel?
    Sir John Cope: We give no commitments of that sort in advance. In any case, is it not interesting that only a few minutes ago the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was urging caution on my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor as regards tax cuts?
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the generous compensation that has been provided to all pensioners for VAT on fuel, will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Secretary of State for Social Security to ensure that it is presented separately on pension books, because that would help me with my constituency correspondence?
    Sir John Cope: I agree with my hon. Friend that the compensation is generous. I will pass on his suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
    Mr. Winnick: Does not the Minister understand the tremendous hardship already being caused by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel? If that is not to be reversed, the Government should at least not impose the further measure in 1996, which will cause untold hardship, despite the Government's claims that those who need help are receiving it. The measure has been a great burden, which helps to explain the Tories' deep unpopularity in the country.
    Sir John Cope: I do not quite follow the reference to 1996. Whatever the hon. Gentleman was thinking about, I understand the point that he makes. But he knows as well as anyone else that we do not make comments before the Budget.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend remind those European enthusiasts on the Opposition Benches that an energy tax is part of Europe's policy? Will he also remind them that the Government have been elected since 1979 on a policy of diverting direct taxes to indirect taxes, and that VAT is an indirect tax?
    Sir John Cope: My hon. Friend is right. The carbon energy tax supported by the Opposition, particularly by the Liberals, would be a severe imposition on ordinary people.

    Income Level Disparities
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of Government policies on changes in disparities in income levels during the 1980s.
    Mr. Clarke: Government policies are focused on improving incentives and encouraging business enterprise. That is the only way to ensure improved living standards for all.
    Mr. Betts: Has the Chancellor read any of the reports produced recently which show that income disparities grew during the 1980s? For example, the "Economic Trends" survey shows that the poorest 20 per cent. of the population saw their share of disposable income fall from 10 to 7 per cent. during the 1980s; and the Institute of Fiscal Studies report shows that the poorest 10 per cent. of the population saw their real incomes fall by 15 per cent. during the 1980s. Does the Chancellor accept that all those reports show that the increase in unemployment, the transfer from high-paid skilled jobs to low-paid unskilled jobs, and the switch to indirect taxation have hit the poorest in the community the hardest and are responsible for the increased disparity? Will he accept Government responsibility for those matters, and will he explain to the House whether they are a result of Government incompetence or a deliberate result of their economic policies, for which he and his colleagues should be thoroughly ashamed?
    Mr. Clarke: Many of the studies to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his question are, in my opinion, a complete misuse of the statistical information available to us. Average incomes have increased by 35 per cent. in the time that the Conservatives have been in office. The increase has obviously varied at different levels, but average incomes for all sections of society have increased by about 35 per cent. in real terms. That is after a period when they were very static, in the 1970s. It is true that there has been a widening of incomes, although there have been increases at all levels
    Mr. Betts: There have not.
    Mr. Clarke: It is true. That is why we are giving such priority to raising education standards, raising the level of skills and putting in place the new system of national vocational qualifications. In a modern economy, there will be a widening of that gap, and one has to give more people the skills that they require.
    The research that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which talks about the bottom 10 per cent., is totally misleading. That group always includes many people who declare that they have had absolutely no income of any type during the year. They include self-employed people who have accounts for that year showing a loss. If one examines individual groups, all wage-earners' real incomes have increased. People on benefit have done better. Pensioners' incomes have increased by 40 per cent. The 1980s was a period when, throughout the social spectrum, people in this country became very much better off.
    Mr. Paice: Is not what really matters to those people on lower incomes the absolute income, not the comparison with higher levels, which is simply the politics of envy? Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether there is anywhere in the world where a policy of making the rich poorer has succeeded in making the poor richer?
    Mr. Clarke: I can remember one country, which is the United Kingdom, where a policy of trying to do that did immeasurable harm to the economy, and immeasurable harm to the incomes of most groups in the country, during

    939
    the 1970s. It is obvious, from the questions that Labour Members ask, that the Labour party would revert to that policy again if ever it had the chance.
    Ms Harman: In view of the anger and dismay in the country about the prospect of VAT on gas and electricity increasing from 8 to 17.5 per cent. in April, is the Chancellor prepared to reconsider that increase on VAT on gas and electricity, or is he still determined to press ahead with it?
    Mr. Clarke: The increase has already gone ahead. It has been accompanied by compensation for poor groups and all retirement pensioners, although, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, not all of them appreciate that it was added to an uprating which was quite low because inflation is now so low. Parliament has approved the second stage of the introduction of VAT on fuel, and it will be accompanied by a parallel package of compensation, which will again ensure that all retirement pensioners and all people on benefit will be compensated for the costs.

    Tax Reductions
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in support of tax reductions.
    Mr. Dorrell: I receive representations on many aspects of taxation.
    Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend will be aware that Britain's gross contribution to the European Community Budget is already the equivalent of more than 3p on the standard rate of income tax. He may also be aware that the amount of Britain's net contribution to the European Budget almost exactly equates to the amount that the Irish Republic draws out of the Community. Does he agree that curbing expenditure in that area would not only be extremely popular with the electorate, but would create the scope for the tax cuts to which the Government are committed?
    Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree that curbing European Community expenditure is an important part of total budget discipline. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the line that he did at the Edinburgh summit, where, as the Chancellor said earlier, we achieved a substantial reduction in the ceiling on the Budget that the Commission were seeking. It is also the reason why our party negotiated the rebate in the early 1980s under my right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher, which was opposed by the Labour party. It is also why we oppose, root and branch, the proposals adopted by the Labour party in the recent European election—to increase Community expenditure.
    Mr. Simpson: Does the Minister accept that arguably the greatest success of the policies that the Government have pursued in forcing down wages has been that the poorest paid people have been made increasingly dependent on means-tested benefits, and are paying marginal rates of tax of 97p in the pound? Does he accept that that is the strongest argument now for paying those people decent wages, instead of inflicting punitive marginal rates of tax on them?
    Mr. Dorrell: If the Labour party were seriously interested in improving the living standards of people on
    940
    the lowest incomes, I believe that it would recognise the obvious truth that has been shown by every report on the subject: the way to improve the living standards of the low income groups is to promote job creation, and any Government who are serious about that must conclude that to adopt the social chapter and a minimum wage is to march resolutely in the wrong direction. This Government are serious about wanting living standards to rise across the income scale, and we are pursuing policies that will deliver that.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Enright: Given the 16 per cent. increase in productivity since the last pay settlement achieved by the signalling staff, how does the Prime Minister justify spending £500 million and cramming money into the pockets of already wealthy bankers and PR men, when a mere 1 per cent. of that would give those signalling men a living family wage?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the signalling men are demanding an 11 per cent. pay rise with no productivity or restructuring. That is self-evidently not a reasonable claim in present circumstances. I very much regret the fact that they rejected the Railtrack offer, and that therefore there has been continued suffering for rail travellers.
    What we should like to know clearly—yes or no—is whether the Opposition believe that these strikes should continue.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Does the Prime Minister recall the speech that he made at the Conservative party conference in 1992, when he asked who had ever heard of a cricketer, Len Hutton, turning out to play for the county of Humberside? Is he aware that on the table of the Secretary of State for the Environment is a recommendation to the Local Government Commission, supported by just about every Labour and Conservative Member representing Humberside, and every Labour and Conservative councillor in the area, welcoming the report? Will he urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to get rid of the county of Humberside and to implement the recommendations as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard that plea. I think that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who would like the return of traditional areas and areas of local government that people will recognise and understand as having historical interest.
    Mrs. Beckett: How can the Prime Minister justify a reported pay increase of £800 a week for the chief executive of National Power, at a time when the Institute

    941
    for Fiscal Studies has shown that the gap between the best paid and the lowest paid in Britain today is wider than it has been for 100 years?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady yet again tends to concentrate on every occasion on the politics of envy and redistribution instead of the politics of growth and job creation. When she learns that there is more to prosperity than envy and redistribution, she may be in a position to lecture others.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the whole country will note that the Prime Minister failed to condemn either the pay increase or the widening pay gap. But surely he is aware that Government figures show that every ordinary British family, including the lowest paid of all, are paying more taxes now than they were when the Government came to power—with the sole exception of the kind of people who award themselves pay increases of £800 a week. How can that be right?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, average real incomes are substantially up for people at all levels of income, as the right hon. Lady should know. But since the right hon. Lady returns yet again to tax, perhaps she would care to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) who said recently:
    "We"—
    that is the Labour party—
    "cannot put trust and tax on top of the agenda and then duck the economic issues."
    That is what the right hon. Lady does.
    Mrs. Beckett: What are certainly up for every ordinary British family are the taxes that they pay under this Government. As a result of the Government's economic failure, Britain today is a country of low wages, low skills, high crime and higher taxes. Whatever happened to the Prime Minister's promise to build a nation at ease with itself?
    The Prime Minister: It is actually a nation of low inflation, increasing growth and falling crime. The right hon. Lady has been promising to set out her position on a number of issues and today she certainly has. She has published her own policy document and it enlightens a great deal. If any hon. Member would like to know more about it, I invite them—
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is right that an answer should be given, but to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who has every right to question the Executive about its policy.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady has invited anybody who wishes to know more about her programme to phone her campaign hotline and ask for Kevin or Ian who will explain her policies.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend give a clear and categorical assurance to the House that he will not allow himself to be discouraged from his pursuit of a classless society by the growing probability that both the leading opposition parties will be led by public schoolboys?
    The Prime Minister: The essence of the society that I wish to create lies in the fact that it does not matter whether they are or not.
    Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hill: Does the Prime Minister remember those happy Labour days of 1969 when he came to live in my Streatham constituency at the charming Primrose court when the unemployment rate in Streatham stood at one in 50? Thanks to his Government's policies it now stands at a shocking one in five. Is the Prime Minister be surprised to learn that there is no great demand in Streatham for a blue plaque to commemorate his stay at Primrose court?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know how much the hon. Gentleman knows about Lambeth at that time in the late 1960s, but if he had checked a little more carefully he would have known that just a few months before the date that he quotes the Labour-controlled Lambeth council was swept from office, going from 57 to three in the local elections.
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is not it the case that being at the heart of Europe and fighting one's corner for Europe are not mutually exclusive and, if the Opposition say that it is, is not that both false and weak? Is not it also the case that when it comes to exercising the veto or the threat of veto, other countries have used it far more often than we have and, when it comes to abiding by European directives, in the league of large countries, Britain comes top, France comes third and Germany comes bottom? Is not Germany's threat of the beef embargo a good example of that?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend intimated, there is a long history of vetoes by other member states —some on the Commission presidency itself. Being at the heart of Europe means fighting for the best interests of this country and of Europe. It emphatically does not mean agreeing with everything that our partners propose. Frankly, that is not the way that Europe works. It is not how our partners behave, how they expect us to behave or how we will behave. Wherever appropriate, we will stand up for the interests of this country and of Europe, and for the nature of Europe that we believe everyone across the continent wants.
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clapham: Is the Prime Minister aware that figures provided by the Department of Social Security clearly show that the number of miners who fail tests for bronchitis and emphysema is well over 90 per cent? Does he share my concern that there is a need to review the regulations, not in five years or two years but immediately? Will he tell the House that he is prepared to set in train an immediate review of the bronchitis and emphysema regulations?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Government accepted and implemented in full the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommendation to add those diseases to the prescribed list. I am sure that was right. The recommendation was made and accepted.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that President Reagan never looked back after he fired striking air traffic controllers? In view of the wilful neglect by Labour Members to do anything to help the travelling public, will my right hon. Friend consider doing the same with the striking signalmen?
    The Prime Minister: We are currently hoping to see a settlement that would end those unnecessary strikes at the earliest date possible. At the moment, Railtrack and the Rail, Maritime and Transport union are in negotiation and I hope that they will reach agreement soon.
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Prime Minister share the sense of horror felt by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House at the massacre of half a million Rwandans and the displacement of 2 million others? Is there not some personal initiative that he could take to ensure that the 5,000 troops promised by the United Nations one and a half months ago are now all deployed, refugees are evacuated and those responsible for the genocide are brought before international courts and tried for war crimes?
    The Prime Minister: Anyone who has seen the dreadful pictures from Rwanda will share the hon. Gentleman's sense of horror and revulsion. I strongly support the proposal currently being considered by the Security Council, to establish a committee of experts to investigate allegations of war crimes in Rwanda and then take appropriate action. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the special rapporteur on Rwanda appointed by a special session of the European Commission of Human Rights is now in the country. We expect his report tomorrow and I hope that action can swiftly follow.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be aware of our ambition to continue on the path of cutting the basic rate of tax. Has he contrasted that with the ambition of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)?
    The Prime Minister: Our policy is entirely clear. Our overriding aim is to sustain the recovery that is now clearly evident—but when it is prudent to do so, we will certainly seek to cut tax rates again. I heard what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said about tax a day or so ago. I am delighted that he set out his position —something of a novelty, in respect of tax, for Opposition Members. I hope that all other contenders will honour their previous promises and set out what they would do about tax.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister recall telling his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) last Monday that he regretted using the veto on Mr. Dehaene, and that it would have been avoided if the pre-conference preparations had been as thorough as they were in 1984? Was the Prime Minister suffering from selective amnesia or being economical with the truth in failing to tell the House that in 1984 his predecessor vetoed Claude Cheysson and supported Jacques Delors, who, unlike the Prime Minister, believes in giving workers legal protection from sweatshop employers?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman—perhaps by accident—is not telling the whole story. In 1984, there was a great amount of private consultation, and a number of countries—not just this one—indicated privately, not openly in the Council meeting, that they were unable to accept a particular candidate. My point was that if that sort of negotiation had taken place it would not have been necessary to apply the veto publicly, as I did. I hope that the hon. Gentleman now understands that.
    Madam Speaker: Business question—Mr. Nick Brown.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before the Prime Minister leaves—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I take points of order after business questions.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 4 JULY—Opposition Day (16th allotted day) There will be a debate on "The Child Support Agency" on an opposition motion.
Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures: Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill [Lords]; Value Added Tax Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 5 JULY—Remaining stages of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 6 JULY—Remaining stages of the Education Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order.
THURSDAY 7 JULY—Opposition Day (17th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Meeting Housing Need" on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru; and a debate on "Payment of State Benefits to Young People" on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party.
FRIDAY 8 JULY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 11 JULY—Opposition Day (18th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee 'B' will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 6 July to consider European Community document No. 5475/94 relating to trans-European Networks.
[Wednesday 6 July:
European Standing Committee B—European Community document: 10635/93, 5475/94 Trans-European Networks. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 48-xvi (1993–94).]?
Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, and for the Opposition days that he announced.
Given that there have been no statements from the Government accompanying the summer economic forecast, the league tables from the Secretary of State for Health and the Green Paper on the future of the Post Office, can the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a day's debate in Government time, before the recess, on economic affairs, the national health service and the Post Office respectively?
I am sure that no hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet been able to tell us the date of the summer recess. Can he at least tell us when he will be able to tell us the date? Perhaps we shall be more fortunate next Thursday. For the avoidance of doubt, let me repeat that the request to know the date is not a request for an early departure.
Mr. Newton: Were I to accede to all the requests contained in the hon. Gentleman's first question, the date for the recess would clearly be some time in September. I hope to do rather better than that. My ambition—I would
946
put it no more strongly than that—is to give the House some indication when we are clearer about the progress of business, this time next week.
Similarly, I hope at that time to give the hon. Gentleman a clear indication of the date for the economic debate in which he is particularly interested, and which we certainly expect to have before the recess. I cannot be quite so forthcoming about the national health service and the figures published yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, or, indeed, about the Post Office; but I should point out that a full statement on the Post Office was made some time ago, well before today's Green Paper was published.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the speech made in Bonn yesterday by our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he join me in welcoming that speech? Does he agree that the ambiguity about the Government's attitude towards the single currency satisfies neither the audience at home nor the audience abroad? Is it not time that we had a debate to settle our attitude to the single currency?
Mr. Newton: I always welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's speeches. Only recently, we had a substantial opportunity to debate European matters.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Returning to the question of the non-statement on the Government's proposals for the Post Office, is it not ridiculous that we had a statement when there was some press speculation earlier, but we do not have a statement when the Green Paper is published?
There will be a strong sense of disappointment and frustration on both sides of the House that we have not had a statement from the President of the Board of Trade on this important issue. Can we have a debate, are there circumstances in which we might have a paving Bill before next year's Bill? Would that paving Bill happen before the summer recess?
Mr. Newton: What has been published today is a Green Paper inviting comments—a consultation document. Clearly there would be no question of producing legislation before the consultation period was over. I understand why the hon. Gentleman asked the earlier part of his question. For whatever reason, a substantial statement was made indicating in general terms the basis on which the Government would be publishing a Green Paper, and I think that there would have been no justification for another statement today.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party of all parties should never rewrite or forget history, which is what we did in the mid-1970s when we abolished many ancient and historic counties? Will my right hon. Friend help to ameliorate some of the confusion that has arisen from the local government boundary review, in which the laudable objective of moving to one-tier authorities has been confused with the Secretary of State's right to cover the map of England in counties, and this time his opportunity to restore all those ancient counties to our land?
Mr. Newton: That seems to be an echo of a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and

947
Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) during Prime Minister's questions. I am sure that that earlier question, together with my hon. Friend's question, will have been heard, noted and inwardly digested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Alfred Morris: If we cannot have the date of the recess, can we have the date of the reshuffle? Can we have a considered response from the Government next week to the motion moved and carried in this House by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir. J. Hannam) in relation to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Are not the Government acting contemptuously of that motion?
Mr. Newton: Of course I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's latter point. There have been many comments by myself and others, most notably by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, on the Government's response to the various points that have been made about that and our intention, which is being pursued now, to develop a range of practicable and workable proposals to advance further the cause of disabled people.
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, were there to be a reshuffle, it is unlikely that he would be involved.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend promise an urgent debate next week on industrial relations as it would provide an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to condemn the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, first, for causing a massive strike on the railway system, secondly for making a pay demand four times the rate of inflation, thirdly for costing the railways El0 million for the strike and fourthly for causing massive disruption and a loss of jobs to many people in the south-east, including my constituency of Dartford?
Mr. Newton: Were I not conscious of the House's desire for a date for the recess, I should be much tempted by my hon. Friend's suggestion. He admirably, and much more briefly than he could have in a speech in a debate, made a number of telling points.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House read your clear ruling two weeks ago, Madam Speaker, on the propriety of Ministers at the Dispatch Box asking questions of Opposition Members at the Dispatch Box? Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, who, in reply to Question 1 today, did precisely that? Will the Leader of the House make a statement on what Ministers' practice will be in the future? Will your ruling be upheld?
Mr. Newton: The question of your ruling is a matter for you, Madam Speaker, as I imagine you would agree. I read and, indeed, heard what you said some time ago—as, no doubt, did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I heard nothing this afternoon that was incompatible with that.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate next week on the decision in the Manchester High Court to make two lesbian women legal parents of a child, bearing in mind the damage to the child concerned and to society, which is based on proper family life, where children are entitled to a parent of both sexes and where lesbians do not conceive children in the circumstance that applied in this case?
Mr. Newton: I well understand why my hon. Friend has raised the point, but I hope that he will understand that I am reluctant to comment from the Dispatch Box on a court judgment that I have not had an opportunity to study. The case is sensitive and involves a number of people, including the child.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Leader of the House assure us that a statement will be made before the summer recess on the outcome of the present secret talks on the future of Northern Ireland between Her Majesty's Government and the Dublin Government?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland continues to pursue, in an appropriate way, means of carrying forward the process of seeking to bring peace to Northern Ireland. He always makes a statement to the House when he thinks it appropriate to do so.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: As the sixth British soldier has been killed in Bosnia this week, and as The Times reports that the ceasefire in central Bosnia has broken down, will my right hon. Friend allow another debate on the matter before the House rises, so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to express their opinion on whether they wish this country to be sucked further into a Balkan civil war?
Mr. Newton: I regret that I cannot promise such a debate if I am to fulfil the hopes about the recess that are being pressed on me from various quarters. My hon. Friend has made a serious point, and I regard it as my duty to ensure that the implicit thrust of his question is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House consider the questions that I have tabled to the Department of Transport about road safety? Will he find time next week for the House to debate the fact that one in three coaches and large vehicles that were stopped were found to have defective brakes, and many of them had defective steering? At a time when a sad inquest is taking place, it will concern every parent in this country that we are not debating such road transport matters.
Mr. Newton: I have not had an opportunity to study the hon. Lady's questions, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will consider with great care the questions and the issues that she raised.
Sir Edward Heath: In view of questions already asked, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he and his colleagues will resist any attempts to revert to forms of local government that, more than 20 years ago, were already declared out of date by a royal commission and by other inquiries, including our own in the party, and that instead, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will continue to move forward to secure a form of local government that will meet the needs of our fellow citizens as we go into the 21st century?
Mr. Newton: I assure my right hon. Friend that my other right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will seek to move in a way that meets those

949
general requirements. It has to be said, I fear, that not everyone is agreed on what the requirements mean when they are translated into actual proposals.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Following on from that, if we had such a statement or debate, would it not make sense for the Government to drop this whole review of local government and get on to the problems that really affect people in the shires, the towns and the cities—to start building houses, to repair the schools and to rebuild the welfare state, instead of pottering about with boundaries? In 1974 it was a mess, and the Government did the same with the hospitals. The present review will create the same sort of havoc, and it will cost more than £1 billion. Use the money to help the people instead of shifting the boundaries.
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking for a statement on those matters next week, or is he merely making a statement himself?
Mr. Newton: If I may take it as a request for a statement next week, Madam Speaker, my answer is that I cannot promise that; I simply make the observation that I can think of a number of places—although I am not sure that I would wish to have their names dragged from me at the Dispatch Box—where reform in local authority structures might improve the application of policies in exactly the areas that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his inability to give the date of the recess today significantly underlines the need for reform of our parliamentary hours? Will he say how his negotiations on that subject are going? Is he aware that most continental Parliaments have already adjourned, or will do so over the coming week? I am not making a personal plea, because my children are grown up, but this is a fairly young Parliament, and many Members have young children. It is grossly unfair to them to have to sit on late into July.
Mr. Newton: I do not think that negotiations about hours can necessarily remove all the difficulties and uncertainties at certain times of the parliamentary year, but the answer to my hon. Friend's underlying question is that my talks with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) have proved constructive and are being carried forward, but of course there are several difficult issues to be teased out.
Mr. John Gunnell: The Leader of the House will have seen the written answer last Monday to my question about minerals planning guidance. There was a promise that the new guidance note will be published before the recess. Will the Minister make certain that there will be the opportunity to debate it, if not before the recess then as soon as we reassemble? The debate on the Coal Industry Bill showed that there is considerable interest in opencasting on both sides of the House.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might simply bear that request in mind, without commitment for either side of the recess, and certainly without commitment before the recess.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Judging by today's questions from the Opposition, they are clearly
950
unclear about our position on the single currency. In a spirit of helpfulness, I wonder whether we might have a debate on that matter, so that we can express our own clarity to clear up their unclarity.
Mr. Newton: I take it that that is the same spirit of helpfulness as that displayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), and I think that I shall rest on the answer that I gave him.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House give a guarantee that there will be a full and proper debate in the House if the Secretary of State for Social Security decides to introduce the so-called habitual residency test in connection with social security benefits?
Mr. Newton: The Secretary of State will be here on Monday not only for a debate but to answer questions, and that might provide the hon. Gentleman with an opportunity.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent debate on employment issues, not only in the light of the good employment news from the city of Chester, where unemployment fell last year by 6 per cent., and has fallen by 35 per cent. since six years ago, but to tease out the views of the Opposition, who advocate full employment, in stark contrast to policies that the OECD has defined as likely to increase unemployment? May we have an urgent debate on that issue? The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East did not ask for a debate, but I would certainly welcome one.
Mr. Newton: So, I think, would many people, because I am glad to say that the fall in unemployment is not confined to the city of Chester. As it happens, although the Opposition spokesman did not ask specifically for a debate on employment and unemployment, those subjects would certainly be embraced in the debate on economic issues that he requested, and that I have promised. I hope that my hon. Friend will make those points during that debate.
Mr. Paul Flynn: In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) who asked for a debate on road transport, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has observed the questions that have been tabled about the new danger posed by bull bars—a new fashion which people are fixing on the front of their Land Rover cars?
Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the Department of Transport has said that, if a child is hit at 20 mph by a Land Rover without a bull bar, the child will probably just be injured, but that, if a child is hit at 10 mph by a Land Rover with a bull bar, the accident will almost certainly be fatal? May we not have a debate so that we can banish this new "and terrible safety hazard, which is only a fashion accessory and serves virtually no real purpose?
Mr. Newton: That is another point at which, I am sure, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will wish to look with care.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the draft declaration for the G7 summit in Naples yet again calls on the United Nations conference on population and development, which will take place in Cairo this September, to come up with a solution to the world's population problem? Is he aware that the conference will have 18,000 delegates, which

951
makes it every bit as big as the Rio summit two years ago, on which my right hon. Friend allowed not one but two debates in the House? Will he consider even a short debate before the House rises for the summer?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has consistently taken a serious and proper interest in these matters, and the conference he describes is obviously a substantial event. I cannot promise a debate before the recess, but in the serious spirit in which the point has been raised, I tell my hon. Friend that I shall look carefully to see whether there is any possibility of a debate at some appropriate time.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 912?
[That this House welcomes the publication of the consultation paper Late Payment of Commercial Debt, as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement; notes the negative impact which late payment of commercial debt has on the job creation potential of in particular, smaller businesses; recognises the importance of the small business sector in generating growth in the United Kingdom economy; and believes that the only effective solution to the problem of late payment of business debts is the implementation of a statutory right to interest on overdue commercial debts.]
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, despite repeated rhetoric from Ministers, no action has been taken on the early-day motion or on the issue of late payments by big industries to small businesses, which causes problems not only for my constituents, but for people throughout the country.
Given that more than 300 hon. Members from both sides of the House have signed the early-day motion, which calls for statutory rights on interest payments, will the Leader of the House ask a Treasury Minister to come to the House to make a statement on why the Government continually refuse to support small businesses on this issue?
Mr. Newton: I cannot accept that the Government have persistently refused to support small business on the issue. On the contrary, it is an area in which the Government have consistently sought to help, not least by improving the performance of public authorities in dealing with their bills from small businesses. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficulties of the issue, of the considerable discussion of it in the recent White Paper on competitiveness and of what it said about how the Government intend to proceed.
Mr. James Clappison: In view of the recent good news about the significant fall in serious crime in many areas, including my constituency, will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on crime? The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) might well welcome an opportunity to return to the House where he would, no doubt, like to welcome the news of falling crime.
Such a debate might also give him an opportunity to explain what he means by being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, as his deputy, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), has made it clear this week that the policy does not include sending serious criminals to prison. Would not the hon. Member for
952
Sedgefield welcome the opportunity to come to the House to rebut the growing suspicion that his policy is a lot of meaningless and misleading waffle?
Mr. Newton: I think that a number of people would welcome some sight in the House of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), and they would certainly welcome some explanation that went beyond, or beneath, the generalisations that he utters everywhere else about precisely what his policies are. Unhappily, I cannot promise a debate, not least because, in the wake of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, we seem to have had quite enough time to debate these matters in recent months.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House pay some attention to the report issued today in Nottinghamshire about the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Leanne White? Will the right hon. Gentleman also look at the growth in pressure on social workers who are dealing with child protection matters, with the intention of making a statement to the House, and perhaps providing time for a debate on the growth in the number and the severity of demands in child care cases and the growing gap between those demands and resources available to deal with them?
Mr. Newton: From my experience as child care Minister on two occasions, I know of the pressures and problems which can affect workers in that field, so I certainly would not dismiss in any way the hon. Gentleman's question. While I cannot promise a debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who, of course, has responsibility for those matters, will be here next Tuesday.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider early-day motion 1363?
[That this House notes that Railtrack in making an offer of 5.7 per cent., to restore the relativities of signalling staff grades' pay at its meeting with RMT on 7th June, effectively accepted the Union's argument that before any future discussions on productivity, it was necessary to compensate the signalling staff for their past productivity; also notes that it is clear that it is only because of outside interference from Government sources that this offer was withdrawn and, whilst insufficient to meet the signalling staff's honest aspirations, the 5 per cent. offer did lay the basis for negotiation, and therefore, the full responsibility for the current disruption of rail services must lie with the Government; therefore believes that the only proper solution to this dispute, is for the Government to stop their interference, and for Railtrack to reopen discussion on the basis of their original position that past productivity gains by signalling staff deserve compensation; and affirms its support for striking RMT members in their attempt to attain fair and honest treatment.]
More than 51 Labour Members support the strike action of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which has caused such disruption to commuters in my constituency. In the light of that, has my right hon. Friend received a request from those on the Opposition Front Bench for a Supply day debate on that strike? If not, is that because they are trying to protect the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who will not come out and say what he thinks about the strike? If they are not prepared to

953
have a debate on the matter, may we have one, so that Conservative Members can state our strong opposition to this greedy strike?
Mr. Newton: That is another request from my hon. Friend, to which I would very much wish to accede if I felt that it were practicable to make such time available. The one thing on which we can all agree is that there is not the slightest chance of the Opposition seeking a Supply day on the matter, since it would expose their division and the extent to which implicitly—and, in some cases, explicitly—they support that irresponsible strike.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Reference has already been made to some decisions of 20 years ago. Will the Leader of the House give a commitment that, when the issue of Northern Ireland and the way in which it is governed comes up again, we shall have more than an hour and a half for debate, bearing in mind the exchanges in the House on Tuesday night? As the epitome of modern democracy, we would like to think that Westminster sets a standard.
May I also add that next week is Alzheimer's awareness week? I trust that there shall be an opportunity for the House to recognise it.
Mr. Newton: I am acutely conscious of the problems caused by Alzheimer's disease, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I am glad that he has managed to mention those problems in the House in such a way. However, he will appreciate that I cannot promise a debate.
On the point about Northern Ireland, I am aware of the concerns which were expressed in the House earlier in the week, although they were against the background of a week in which probably about half the time had been spent debating Northern Ireland matters. Nevertheless, I do not dismiss that concern, and I shall, of course, reflect on the points which have been raised.
Mr. Graham Riddick: I would like to tell my right hon. Friend how much I welcome the fact that we shall be debating the Police and Magistrates' Court Bill on Tuesday, because it will provide an opportunity for the hon. Member for Sedgefield to come to the House of Commons. We have not seen him or heard from him for weeks, and the debate will give him an opportunity to spell out where he stands on a number of key law and order issues. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his personal statement says practically nothing about law and order matters? He is full of pious platitudes, but they contain precious few policies.
Mr. Newton: With his characteristically vigorous language, my hon. Friend makes a point that I made slightly more gently a few moments ago. I certainly hope that his plea will fall on listening ears.
Mr. Harry Barnes: At 2.30 today, a report was published by Sir John May relating to the bombings in Guildford in 1974, which affects the position of the Guildford Four. Will there be a chance to discuss that report in the House? There is considerable interest in the case nationally at the moment, as there is a major film called "In the Name of the Father", which deals with those events and which a number of people believe contains various inaccuracies.
Mr. Newton: I cannot make an immediate promise of an opportunity to discuss that issue, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice made a number of recommendations in that area and, no doubt, at some appropriate time, there may be such an opportunity.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Would the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on choice and diversity in education, in which we may warmly welcome this week's announcement that there will be more grammar-school places in the country? We may also ask why the Labour party, in the House and in local authorities, seems so vindictively to oppose grant-maintained schools, when the hon. Member for Sedgefield and the shadow Chief Secretary seem personally to endorse them for their own children?
Mr. Newton: The straightforward answer is that I cannot begin to explain that. Unhappily, I cannot see that his presumed appearance on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill will provide the hon. Member for Sedgefield with an opportunity to explain on that occasion, but we can keep our fingers crossed that some such opportunity might arise.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the likely escalation of the signalmen's dispute, is the Leader of the House aware that we would welcome a statement from the Government next week? We would expect, and certainly the public would expect, a positive contribution from the Government to try to resolve the dispute, instead of their mischief-making and union-bashing.
As for the accusation of being greedy, does that not come ill from those on the Tory Benches who have more than one income? How would they like to compare their total income with that of the signalmen, who are undoubtedly on a low wage and believe that their claim is perfectly justified? I believe that their claim is justified, and that the Government should help to resolve the dispute.
Mr. Newton: I do not regard the phrase "union-bashing" as a reasonable description of the rejection of a position in which signalmen are demanding an 11 per cent. pay rise with no productivity or restructuring. That is simply not responsible under present circumstances.
Dr. Robert Spink: Can my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the recently published national health service performance comparison tables? The tables are excellent, and will enable standards in all hospitals to be raised to those of the best hospitals. It would give me an opportunity to debate the capitation funding of hospitals in Essex which fall somewhat short of the capitation funding of hospitals in London.
Mr. Newton: As a fellow Essex Member, I obviously find some difficulty in commenting on that, except to say that, over the years, I have also played my part in pressing things in the right direction. Of course, over the years, significant progress has been made in adjusting the balance in ways that are helpful to areas of rising population. As my hon. Friend will know, that process is continuing.
Mr. Peter Hain: Can the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement on the Post Office, especially as the Green Paper has been dished out to journalists over the road before it is available in the Vote Office for hon. Members? As a fierce opponent of Post

955
Office privatisation, may I nevertheless applaud the lemming-like determination of the President of the Board of Trade to introduce legislation that will almost certainly be opposed and defeated in the House, not least by his Back Benchers—especially rural Members who know that it would be a disaster to sell off the Post Office—and it would be electoral suicide for the Conservatives as well?
Mr. Newton: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has yet had the chance to study the Green Paper—
Mr. Hain: It is not in the Vote Office.
Mr. Newton: —but he might be wise to do that before making comments of the sort that he has made. I have already said something about the question of a statement, and I will not add to that. I will certainly inquire into the position that he describes about copies in the Vote Office.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate next week on human rights? Last week, I raised the issue of the 625 Kuwaiti detainees still held in Iraq. This week, three Kuwaiti Members of Parliament have been in London visiting colleagues on both sides of the House. They are concerned that oil embargoes on Iraq could be lifted before the detainees are released. Bearing in mind that this country has ancient and loyal ties with Kuwait, would it not be in order for us to discuss that?
Mr. Newton: I pay a tribute to my hon. Friend's persistent advocacy of that cause. If I may, I shall bring her representations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Points of Order
4.3 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have always thought that the point of the business statement was to ask the Leader of the House to arrange debates or statements. Clearly, you have been concerned that Ministers should reply relating to their responsibilities. A few moments ago, I asked the Leader of the House a brief and direct question: whether he would arrange for a debate if the Secretary of State for Social Security chose to introduce certain regulations.
The Leader of the House referred me to the Secretary of State for Social Security on Monday. As the Secretary of State has no responsibility for arranging debates, and the Leader of the House has that responsibility, I wonder whether, on reflection, the Leader of the House might now choose to answer my question, rather than referring me to somebody who has no responsibility in that area.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the Leader of the House forgot to use the word "no" at the beginning of his answer.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): For your assistance, Madam Speaker, and following your characteristic generosity, I am not quite sure what I forgot, but I did think that the hon. Gentleman was basically making a point about whether he thought that such regulations ought to be introduced. That matter would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Were those regulations to be introduced, and were they to be affirmative regulations, obviously I would wish to arrange for a debate.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you consider preparing and giving general guidance to the House on when you expect ministerial statements to be made? As you will appreciate, there have been a number of inquiries this afternoon about whether statements will be made on matters of policy which have been announced outside the House. There is, I think, some confusion generally in the House about when we should expect ministerial statements.
I particularly take the example of the postal services, where, as has been pointed out, we had a statement in response to a newspaper leak. However, when the Green Paper was prepared, it was issued to journalists without an opportunity for the House to examine it. As you will understand, Back-Bench Members from both sides of the House—particularly from rural areas, although not exclusively so—think that this is a matter of great concern, not just for the reputation of Parliament but to our constituents. Can you give guidance to those on the Treasury Bench, as well as to Back Benchers, as to when you expect ministerial statements to be made?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman understands, as does the House, that a Green Paper is a consultative document and therefore the beginning of the legislative procedure and not the end.
I certainly could not take on the responsibility of anticipating when the Government were about to make a statement. The Government inform me when they wish to make a statement. The House is informed during the lunch period, so that all Members are fully aware an hour or two before a statement is to be made.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  EDUCATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the draft Education (Inter-authority Recoupment) Regulations 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Act (Extension)
  4.5 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.
  The draft Order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, under which the government is carried out by direct rule for a further 12 months. Believing strongly, as I do, in the virtues of local democratic responsibility I regret intensely that it should be necessary to renew it yet again. I know that, however, to be the case, and I accordingly shall follow precedent by referring the House to some aspects of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland during the past year. My speech must be appropriately brief.
  Security matters remain in the forefront of our minds, particularly after the recent disgusting atrocity in Loughinisland. But the House has taken a recent opportunity, in our debate on the emergency powers provisions, to discuss this topic. There has been progress by the security forces in many areas, but terrorist crimes, both loyalist and republican, continue to deny the people of Northern Ireland what they most desire—the enjoyment of their right to live their lives in peace.
  The House will recall all too vividly some of the revolting things the people of Northern Ireland have been forced to suffer during the past year. For example, in the latter part of 1993, in the space of seven days in October, 23 people lost their lives. None of us will forget the bombing on the Shankill road, in which 10 people were killed, or the equally ruthless massacre of seven people at Greysteel.
  No matter how vainly repetitious it may seem, it is necessary for the House once more to condemn, without qualification, all those and the other attacks which have taken place. There is no acceptable level of violence, and we must never give the impression that there is. I admire immensely the steadfastness and resolution of Northern Ireland's people. I also wish to pay a special tribute to the disciplined courage and professionalism of the security forces who protect the people. Last year, 14 police officers and soldiers were killed while carrying out their role of protecting the community. Five have been killed this year.
  Nor do we forget the arduous work of the prison service. What we are sometimes in danger of forgetting is the successes continually achieved by the security forces in the fight against terrorism. In 1993, more than 350 people were charged with terrorist-related offences, including more than 50 with murder and attempted murder. So far this year, 233 people have been charged with terrorist offences. Only this week, seven people have been charged, including two with murder.
  The Chief Constable estimates that four out of five attempted attacks are thwarted. Much of the work of the security forces, by its nature, can receive little publicity, but the Royal Ulster' Constabulary never gives up. We give it the fullest practical support and backing, and I salute its work, and the work of those who support it, today.

  959
  Today, we will also have in mind those who so tragically died in the helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June. The deaths of so many first class police officers, Army officers, civil servants and air crew constituted a grievous loss. Our sympathy for those bereaved unites us all. I have received many touching letters. But the work of those fine people continues.
  From the particular issue of security, I turn now to our co-ordinated approach to the political, economic and social problems that confront the people of Northern Ireland. Adverse economic and social conditions—which affect both sides of the community—can be used to suggest an ostensible, although always a spurious, pretext for terrorism. There is therefore a particular need for the promotion of a buoyant economy, increased job opportunities, and greater prosperity, and a need for all in the community of Northern Ireland to have equal opportunity to enjoy those benefits.
  I shall refer to our progress in those matters in a moment, but first we must remember that terrorism abhors harmony and thrives on discord. There is therefore a particular need for the promotion of a political settlement —one that is broad in character and will attract widespread support, by reason of its characteristics, right across the community of Northern Ireland. It is to this area of patient and often frustrating endeavour in the past year that I now turn.
  It remains the Government's firm belief that any settlement likely to achieve such acceptance and support must address all the main relationships: those within Northern Ireland; those within the island of Ireland; and those between the two Governments in Dublin and London. It was for that reason that, with the other participants, we agreed in 1991 that the political talks should be structured in three strands, reflecting those sets of relationships. Nothing would be finally agreed in any strand until everything was agreed in the talks as a whole.
  Some have claimed, and continue to claim, that seeking an overall settlement in this way is far too ambitious, and that the process should move forward one step at a time. It is quite clear to us, however, that, because of the differing ideals and differing ultimate objectives of those who have participated in the talks, agreement on one set of relationships is only likely to be reached if the context for it is provided by agreement on the three sets of relationships as a whole. We believe that to be a political reality which cannot be wished away, and one which all of us involved in the process must recognise and work with.
  Since September 1993, the Government have been conducting bilateral discussions with three of the four main constitutional parties. We should like to see all four involved. Our purpose has been to explore the basis upon which we might all together sit down again for further dialogue. The present aim is to establish areas of common agreement; explore areas of continued apprehension or disagreement and to try to identify the degree of flexibility that may be needed on all sides to resolve those difficulties.
  We have been discussing the Government's ideas for giving direction and renewed impetus to the talks process. For our part, it is my hon. Friend the Minister of State who has been principally engaged, but the Prime Minister and I have also participated. We are each of us grateful for the sincere participation of our colleagues in this process.
  960
  On the basis of the talks that occurred in 1992, and those that are going on now, there is a good measure of contingent agreement on strand 1 on the nature of new democratic institutions for Northern Ireland.
  Strand 1 is especially significant today, because, if, as I believe is achievable, final agreement is reached among the main parties on the exercise of local democratic responsibilities, then, in the context of an overall settlement, the Government would implement the new arrangements agreed, and today's order would need no successor. But to be lasting, any such local democratic institutions must be widely acceptable throughout the community of Northern Ireland and must therefore give a genuine and fair share of democratic responsibilities to both sides of the community.
  It is clear, however, that what common ground exists among the parties on strand 1 is contingent on a satisfactory outcome to the process as a whole, including strands 2 and 3. To help progress to be made in those two strands, in both of which all the main parties accepted that the two Governments should each be involved, we are currently working with the Irish Government on a framework document. As always, that has given rise to apprehensions about what may be afoot.
  First, therefore, I repeat without equivocation that the future of Northern Ireland lies in the hands of its own people. There will be no change in its constitutional status as an integral part of the United Kingdom save in accordance with the democratic wishes of its people, and no political settlement without the participation of the main political parties in arriving at it, and the widespread acceptance of the people of Northern Ireland to the outcome.
  Secondly, let me address fears about what is spoken of as "joint authority". I think that that means that the British and Irish Governments would jointly run the affairs of Northern Ireland over the heads of the people. It is feared that the two Governments seek or plan to impose that. There is no truth in that at all. To impose such a structure against the will of the people of Northern Ireland would be incompatible with the principle of consent. For that reason, it would, in my belief, be unacceptable to this House. Additionally, however, it is not sought by the Irish Government, let alone our own. As Mr. Spring said on 25 April,
  "Joint authority is not being considered".
  It is quite a different matter to examine, as the four parties and the Governments all did in 1992, ways in which, without impinging in any manner on sovereignty, some north-south body could enable common cause to be made in areas of common interest. That would be to the general good of both parts of the island of Ireland.
  However, acceptability remains the key test. I believe that such a body would be acceptable, not only in Northern Ireland but in the Republic as well, only if it operated in areas clearly delegated to it by the appropriate legislatures in each jurisdiction. For the same reason, it would have to be accountable to democratic institutions in Belfast and Dublin, with decisions taken on the basis of agreement between the representatives of both parts of the island.
  Provided, of course, that there is widespread agreement in Northern Ireland, there is no reason why a body constructed in that way should not assume a variety of delegated functions and responsibilities, including executive functions. That does not confer joint authority on the Dublin Government over Northern Ireland or anything like

  961
  it, any more than Stormont conferred such authority when, in 1952, it set up the Foyle Fisheries Commission to regulate the river that is bisected by the border. All that falls squarely within the ambit of strand 2.
  Nor is there any question of us working on a deal to be imposed on the political parties or Northern Ireland people. That would be incompatible with the foundation principle of consent. Our aim is to help the process forward through discussion and agreement with the parties and, ultimately, the people. As the Taoiseach clearly put it on 24 May:
  "We recognise that the only agreement which will last is one that the Unionist and Loyalist community have freely participated in making".
  It is, of course, possible to work upon some people's natural fears by making unfounded assertions about the discussions known to be taking place between our own and the Irish Government. It is not only possible; it is easy. To some, it seems irresistibly tempting. But it is also irresponsible. What we are about is endeavouring to achieve a shared understanding between us of the elements of a political settlement which, in our view, is most likely to command widespread support across the community in Northern Ireland.
  We wish to do that, not to give Dublin a role in running the internal affairs of the north but to help all the participants reach an overall agreement in the knowledge of the two Governments' views, where those may be relevant and only where those may be relevant.
  I would expect any outcome to include the following elements: a shared and mutually acceptable understanding of those important constitutional matters known to be in issue; the establishment of locally accountable democratic institutions in Northern Ireland which provide an appropriate and worthy role for representatives of both main parts of the community; new arrangements for contact, co-operation and working together within the island of Ireland; and new arrangements between the two Governments. I believe that, with reality and good will, all those should be attainable.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State agree that those objectives are desirable, and would be so to any fair-minded person in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom or the Republic? Does he further agree that, if we want the support of the international community in the fight against terrorism—and I believe that we have that support—it is important for the international community to understand the willingness of the British Government and the Irish Government to work together jointly, and to recognise that there are certain responsibilities in the island of Ireland on which, from a purely common-sense point of view, it is right and proper that Northern Ireland and the Republic should be working together? If the international community understands what is desired by both Governments, all the more reason for us to have their continued support.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree that there is support in the international community for the fight against terrorism, and I think that much heart has been taken in the international community by reason of the evidence afforded by the joint declaration that the two Governments stand side by side on such important matters. I think that there is a genuine understanding that, in aspects where there is common interest, it makes good sense to make
  962
  common cause. It is also widely understood that it would not be acceptable for that process to impinge on sovereignty. That is a matter which must be determined by the consent of the people involved.
  In the broader field, practical co-operation on a range of economic and social issues has continued in the past year. The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana work closely together, facing as they do a common terrorist threat. That has, unquestionably, saved lives on both sides of the border.
  In the past year, considerable progress has been made towards tackling deficiencies in the extradition arrange-ments between our two countries. The two Governments are resolute and stand shoulder to shoulder in their rejection of violence.
  By far the most significant development in the past year has, of course, been the joint declaration. That represents a public commitment by the two Governments to a shared understanding of the political realities in Ireland today, and to a common approach to the problems of Northern Ireland, based on the principles of democracy and consent. It has the overwhelming endorsement of the people of Ireland, north and south, and the strong support of the British public.
  The joint declaration has put the spotlight on the terrorists and their apologists. It must now be clear to everyone that there can be no excuse—no justification whatsoever—for political violence in this democracy. The joint declaration acknowledges and safeguards the interests of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, according parity of esteem to each. There is no compromise on any issue of principle that is essential to the position of either tradition.
  I return to the performance of the economy in Northern Ireland in the past year. Once again, there is good news to report. The economy has come through the recession well, and is performing strongly in the recovery. A few statistics serve to illustrate the picture.
  Manufacturing output continued the strong performance of the previous year, growing by 3.6 per cent. during 1993 compared with growth of 1.6 per cent. for the entire United Kingdom. In the year to May 1994, unemployment fell by 5.2 per cent. and, at 13.1 per cent., is the lowest for three years. Of course, those levels are still far too high, and we shall continue our efforts to reduce them further.
  The Industrial Development Board had one of its most successful years in 1993–94, promoting a record 2,309 inward investment jobs. Since April, two further major projects have been announced—the offer by TransTec from Great Britain of 181 new jobs in Londonderry, and the proposal of Hualon from Taiwan to create 1,800 new jobs near Belfast, with another 500 or so jobs associated with the construction.
  I can also report some impressive results from the small business sector, for which the Local Enterprise Development Unit is responsible. The year 1993–94 was a record year, with more than 1,300 new businesses established. The continuing success of Northern Ireland Electricity Plc, and news of another record-breaking year for tourism in Northern Ireland, add to the general atmosphere of optimism on the economy.
  Finally, on social development, the "making Belfast work" initiative, which began in 1988 as a direct response on the part of the Government to the deep-rooted deprivation in parts of Belfast on both sides of the community, has continued to provide many employment

  963
  and training opportunities. Parts of Belfast and of the rest of the Province face high levels of long-term unemployment; 60 per cent. of those who are unemployed have been so for at least one year, compared with 35 per cent. in the rest of the United Kingdom. Such unemployment is a blight, affecting the hopes of the people on both sides of the community, and we are actively taking steps to deal with it wherever it occurs.
  For all its initiatives, "making Belfast work" has, in this financial year alone, received a further £24.6 million. That represents an increase of £1 million on the allocation for 1993–94. On 26 April, I gave a commitment that the initiative would run for at least another three years.
  I conclude by looking to the future. I have faith in a better future for Northern Ireland. I think that we now have an unparalleled opportunity for peace and stability. The joint declaration created a new context for political progress and has met with support across the community in Northern Ireland, and nationally and internationally. Sinn Fein now knows how it can enter the political process. It should renounce violence now and join in the political process. But whatever it decides, we shall carry on, with or without Sinn Fein.
  We shall carry on working with the Irish Government for the shared understanding about which I have spoken, which is most likely to produce a settlement. We shall continue to talk to the main Northern Ireland constitutional parties, with a view to securing an agreed settlement. We shall maintain the political momentum. We shall, with the Irish Government, resolutely continue to fight terrorism.
  This is a different picture from that of a year ago. We have further rational grounds for hope that, through consent and democracy, a settlement will be reached. Until that happens, however, Northern Ireland should remain under direct rule, so I commend the order to the House.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join the Secretary of State in extending our support to the security forces and to all who are engaged in impartially upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland. They deserve our support; too often they deserve and receive our sympathy when they suffer casualties and bereavements.
  Like the Secretary of State, I regret the fact that we are again debating an extension of direct rule in Northern Ireland. It is a palpable sign of failure on the part of politicians that we have been unable to address and, if not solve the problem, at least arrive at a settlement that would be acceptable to the peoples of Ireland, Northern Ireland and all these islands.
  No party in this House or in Ireland views direct rule as a solution to the problem in Northern Ireland. The fact that we are again renewing the status quo merely serves to underline our collective failure in Britain and Ireland to find a constitutional settlement that has widespread support in both communities.
  We regret the need to renew the Northern Ireland Act, but we must also object to the ridiculously short time that we have to debate it today. The lack of time granted by the Government for this debate represents their failure to acknowledge the gravity of the political situation in Northern Ireland. The recent spate of killings, and especially the atrocities at Loughinisland, highlight the urgent need to find a political settlement.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want correctly to describe why we have this amount of time. We had assumed that we would be given three hours—in other words, half a day—for the debate, but owing to a misunderstanding, and because the agenda was switched at least three times towards the end of last week, I was given to understand that the official Opposition wanted a vote on the second motion, which is why the debate was truncated. I am not accusing the Labour party; I am just explaining what happened. It is, as the hon. Gentleman says, regrettable.
  Mr. McNamara: I am glad that our wish to have a vote on the second order, which we regard as most important, has been met. It was, however, foisted on the Opposition and on the House with no warning, and after the shadow Cabinet had discussed the business for the week. I need not pursue that matter further other than to say that as we have only a short time for the debate I shall seek to keep my remarks relatively brief so that all those hon. Members who wish to speak may do so.
  The British and the Irish Governments must continue to work together to agree a joint framework document to put to the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. Under article 2 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the two Governments have pledged to make determined efforts to resolve any differences. It is vital that both Governments remain united in pursuit of a settlement which grants parity of esteem to the aspirations and beliefs of both communities in Northern Ireland.
  I hope that the Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, will be able to give the House the timetable for the joint framework document and say whether the date of the proposed Prime Ministerial summit has been put back to the end of July or is still on course for about the third week of July. Will he also say whether the nub of the disagreement between the two Governments is the nature and powers of cross-border institutions and whether any framework document which is agreed will be published so that the people of Britain and Ireland can also judge the proposals? I realise, of course, that they will have to go to the parties first, but it should be possible for the people most concerned, the people in Northern Ireland, to see what the two Governments are discussing.
  The Labour party's policy is to support the concept of a united Ireland by consent. That policy has been endorsed by successive party conferences since 1981. However, the Labour party would not seek to impose that policy preference on the peoples of Ireland. The Labour party would and should accept any agreement which has the support of the people of Ireland, north and south.
  Therefore, we welcomed the British Government's commitment in the joint declaration to give legislative effect to any measure of agreement on the future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland themselves freely determine without external impediment.
  We hope that the inter-party talks can be resumed at the earliest possible date, based upon the principles contained in the joint declaration. We particularly welcome the Secretary of State's statement, in relation to Sinn Fein's questions, that the only condition to be met in order to arrive at any discussion of the future of Ireland and Northern Ireland is a permanent cessation of violence. That is of the utmost importance.
  I welcome also the fact that the Secretary of State said today that the talks should maintain the three-strand

  965
  structure agreed in 1991 covering the relationships between the communities within Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and between Britain and Ireland. The principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed must be maintained. Agreement must be reached on each of the strands before any strand is implemented.
  In particular, strand 1, dealing with relations within Northern Ireland, cannot be decoupled from strands 2 and 3. The Secretary of State made that clear today. Each strand is interlocked and interrelated. The establishment of a Northern Ireland Assembly without agreed cross-border institutions would not be a viable option.
  We are in favour of the establishment of a devolved power-sharing Assembly for Northern Ireland in the context of the wider constitutional settlement. It would ensure greater direct accountability for the peoples of Northern Ireland and a more democratic decision-making process. A power-sharing Assembly should help to improve relations between the communities as parties would be encouraged to work together co-operatively to improve the conditions of all Northern Ireland citizens.
  An Assembly with genuine power-sharing mechanisms can guarantee that the voice of the minority community will be heard. As the Secretary of State has asserted in the past, there can be no return to simple majoritarian rule. That excludes both the Stormont-type regime and a system which is based on pure proportionality. A Northern Ireland Assembly cannot be successfully established in isolation. It must be part of a settlement that grants parity of esteem to the nationalist community and includes an institution-nalised Irish dimension.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know whether I caught the hon. Gentleman's words right, but did he say that there can be no majority rule and no proportional majority rule?
  Mr. McNamara: The point that I am making is that there has to be power sharing; that majority rule such as there was in the old Stormont is not acceptable. I do not think that anyone expects to see that return. A system based on pure proportionality, which would not mean equality between the communities, would also not be acceptable.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNamara: No, I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Because I saw the way that he behaved the other night.
  There can be no purely internal settlement because the Northern Ireland conflict is not primarily internal to Northern Ireland—it has an external dimension. Presently, a majority in Northern Ireland define themselves as British citizens and want to remain within the United Kingdom, while a large and growing minority see themselves as Irish and want to be constitutionally and institutionally linked to the Republic of Ireland.
  Almost 40 per cent. of the Northern Ireland electorate voted for nationalist parties in the European election. If we are to have peace in these islands, the British and Irish dimensions of the conflict must be recognised. Northern Ireland is the site of two competing sovereignty claims. Both Britain and Ireland have conflicting title deeds. Under
  966
  the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as amended, the British Government claim unqualified sovereignty over Northern Ireland. On the basis of that claim, the Secretary of State is allegedly still pressing for amendment of article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement explicitly to define Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
  Under articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, the Republic claims Northern Ireland as part of its natural territory. Those articles do not represent an aggressive territorial claim on another nation state because article 29 of the Irish constitution specifically commits the Irish state
  "to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes".
  Articles 2 and 3 represent a symbolic expression of the legitimate aspirations of 40 per cent. of the Northern Ireland electorate, while section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 expresses the national allegiances of 60 per cent. of the electorate. The British and Irish territorial claims mirror and entrench the divided allegiances in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. David Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNamara: No, I will not give way. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Because other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, for which only one and a half hours is allowed. If they are lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they will have an opportunity to make their observations on my remarks.
  Articles 2 and 3 of the 1920 Act as amended are now on the negotiating table. That represents a major breakthrough in British-Irish relations, because both Governments appear to recognise the need for balanced constitutional settlement. Both territorial claims must be addressed if we are to seek to resolve the conflicting national aspirations of the peoples of Northern Ireland.
  It must be recognised that amending articles 2 and 3 is a decision for the Irish people and is not within the gift of the Irish Government, and that a referendum on articles 2 and 3 is unlikely to be passed except as part of a wider settlement that the people of the Republic believe is acceptable to northern nationalists.
  The right of the Unionist community to remain in the United Kingdom while they form the majority in Northern Ireland has been recognised by the British and Irish in the Anglo-Irish Agreement—a binding international treaty—and, recently, in the joint declaration. The Unionist population have a cast-iron guarantee that Northern Ireland will not be united with the rest of Ireland without the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland. In return for the security that that guarantee grants, the Unionist population, both Governments and the nationalist population of Northern Ireland are entitled to expect some flexibility from Unionist. politicians, and recognition of the nationalist identity and the aspirations that they believe should be given institutional expression.
  A no-surrender mentality can never bring reconciliation. We will see a resolution of the conflict only when all parties recognise that we are not playing a zero sum game. It is possible to compromise without losing one's cause or beliefs. All sides gain if there is a permanent cessation of violence and an accommodation of differences.
  The Labour party believes that there must be some form of institutionalised Irish dimension in any political settlement. Formal and institutional recognition must be given to the sense of Irish identity held in the nationalist

  967
  community. Institutions must be established that allow authority, power and responsibility to be shared between the peoples of Northern Ireland in full co-operation with the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. There should be no transfer of sovereignty without the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland, but the British and Irish Governments must share responsibil-ity for developing a constitutional framework for a political settlement in the absence of agreement in Northern Ireland.
  The joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments contains principles that should form the basis of a just and durable settlement for the peoples of Northern Ireland. The Labour party would prefer the agreement to be made between the parties in Northern Ireland on a constitutional settlement that secures widespread support; but no party or organisation has the right to hinder political progress. As the Secretary of State said in his reply to the Sinn Fein questionnaire, no party has a veto.
  If the constitutional parties are unable to resolve their differences, the two Governments have a duty to the citizens of these islands to address the underlying causes of the conflict and agree a settlement that grants both communities rights and aspirations, parity of esteem and practical expression. We believe that those should be the principles underlying the discussions that will take place between the parties, and the underlying and underpinning matters contained in the framework document that the two Governments will present.
  Following the expressions of hope that we have heard from the Secretary of State, I myself hope that this may yet be the last time we have to ask the House—regretfully—to renew the legislation.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall be brief. The main themes of the argument have been well rehearsed and do not require detailed re-presentation, and other hon. Members wish to speak.
  There is no viable or responsible alternative to endorsing the extension order; to do otherwise would be to plunge the government of Northern Ireland into chaos. That is not to say that we warmly welcome and embrace the continuation of direct rule. There are many manifestations of its defects—of the democratic deficit—and we look to the creation of circumstances in which the order can be consigned to history. That is a major objective of Government policy.
  I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is fully aware of the strength and depth of Conservative support for the policy that he is pursuing. That policy has three main pillars, all of which deserve the plaudits that they are receiving. The first is the constitutional guarantee that Northern Ireland is de facto and de jure part of the United Kingdom, because that is the democratically expressed wish of the majority, and will remain so as long as that is the case. On the other hand, we accept the entire legitimacy of nationalist politicians who seek a united Ireland. Let that debate be resolved through the democratic process.
  The constitutional guarantee, endorsed by the Republic of Ireland, is therefore the first pillar of Government policy that deserves support. The second is the strong emphasis on seeking agreement on the structures of government in Northern Ireland, and related matters, through consent.
  968
  There is no room for coercion. In the not very recent past, we had three-strand talks: there were three strands because there are three relevant sets of relations. We welcome the fact that the Government are seeking to recreate a climate in which meaningful talks can take place between the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland and we especially welcome the Minister of State's quoted statement that
  "Nothing will emerge as a result of the talks process that will fail the fundamental test of widespread agreement."
  Consent is the only way forward. We interpret that as a statement in crude shorthand that both sides of the major political divide in Northern Ireland have the right to object to, or accept, whatever may emerge from the talks process.
  Mr. Winnick: No one disputes the right of the majority in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made that perfectly clear: in no way does he dispute the right of the majority not to be forced into a united Ireland.
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that there can be no veto on other matters either when two Governments can reach agreement—as is quite likely, and as we hope that they will—on various questions, including joint bodies, and when sovereignty is not an issue? As with the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, the two Governments should be in a position to decide on matters where there is no question of sovereignty being taken from the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Hunter: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is directing that question to the right person; I think that it should probably be fielded by the Secretary of State or a Minister of State. As I see it, the principle is clear, having been agreed by the Governments of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. There is no room for coercion on any matter: widespread agreement is the only way forward. It is perhaps simplistic to speak in terms of a veto, although I acknowledge that I did so briefly a moment ago. We must look for a consensus of constitutional, responsible feeling and thought, emerging from a meaningful negotiation. We are not predetermining anything: nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out, as the saying goes.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hunter: I will, but I must then proceed with my speech.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the hon. Gentleman care to answer a simple question that many people in Northern Ireland are asking today? What consent was sought from the majority in Northern Ireland to the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
  Mr. Hunter: I will not answer that question, because I regard it as irrelevant to the debate. The Anglo-Irish Agreement exists, and many of us—not least Lady Thatcher—are on record as expressing some misgivings about that. For many reasons, would that we were not starting where we are, but we cannot do other than seek a meaningful debate on the basis of our present position. I shall therefore deliberately turn my back on the hon. Gentleman's question.
  I have spoken of two pillars of policy that I strongly applaud—the constitutional guarantee, and the search for a meaningful dialogue and settlement of the structures in Northern Ireland. The third pillar is the uncompromising and uncompromised pursuit of the fight against terrorism.

  969
  That involves a constant process of revaluation: are we really sure that we are devoting enough resources to the task, and are they being used in the optimum manner? Are the structures of intelligence-gathering right, and are they properly co-ordinated?
  Then there is the question of the involvement of the Republic. We seek ever greater commitment and co-operation, while acknowledging the real progress that has been made in recent years. Those are questions that must be asked, and the Government are asking them.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for all parties in the House fully to support the fight against terrorism? Is it not very disappointing that Opposition Members—the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—have hosted a meeting with Sinn Fein members in the Houses of Parliament? That is the very body that promotes bloody terrorism. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must all work with one mind?
  Mr. Hunter: I certainly agree with the last point. I repeat that I have no doubt whatever that all hon. Members are dedicated to the fight against terrorism. My quarrel with the Labour party is that its reasoning is wrong. I do not for a moment doubt its opposition to terrorism, but I believe that its assessment of how the fight should be conducted is inadequate.
  I make one final point about dealing with terrorism. We have recently been presented with what I choose to call the Annesley-Trimble proposals, referring to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Serious questions have been posed about the admissibility of hearsay and electronically gathered evidence, redefining the right to silence, re-examining the supergrass syndrome and considering greater protection for witnesses. Those are important points. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Upper Bann has necessarily got everything entirely right, but many Conservative Members listened carefully to what he said and look forward to the on-going debate under those headings.
  As I have said, there is no alternative other than to endorse the extension order. I believe that the Government should receive, deservedly, applause for the overall strategy that they are pursuing in Northern Ireland matters.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I know that some will take the view that Unionist representatives were wrong to decide to open up discussions after the general election in 1987 with the freshly re-elected Government to see if it would be possible to find an alternative to and replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 which, as has already been said, is now recognised as one of the great miscalculations in British history.
  On balance, but only on balance, I think that we were right to try the path of discussion and negotiation, particularly since, as a pro-Union community—the greater proportion of people in Northern Ireland—we had solidly made manifest our opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
  In the five years from 1987 to 1992, it looked for a while as though we were assured of a fair and honourable
  970
  response, but by mid-1992 it was apparent that our willingness to talk had been construed in some quarters as weakness. The final disappointment came in November 1992 when the two Governments decided to terminate—that was the word—the three-strand talks. In the three weeks before Christmas 1992, agents established contact with terrorist leaders. That was common knowledge in the early part of last year and was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in the House on 13 July last year.
  The three weeks before Christmas 1992 were an important reference point, proving conclusively that muscle men were to be placed on a par with democratically elected parties. The signal was clearly understood by the greater number of people in Northern Ireland and it became—and remains—a major obstacle to the launch of new high-level talks and it casts a shadow over the low-key discussions, patiently and ably steered and chaired since September last year by the Minister responsible for political development, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I cannot help feeling that the Minister is not being helped by Dublin's insistence that new talks must be the same high profile, high wire act which was such a monumental failure before.
  Irish Ministers also insist that the guidelines to which we all submitted and subscribed on 26 March 1991 be rigidly observed, particularly the three-strand structure. Some hon. Members have taken the same line. Very well. But that formula specified a sequence, commencing with strand 1, which dealt with an internal structure for the better governance of Northern Ireland. It was always agreed that such an internal structure would be broadly approved and banked—that was the word—before moving on to the strand 2 discussions, concerning relations between the new Stormont structure and an Irish Government.
  Now, Dublin Ministers are ignoring the fact that they are breaching the agreed guidelines by ignoring the sequence pattern and by making unhelpful public pronouncements on all three strands at once. Worse still, they seem determined to devise an alternative framework that is presumably designed to be a different agenda from that which was approved and agreed in 1991 by all prospective participants.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I must quarrel with the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. In the last negotiations, which, as he said, centred on the strand 1 section, the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) presented a paper on the same type of north-south arrangements about which the right hon. Gentleman is now speaking. There was no arbitrary division between the discussions on strand 1 and the other elements of discussion, as was proved by the right hon. Gentleman's party in its presentation of that paper.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I will be charitable to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), as his memory is at fault. He will recall that a team from his party —authorised by its leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—engaged with representatives of the other parties in the working party which drew up a model for a devolved internal government.
  Mr. John Hume: Not true.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I shall go further in a minute.
  The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party entered certain reservations that he declined to remove until he could see the shape of the strand 2 agenda. Other party leaders will remember that we rescued the talks from a complete breakdown at the end of the strand 1 discussions. In the Queen Elizabeth II building across the road we suggested that we jump prematurely into strand 2 so that at least the hon. Member for Foyle—I do not know whether the other members of his party took the same view—could see the shape of the agenda. At the end of strand 2 discussions, in an effort to breathe life into the negotiations, papers were submitted on the last day of the session. That was a different operation.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way so that we can test both our memories. In effect, there was no such thing as an agreed paper by any section of those involved in the talks. A discussion paper was presented to the plenary session, but it was never adopted. It was noted, but it had no more status than that.
  Mr. Molyneaux: The records will show that agreement was reached by representatives of the hon. Gentleman's party on the shape and structure of the new Stormont assembly. It was held up and we did not press it because the hon. Member for Foyle had entered reservations which he did not withdraw.
  The new agenda—what the Irish Government seemed to be proposing—steered the discussions away from the priority of finding agreement on an internal arrangement for co-operation between legitimate constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the administration of the affairs of the people of the Province towards an altogether different objective of joint sovereignty, within which framework the internal governance of Northern Ireland would be allocated a place, presumably given assurances of good behaviour on our part. As was made clear in the authentic Irish Government paper of 19 November 1993, the internal government structure could be demolished at any time by the said joint authority.
  The way was paved for all this in the SDLP submission to what we might call, if the Secretary of State will forgive me, the Mayhew talks in 1992. That submission confirmed that equality or civil rights were not the main concern. In reference to the Unionist proposals, the SDLP said:
  "While in general terms, such proposals might be both acceptable and sufficient in a society in which equality of treatment for minorities was the only issue, they are not sufficient in a society in which allegiance is a central problem."
  It would appear that the central problem of allegiance can be resolved only by some form of joint authority. The House should be aware of the implications of this because the House will be involved. Joint authority must extend to a greater land mass than the six counties of Northern Ireland because there are many millions of Irish citizens living and working in England who, in various ways, owe allegiance to the Irish Republic.
  It follows, in pure logic, that joint authority must have common application to the entire British Isles, so it seems that we are back to the Act of Union as a model of common citizenship and shared sovereignty. That will not only put a stopper on any form of devolution anywhere in the United Kingdom; it will remove at a stroke what is essentially a home rule structure in Dublin, retracing its steps to resume its honoured place in the British nation.
  972
  However presented, packaged or devised, any form of joint authority must terminate in British Isles unity, because there is no halfway house.
  I am indebted to the Cadogan Group of academics for the list of solid reasons why the Reynolds ambition of a joint authority would be unworkable. They state, first:
  "It is impracticable. There is no modern precedent for it, and most schemes put forward for Northern Ireland look unworkably complex.
  It is impermanent. Many proposals are either explicitly or implicitly put forward as transitional stages towards a greater degree of Irish unity.
  It is unbalanced. Fundamental to the concept is the supposition that the British Government has the same relationship with unionists as Dublin has with nationalists. This is not so.
  It is undemocratic. It tends to isolate the governors from the governed, leaving the administration remote from and unrepresentative of the people of Northern Ireland.
  It is almost impossible to finance on a permanent basis. All schemes assume that the very high costs involved would be paid by Britain or by external sources. No proposal suggests that British financial support would necessarily prove permanent."
  We would add merely that joint authority, however it is disguised, amounts to a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. It is even contrary to the principle stated in the Downing street declaration. The principle of consent for the people of Northern Ireland, of all faiths and none, is the single most important element in the declaration. That consent is the governing principle in all future arrangements for governing Northern Ireland. That is made clear by the fact that the American Government have underwritten the importance of consent.
  It has been common ground among the Northern Ireland parties, at least since 1975, that there should be a Bill of Rights based on the European convention, yet it has also been recognised that, because the convention refers only to individual human rights, which are necessarily qualified, the convention does not fully meet the need. In particular, it does not refer to the rights of communities or minorities.
  In recent years, those collective rights have been addressed by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe through the development of the human dimension in the Vienna accord and the charter of Paris. The latter states the principle, which has been worked out in some detail and is mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the charter. It states:
  "We affirm that the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of national minorities will be protected and that persons belonging to national minorities have the right to freely express, preserve and develop that identity without any discrimination and in full equality before the law."
  Those standards should regulate the relationship between Britain and Ireland and should safeguard the rights of minorities in each state. Any new agreement between the British and Irish Government to replace the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement or any new institutions of government in Northern Ireland should conform to those standards.
  The way in which those standards would be implemented or enforced presents problems. The standards are not really justiciable and would not be suitable for court-type procedures as in many cases they represent the best administrative practice. Regard should also be paid to the first steps taken by the CSCE on implementation, which have taken the form of intergovernmental administrative procedures rather than court-enforced legal procedures. It may be considered appropriate to ensure that

  973
  any implementation provisions in any new agreement are compatible with those that the two Governments have agreed should apply throughout Europe.
  Her Majesty's Government have a clear duty urgently to tackle the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. In "Blueprint for Stability", we have set out what we and many others regard as a fair and practical method of doing that. The second motion on the Order Paper deals with a change in the structure of the governance of Northern Ireland, which appears not to have been subject to the formula
  "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".
  The Government are just getting on with it.
  I say, with great respect, that Ministers must go further and faster down the road to the restoration of accountable democracy in the Province, where about a third of the population—Protestants and Roman Catholic—fall into the middle-class category. Last weekend, a Sunday newspaper of repute reported rumours of middle-class financial assistance to Loyalist paramilitaries. I warned precisely of that problem during the Queen's Speech debate last November. It is vital that the middle classes do not fall prey to the same disenchantment that has become the norm in so-called working-class Ulster. The House cannot pretend that suspicion does not exist. It must be removed by action, and the time for action is now.
  5.6 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On Monday in the House, I asked the Prime Minister a question that was relevant to the constitutional talks in Northern Ireland. It appears in column 561 of Monday's Hansard. The thrust of my question was how was it that, if strand 1 talks were to take place again in the same sense as they had taken place in the past, after his talks with the Prime Minister of the Dublin Government, the Prime Minister announced that they had discussed strands 1, 2 and 3. The Prime Minister replied:
  "No, my discussions with the Irish Prime Minister were not about strand 1, which has been the subject of discussions between the British Government and the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. My discussions with the Irish Prime Minister related to political strands 2 and 3. We still have not achieved agreement, but we are making progress. We have commissioned further work."—[Official Report, 27 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 561–62.]
  I went to the BBC and obtained a transcript of what the Prime Minister said in Corfu. He stated that there was
  "an impediment to progress for a very long time. The question of joint authority is not on the table, what is on the table is a series of things in strand one, strand two and strand three".
  At the talks with the Prime Minister of the Dublin Government, the Prime Minister discussed strand 1, 2 and 3, but he said in the House that they had not discussed strand 1.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a plea for people in Northern Ireland to believe in him; to believe in the Government and to believe in the credibility, integrity and honesty of what they state. When the people of Northern Ireland see night after night the Dublin Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs reiterating the very opposite of what the Secretary of State seems to be saying, and what the Prime Minister at times is saying, how can they trust?
  974
  My next quotation comes from the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who was also speaking on Monday, discussing joint authority. I shall quote from the transcript:
  "Joint authority for Northern Ireland—in other words flying the tricolour and the union jack over Belfast city hall. The Secretary of State is going to agree to something even worse; he is going to agree that Northern Ireland and the Republic will be controlled by all-Ireland authorities which will have executive powers over the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. So the man is trying to deceive the Unionist community, and it is time he was exposed."
  My attitude, the attitude of my party and the attitude of the majority of unionist electors at the recent elections endorsed that view—that something was afoot.
  When he was in America, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic could not hold himself in; he made a statement that was carried in the Irish Times and that formed the basis of a news editorial in the Daily Telegraph on 23 June. The Daily Telegraph's editorials do not often say things with which I agree, but on that occasion it said:
  "Speaking in the United States, he"—
  that is, the Taoiseach—
  "indicated that Dublin would contemplate dropping Articles II and III of its constitution, which lay claim to the North, only in return for a North-South body that would exercise "executive powers" over aspects of Northern Ireland's government…
  This is a dangerous pretence. The Unionists are entitled to reject Mr. Reynolds's notions out of hand. If such a plan was ever implemented, the Loyalists of the Shankill Road would perceive it as a Republican victory won by terrorism, and probably respond in kind. The IRA, meanwhile, would perceive it as an encouraging halfway house, endorsing their legitimacy. Only John Hume's Nationalist SDLP would wholeheartedly welcome such an arrangement. That would be scant consolation indeed for the British Government, which would have to pick up the pieces as yet another constitutional experiment ended in bloodshed and tears across the province…
  But in the meantime, it is deeply irresponsible of Dublin to allow the tail to wag the dog. Articles II and III are at the root of the Irish problem. They embody and perpetuate Unionist distrust of the South. Their removal should be viewed by Dublin not as the culmination of any peace process, but as its starting point." And that is where we need to start today.
  I am amazed that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), leading for Her Majesty's Opposition, put forward at the Dispatch Box a defence of something that is not only illegal under international law and criminal under practical law, but immoral—the defence of articles 2 and 3. The hon. Gentleman knows well that those articles have no standing in any international court, and no standing in law. If the southern Government thought that they had any standing in an international court, they would have taken them there long ago.
  Rev. William McCrea: Surely my hon. Friend will agree that the only people who will be delighted by the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) at the Dispatch Box—especially the part about the rigged democracy that he suggests for the people of Northern Ireland and the part about sovereignty—will be the terrorists and the republican propagandists.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, I was coming to that.
  First we find the Labour party spokesman attacking any concept of majority rule in Northern Ireland. He says, "You cannot have majority rule." That is very different from the Taoiseach's concept of majority rule. At his meeting with the Irish Association in Dublin on 10

  975
  January, Albert Reynolds was asked if he would consider a 51 per cent. majority in favour of Irish unity as sufficient consent for change. He replied:
  "not 51 per cent.—50 per cent. plus one".
  So there are two standards. The standard for the south is a majority, but Northern Ireland cannot have majority rule—
  Mr. Mallon rose—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I cannot give way, because of the time. I have made a promise and I shall try to keep to it.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that particular point?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No. I made a promise and I have to keep to it. I regret not being able to give way. We should have had plenty of time to discuss the matter.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North went further. I intervened and he graciously gave way to me, although he may be sorry that he did so. Now he says that we cannot have proportional majority rule either. If certain segments of a Northern Ireland assembly formed a coalition and achieved a majority, that would not be allowed either. The hon. Gentleman's idea is to elevate a minority into the same area of equality as the real majority. That is what this is all about. How can there be a settlement on those terms? It is absolutely impossible.
  Of course, the Secretary of State talks about consent. I find that revolting to the people of Northern Ireland. What consent was asked of the people of Northern Ireland for the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
  Mr. Tom King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not give way. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland presided over that awful situation, that he knew in practical values what consent was achieved. There was no consent to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We were not asked to give consent. He himself said that, although people had resigned their seats, the Government did not care what the results of the elections were—the result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was here to stay. That is what he thinks of democracy. We have been through all that.
  What sort of assembly shall we have if we cannot have majority rule, or even proportional majority rule? It is a system that cannot work. And of course, people have a vested interest in seeing that it does not work.
  What about the matter of consent? The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) told us that there was a great pillar—
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that the pillar of that wonderful consent was something about which we should be very glad. I would like to think that the people of Northern Ireland alone would have the opportunity to give their consent. But while the Secretary of State stands up in the House and tells us, "Oh yes, it is the people of Northern Ireland alone who will have the right to give consent," out in America, the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic says something entirely different. He says:
  "We will use all our resources to persuade both communities in Northern Ireland into new arrangements which are honourable in terms of their past, just and fair in terms of the present, and
  976
  equally open in terms of the future to whatever political model commands consent across the entire spectrum of the Irish people."
  He makes it absolutely clear that it is nothing to do with the people of Northern Ireland.
  That view was tested by me at Hillsborough house when the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionists, was present, as were the leader of the Alliance party and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party. I said, "You can have a settlement in Northern Ireland, Prime Minister, by going to the people now and asking the question that is asked in the border poll legislation, and let the people settle it." The other three leaders all agreed with the Prime Minister that there should be no going to people on the border poll legislation, so the people will not have that opportunity.
  I was not in the House after the election when the Secretary of State said that the people had given their consent because in the election, the majority of people voted for the Downing street declaration and the peace process, or at least were to some extent quiescent about it. One can see how ridiculous that is by reading the manifestos of those standing, as I did. I heard the hon. Member for Foyle say that the election had nothing to do with the peace process and that I should not even be permitted to bring in the matter because it had nothing to do with the election, which was about Europe. What is more, the Ulster Unionist party took a similar attitude on the matter.
  One candidate did not take that attitude—the Conservative candidate. Let us look at the vote that was recorded for the Conservative candidate, who was ably canvassed for by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She got 5,583 votes—0.99 per cent. of the entire vote of the Province. Yet the Government then say that there is consent. There is no consent in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman knows that because I have already told him.
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman knows what I want to ask. That is why he will not give way.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not.
  Rev. William McCrea: You never made him afraid before, Seamus, and you will not do it now.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The matter today is all-important to the people of Northern Ireland because if we are not to have the solid rock of democratic principles as a base, we will not have this shamrock of a Downing street declaration. If we do not have the solid rock of democratic principles, we shall not proceed very far.
  Is there any House in the world where the main Opposition spokesman would get up and talk as we have heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North talk today? He said that we could not have even proportional representation. He should tell South Africa that it should not have proportional representation because it is not democratic. He says that we cannot have majority rule and, therefore, that we cannot have proportional representation.

  977
  The issue will have to be decided by the choice of the people. Mr. Churchill used to say, "Trust the people." Why will the people of Northern Ireland not have the opportunity to decide their own future by the ballot box? I know the reason why. It was given by Garret Fitzgerald in his book, "All in a Life". He says that joint sovereignty is
  "simply a method that the British Government might choose to adopt in the exercise of its sovereignty in order to regulate the affairs of one part of the Kingdom."
  That is what has happened. Joint sovereignty has come in because the British Government are prepared now to share with the Government of the Irish Republic the way in which our country is to be governed and the way in which its future is to be decided. That spells disaster for our Province.
  Many people in Northern Ireland are deeply troubled about what happened in the coroner's court concerning the Teban accident. I would like an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will have a careful look at the matter because many hearts that have already been broken will be rent asunder again by what happened in that court, as he knows. I trust that something will be done to mend that.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. John Hume: I will not indulge in the ranting to which we have just listened and which we are fed up with listening to in Northern Ireland. We have heard in today's rant, once again, everything that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is against and, once again, we have not heard what he is for in dealing with the problem.
  As the Secretary of State has pointed out, the order is a reminder that the very first principle of democracy does not exist in Northern Ireland—agreement on how the people are governed. In fact, it has never existed in Northern Ireland. Such agreement is the basis of order in any society. It is self-evident that anyone who wanted to provide the basis for lasting stability would be totally committed to reaching agreement among our divided people.
  I very much welcome the fact, therefore, that the Secretary of State and the Government have committed themselves totally to such agreement, together with the Irish Government. It is the duty of all parties to commit themselves to such agreement. Surely at the end of the day, agreement threatens no section of the people. No one doubts that, given the attitudes that exist, such agreement might be difficult to reach, but at least we should give people on the ground hope by being at the table and staying there until we reach agreement. I hope that that will happen soon, that the challenge that has been thrown down by both Governments in the Downing street declaration will be faced up to by everyone and that we can come to the table in an atmosphere where the gun and the bomb have gone for ever.
  5.28 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I say to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that we all share his desire to see a settlement reached and an agreement reached between the parties and, indeed, between the two Governments. That is very much the background to what my right hon. and learned Friend
  978
  the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, and it is certainly very much central to the Government's policy in relation to the political situation in Northern Ireland.
  I do not have a great deal of time in which to deal with all the points raised in this short, but very interesting and constructive debate. I shall deal with a few of the specific questions and with one or two of the points which should either be corrected or put into perspective.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked a number of specific questions. He asked first whether I could give an idea of the timetable of the framework document. There are no artificial time constraints in putting together a framework document, and it is important that there are not, because obviously it is a complex matter and we need to take the time needed to achieve agreement, if agreement is possible. So, it would be wrong to say that the document would be ready by a certain date or not ready by another date. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North appreciates that that is the most responsible position we can take on that difficult matter at the moment.
  The hon. Gentleman asked again about what he saw to be the nub of disagreement. There are a number of difficult areas, as he would expect, which the two Governments are discussing. It would be totally wrong to try to conduct those discussions in the full glare of publicity. Indeed, to try to do so, I suspect, would make it even more difficult to achieve a meeting of minds. I am therefore sure that, again, he will understand if I do not go into the details of what is being discussed in the talks on the framework document beyond what my right hon. and learned Friend said in his opening remarks.
  As to the publication of the framework document, it is obvious that, if we are to achieve the widespread or broad-spread agreement of the people of Northern Ireland at some time, they will have to see and be able to take a view of what is being proposed. Again, it must be a matter for political judgment of when the right time for that to happen is reached.
  I very much appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). Once again, he has shown not only his great interest but his knowledge of the political situation in the Province, and I thought that his speech was both reasoned and sensible. He underlined, as I shall again, that the bottom line to everything taking place is the need to achieve widespread agreement. That is the practical reality. Our history is littered with the wreckage of imposed solutions.
  Mr. Trimble: On that point, may I refer the Minister to the intervention made in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), in which the latter drew the utterly false distinction between changes which relate only to sovereignty and those which relate to cross-border institutions of a merely administrative nature, which he said would not require consent?
  In his reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North, the Minister's hon. Friend appeared to endorse that view, and confined the requirement of consent to so-called sovereignty changes, and not to the sort of cross-border institutions to which he was referring. I give the Minister the opportunity to correct that, and make it clear that there would be no question of any cross-border institution being created without the freely given consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Ancram: We have made it clear, and I make it clear again, that the political settlement, which includes all three strands, not only strand 2, will require the widespread or broad-spread agreement of the people of Northern Ireland. The quotation cited by my right hon. and learned Friend of the Taoiseach's speech at Oxford made it clear that that is also the view of the Irish Government. I can only reiterate that to the hon. Gentleman.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to the history of the talks up to November 1992. There is a difference of view about the nature of those talks. In my understanding of what he said, he suggested that there had been a sequential basis to those talks.
  I have looked up the original statement in 1991, and it is clear that there was not a sequential system proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the then Secretary of State. In fact, he was saying at that time that, although the parties would start with strand 1, at a moment which he judged to be appropriate, it would launch into the other two strands.
  In a sense, that is rather different from what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. May I say to him again that, when we talk of strand 1 being banked and then looking at strand 2, we are not talking in theory. We have to talk about the practical realities. The practical realities of the situation, as I have learned in the talks over the past year, is that we shall not achieve agreement on strand 1 without achieving agreement on strand 2 as well. There is an inevitable and unavoidable interlocking of all the strands, and it is for that reason—the political reality of the situation—that all those strands have to, and will, be looked at together.
  The right hon. Gentleman also called again for us to tackle the democratic deficit. He will understand from what my right hon. and learned Friend said that that is also very much the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government. However, the way in which that democratic deficit can be tackled and met is by moving the process of dialogue forward, until we reach a situation in which we can achieve a political settlement and within which those institutions can be provided again for the Province.
  I shall turn briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I am afraid that, again, he
  980
  made a number of assertions which bear little connection with reality. He first spoke about joint authority and joint sovereignty. I can only say to him, again, that it is the stated position of both the British and Irish Governments that joint authority is not being considered.
  The hon. Gentleman may find that he would have a closer and a better understanding of how the process of dialogue is proceeding if he were to accept my invitation, which I renew today, to come to the talks that I am having with the constitutional parties. He would then begin to see the type of structures that we are discussing to try to achieve a political settlement.
  In particular, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of strand 1 and whether that was part of the discussions with the Irish Government. The discussions with the Irish Government, as with the parties, are about the overall package, which includes, by its nature, all three strands. However, we have made it absolutely clear that the specifics of strand 1 are matters for the British Government and the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. That has been the position, and it remains the position.
  I say again to the hon. Gentleman that he can set up as many Aunt Sallys as he likes, he may draw as many black scenarios as he wishes, but, at the end of the day, they all have to be subjected to the test of acceptability to the people of Northern Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the House"] And this House. It is for that reason that many of the suggestions which he makes will be shown up for what they are: scare tactics and unhelpful to any settlement being achieved.
  I believe that we are moving to a situation in which there is a genuine hope that peace can be achieved and a political settlement can be arrived at. But it will not be advanced by shouted slogans, by wild assertions, by blazing headlines or by megaphone diplomacy. It will be taken forward only by steady progress, careful language and the will among all those who participate to achieve a settlement. We have that goal in mind—not only to achieve the rightful, peaceful life for people in Northern Ireland, but so that we never again have to come back to the House to ask for the order to continue once more.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.

  Civil Service (Northern Ireland)
  5.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
  That the draft Civil Service (Management Functions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.
  The order's sole purpose—I emphasise sole purpose—is to allow the Department of Finance and Personnel to delegate to other servants of the Crown its responsibilities for the management of the Northern Ireland civil service. At the end of 1992, Parliament approved the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill, which enabled the central Departments in the home civil service to delegate their management functions. The order before the House introduces for the Northern Ireland civil service provisions corresponding to the effect of that legislation.
  The order is concerned with the way in which civil servants are managed in such matters as pay and grading structures, allowances, promotion, probation, staff appraisal and so on. Under the present arrangements, the DFP has the responsibility for determining those matters for the entirety of 30,000 Northern Ireland civil servants.
  In the existing legal framework, the Department of Finance and Personnel has been able to give Departments and agencies some discretion in respect of day-to-day personnel management arrangements. The DFP must continue to exercise general management and control. In the view of the Government, it is not in the interests of good management and efficiency that that constraint should exist.
  I want to make it clear, however, that the order has nothing to do with privatisation, market testing or the removal of functions from the public sector, which I know is a concern raised by some Opposition Members when the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill was being debated. It concerns itself only with the management of the Northern Ireland civil service.
  Nor does the order introduce any new powers; rather, it facilitates a redistribution of existing powers. Under the Civil Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the Department of Finance and Personnel is responsible for the general management and control of the Northern Ireland civil service. The proposed legislation will allow powers that are currently discharged centrally to be exercised by managers in Departments and agencies, but within a proper framework of accountability. Recipients of delegations will be made clearly responsible for the exercise of a function, but the ultimate accountability of a Minister to Parliament remains intact.
  Mr. David Trimble: I thank the Minister for giving way on the question of delegations and accountability. During the passage of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill, the Government gave an important undertaking that they would find a procedure by which an annual report would be made to the House to ensure that the people and, indeed, hon. Members would know what had been delegated and when, and that that accountability could take place.
  I should be grateful if the Minister—I do not require an immediate answer; he may deal with it later—could give a similar undertaking that a mechanism will be found,
  982
  whether by way of written answer, statement or whatever, to enable us to know what delegations have taken place, so that an account of these matters may be kept.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that that position was set out when the original Bill was passing through the House. Obviously, in general terms, it is our intention to try to reflect the same position with regard to Northern Ireland. I shall check whether any detailed arrangements have been made in that regard, and I will either answer the question towards the end of this debate or write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter.
  The delegation of responsibility, which this order permits, will assist the Government's aim of bringing about improved service and better value for money for the citizen through better management of the public service. Even allowing for the difference in scale between the Northern Ireland civil service and its counterpart in Great Britain, it makes no sense to manage such a diverse organisation, engaged in almost the whole range of government, as though it were a single business.
  Next steps agencies, which employ almost 9,000 staff in Northern Ireland, are expected to meet clear objectives and targets within given budgets. To insist upon a regime of central management and control where this would have an inhibiting effect is contrary to the desire to achieve the objectives of the organisation concerned to the quality of outputs required. The Northern Ireland civil service takes more than £700 million of taxpayers' money a year in running costs. We must be free to ensure that such a large sum can be used to best effect.
  I should perhaps say something about why legislation is needed to achieve the purpose of better management of public services. The Northern Ireland civil service is separate from the home civil service in Great Britain and, until direct rule, it operated under the direction and control of local political institutions. As with the home civil service, the management of the Northern Ireland civil service is a matter within the scope of the royal prerogative.
  The power to determine the terms and conditions of civil servants is delegated by the Crown to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and is exercisable through the Department of Finance and Personnel. The functions now exercised by that Department have been the subject of orders transferring them in 1975 and 1982; and that parliamentary intervention means that further primary legislation is needed to allow the Department of Finance and Personnel to delegate its management responsibilities to Departments and agencies.
  Issues raised by the order were extensively debated during the course of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill some 18 months ago. I think that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was involved in some of those discussions, and he will appreciate that many of these issues were aired at that time. Similar points to many of those raised then have arisen during the consultation process on this order as well: for instance, concerns about accountability, and fragmentation of the civil service.
  Although no changes have been made to the substance of the proposed legislation, all the issues brought forward were examined very carefully and responded to in detail. Where a delegation is being taken to introduce changes more suited to the business objectives of a Department or

  983
  agency, there will be consultation in the usual way with the staff concerned and their representatives, just as discussions have already taken place with the civil service trade unions about procedures for consultation on delegations. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that those discussions have proceeded satisfactorily.
  Fears were also expressed that the high standard of conduct and impartiality of Northern Ireland civil servants, and the service's record in promoting equality of opportunity, might be damaged by an absence of central control. On the contrary; encouraging ownership of responsibility should enhance the strong sense of duty which characterises our civil service in Northern Ireland, and to which I pay a tribute. I can also assure the House that the fundamentals of Government policy in areas such as equality of opportunity will remain inviolate, and essential standards of conduct will, of course, continue to be the subject of whatever central rules are necessary to safeguard them.
  I turn briefly to the main provisions of the order. I hope to demonstrate to the House that this is a limited piece of legislation. It enables the Department of Finance and Personnel to make delegations, but does not compel it to do so. Each Department and agency will decide whether having responsibility for management decisions would help to improve its organisational efficiency and performance, so there is no coercion about it.
  Article 3 limits delegations to functions related to the personnel management of the Northern Ireland civil service, and permits delegation of those functions only to servants of the Crown. That means that the order cannot be used to transfer management functions outside the public service, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland remains fully accountable for those functions.
  The Department of Finance and Personnel remains the legal holder of the powers. While the intention is to give managers in Departments and agencies appropriate freedoms, the Department may attach any conditions it considers necessary to a delegation. Furthermore—this is important—it may withdraw a delegation at any time.
  There are some civil servants who work in bodies which were created by statute—for example, the Public Record Office and the Land Registry. Their management is not determined by the civil service order because the statute creating the bodies specifies arrangements for the appointment and management of their staff. Typically, the Department of Finance and Personnel is required to approve their terms and conditions of service. Article 4 allows the Department to relinquish central control of the management of those bodies, just as it may do in the case of the rest of the Northern Ireland civil service under Article 3.
  The Northern Ireland citizens' charter pledged to improve the standard of service to the public. I know from my own experience that Northern Ireland Departments and agencies are determined to live up to that pledge. This order enables them to have access to management flexibilities to help to achieve that goal, and I commend it to the House.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to oppose the order. As the Minister explained, the main provision in the order allows the Department of Finance and Personnel to
  984
  delegate any management function of the Northern Ireland civil service to any servant of the Crown; that is, it enables the Northern Ireland civil service to be dismembered, to reduce pay and conditions and, sadly, to undermine the morale of the civil servants. In common language, what we are looking at is dismemberment of the civil service in Northern Ireland. The implications of the order reach across all civil service Departments and are likely to have adverse effects on standards, accountability and impartiality.
  The Government are planning to effect major changes to the structure and workings of the Northern Ireland civil service through an enabling order which pays scant regard to the views of the civil servants themselves and elected Members of this House. Article 3 of the order enables the Department of Finance and Personnel to create a service which is so disparate as to render the concept of a Northern Ireland civil service meaningless.
  The provisions in the order highlight the failure of Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to look at the measures in the unique context of Northern Ireland. Again, in their lust after legislation which has already been passed and applied to Great Britain, Ministers have failed to recognise that the Northern Ireland civil service is a separate service under the Crown, and the unfortunate absence of local democratic oversight, which we have debated this afternoon, adds a distinct dimension to the work of the civil servants in Northern Ireland.
  The Northern Ireland civil service is comparatively small and, at approximately 25,000 people, is only the size of a small Government Department in Britain. Yet the Government have gone for complete overkill in trying to treat what amounts to one Government Department in the same way as they have treated the whole of the British civil service.
  It is nonsense, and wasteful of taxpayers' resources, to insist that each Department and agency—no matter how small—must have the right to attempt to set up, manage and police its own pay and grading structures, conditions of employment, individual systems for recruiting staff and the personnel and management of staff. Ministers have referred to "unnecessary central control", but managers in the Northern Ireland civil service already enjoy considerable freedom, and there is no evidence that they are clamouring for more flexibility.
  If each Department within the Northern Ireland civil service is allowed to go its own separate way in relation to recruitment and promotion of staff and, in consequence, in pay and conditions of employment, the unity of the Northern Ireland civil service could be fundamentally undermined.
  The Minister failed to tell the House if the present high standards of impartiality within the Northern Ireland civil service will be guaranteed. Surely numerous delegated bodies operating as arms of the civil service also implies a wide variance in standards. It is vital that the Northern Ireland civil service maintains its reputation for impartiality.
  In a divided society, it is essential that the institutions of Government set the highest standards in terms of equality of opportunity in employment and in the provision of service. The Northern Ireland civil service has in recent years provided a model for fair employment provisions and affirmative action programmes. It is only right that the

  985
  instruments of government set an example in the implementation of provisions within the Fair Employment Act and the sex discrimination order.
  If the order is implemented, such a co-ordinated and centralised approach to equal opportunities would, we believe, be lost. It is generally accepted that, unfortunately, the political situation in Northern Ireland often spills over into the workplace. Personnel management in Northern Ireland is therefore extremely complex and requires a high degree of expertise, both from managers and trade union representatives of employees.
  The anti-discrimination legislation to deal with the problem is unique to Northern Ireland. Fair employment practices in Northern Ireland are of national and international political interest, and we are extremely concerned that, by exercising the powers under article 3 of the order, the Department of Finance and Personnel could dissipate the existing expertise to an unacceptable level.
  It will be difficult to maintain the current standards under a regime of delegation, because the intention is to keep to a minimum the monitoring at the centre of the Northern Ireland civil service. The Northern Ireland civil service has been actively promoting greater equality of opportunity. However, the momentum for that derives from the fact that it has been driven from the centre.
  Over the years, the Northern Ireland civil service has developed high standards of conduct, but they will be eroded if common ideals are no longer prescribed by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Complaints against members of the civil service for breaches of confidence, conflicts of interest and corruption have been minimal. However, that record has been achieved by the reinforcement at the centre of the need for the highest standards. If that force were removed, there is a danger that standards would be relaxed.
  The order could potentially severely damage the equity principle on which the civil service is based. That would further damage the morale of civil servants, with potentially harmful effects to the services which they currently deliver. Creating a culture of insecurity and equity in relation to terms and conditions of employment in the Northern Ireland civil service is not likely to make the organisation function more effectively. Fear, greed, resentment and jealousy do not lead to better performance. Rather, they place the self-advancement and survival of the individual above the sense of public service.
  In a community such as Northern Ireland, that would be a tragedy. Already there is resentment within the Northern Ireland civil service, and some feel that they have been treated partially compared with colleagues. There are clear signs that that attitude is on the increase, fostered by performance-related pay schemes, where perceived identical levels of performance have been rewarded differently in different Departments.
  If the order is implemented, the chief executives of the agencies which are to be hived off will be able to introduce new terms and conditions. That would inevitably add to the sense of resentment which is already growing as new layers of pay differentials are imposed.
  We are concerned that article 3 of the order allows functions to be delegated to any servant of the Crown. That may remove the function concerned from immediate
  986
  parliamentary scrutiny. The power which the order grants to delegate management functions represents a dramatic erosion of ministerial accountability to Parliament.
  The Minister of State said that the Secretary of State would of course be responsible, but we have seen what has happened in Departments and agencies after delegation. A matter goes to an agency manager who writes a letter which then appears in the Official Report. Ministers are gradually shouldering off their specific responsibilities for the day-to-day running of Departments.
  If the order is implemented, there will be no clear line of accountability between Northern Ireland agencies and Departments and Parliament. The order would therefore continue the trend of diminishing direct parliamentary accountability.
  The term "servant of the Crown" is not defined anywhere in legislation. Therefore, depending on how the Government decide to interpret that, the order could potentially enable Ministers to delegate functions to persons who are not normally regarded as civil servants. They would not be subject to democratic accountability and would have no obligation to Parliament. For example, a private company which was given a service could say that the prime responsibility of the people running that company was to the shareholders, not to Parliament or the Secretary of State.
  A person to whom a function is delegated can further delegate the function to another servant of the Crown. In that way, the order allows the exercise of functions to become increasingly remote from the central apparatus of accountability.
  The circumstances in which the civil service operates in Northern Ireland are not same as those in Britain. The Government have made no attempt to recognise the differences, and have merely replicated the British legislation for Northern Ireland. In a divided society, it is vital that the civil service is seen to be impartial and committed to the principles of neutrality and equality.
  At present, the Northern Ireland civil service is seen as being an employer at the forefront of the movement to ensure fair employment and equality of opportunity. That position will be jeopardised by the implementation of the order and, for those reasons, we shall oppose it.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The order simply mirrors and applies the provisions of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992 to Northern Ireland, and that has been made perfectly clear by the previous two speakers. It is, of course, a technical order but, like most apparently innocent technical orders, it has consequences downstream which I think deserve rather more careful examination than would normally be given.
  I begin by asking the Minister the reasons for the various textual changes which have been made between the proposal for the draft order and its publication. For instance, article 2(2) of the order has simply disappeared, and articles 3 and 4(4) seem to have been completely rewritten. I am curious as to the technical reasons for the changes. Do they make any real changes to the meaning of the order, or is it simply a neater and clearer way of expressing the same meaning as was in the original draft? Do they arise because of the passing of the legislation for Great Britain? We are entitled to a full explanation of why the changes have been made.

  987
  We understand that the structure of the civil service in Northern Ireland is not quite the same as it is in Great Britain, in that there are no heads of Department, as the term is understood over here, in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, the "heads of Department" were laid down as the members of the 1973 Northern Ireland executive, and they were to be politicians. There are now no such persons in Northern Ireland, although I notice that the term "head of a Department" is used in the last sentence of the order. Perhaps the Government are keeping on a little bit of insurance or at least paying the insurance premiums just in case we have an Executive in Northern Ireland in the future.
  Regardless of that, however, I must express my reservations about the transfer of management functions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) did during the debate on the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992, which applies to the rest of the United Kingdom. That transfer, like all transfers of power to agencies and quangos, will create even greater problems for hon. Members, because they will then express their concerns to the Ministers who are ultimately responsible without any hope of having an effect.
  We have seen from similar transfers that Ministers tend to shrug off various obligations, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, so that their own ultimate responsibility is diminished. Everything is handled at arm's length. Within the United Kingdom context of government, that is wrong. The buck should stop on the Minister's desk, but he is quietly moving it to someone else's. I do not believe that that is acceptable.

  We need a system of government and administration which allows hon. Members to call Ministers to account, but once that is made more difficult, the quality of the services under examination will eventually fall.
  Ministers are giving powers away to others, often to their own creatures. They can then say, "Look, my hands are clean, but I will ask the person I have appointed to write to the hon. Member." In other words, Ministers will simply dodge the responsibilities that they took on when they stood before the electorate and said, "Vote for me. I am capable of doing all these wonderful things. I am capable of actually running a Department of Government. I am capable of answering questions. The buck does stop on my desk and I will answer for it." I am sorry to note that the Minister of State is going along with that principle. Perhaps he would like to shuffle off some of his responsibilities elsewhere.
  The debate in the other place on the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill took place on 7 July 1992, just two years ago. That is the normal time it takes before Northern Ireland catches up with the rest of Great Britain, unlike the happy position that we once enjoyed of leading the rest of the state. Lord Howe said that the transfer of functions included all aspects of the determination of pay and other conditions of service in the civil service. He said that the Bill was intended to cover those functions.
  The proposed changes are therefore substantial and I fear that the consequences will not be altogether happy. I fear that the downstream consequences will go much further than the Government are prepared to admit.
  The Government are, once again, introducing legislation and putting changes into effect that may be used as a rod to beat their own back should they cross to the Opposition Benches. They seem to forget that they will not always be in office. The changes will lead to the delegation
  988
  of functions, not of civil servants, and they will alter dramatically how Northern Ireland is governed and administered.
  When the Minister replies to the debate, perhaps he can tell us whether he has discussed that change in the governance of Northern Ireland with his counterparts in the Irish Republic. Were there any discussions with Dublin? If not, have the Irish Government expressed any annoyance at being left out of the reckoning in this matter? Or perhaps the Government are finally beginning to reverse the disastrous decisions that they accepted in 1985. Are they really now saying, "Yes, we will govern Northern Ireland as we desire. That is the way it is because that is the way in which the United Kingdom is run." I hope that there was no agreement with Dublin, and I hope that the Government have been their own man in this matter.

  I fear that the changes will lead to the break-up of the Northern Ireland civil service. I also believe that they will place the high standards of confidentiality in Northern Ireland in jeopardy. There is no place in the kingdom where such strict confidentiality about individuals is more needed than in Northern Ireland, with all the terrorist dangers that surround many people, especially servants of the Crown. Their names float around various sections of the civil service and the dangers accruing to those individuals, should there be a leak of information, are quite appalling.
  Another problem is the possibility of regionalisation of pay, conditions and grading. That matter should concern everyone. A considerable number of United Kingdom civil servants as well as Northern Irish ones work in the Province. Many functions that are carried out there apply throughout the United Kingdom. Various aspects of civil service and Government work have been centralised in various places and we have been fortunate that some centralised services have been moved to the Province. That is welcome because a large part of the economy of Northern Ireland depends on the money paid in salaries and other expenses to those civil servants. If wages were forced down in the interests of greater competition, the entire economy of the Province would suffer. None of us wants to see that. We want national standards to prevail across the board.
  Another danger is that the pressure and interference exerted by the Fair Employment Commission will increase with regard to recruitment in Northern Ireland. The most recent report from the Fair Employment Commission on the civil service of Northern Ireland noted that it employed considerably more Roman Catholics than their number within the general population required. It held that that was fair, so we can expect further application of such fairness to the detriment of many other people in Northern Ireland. I expect that the Government will live to rue the day that they fragmented the Northern Ireland civil service and broke up its various sections, because that will allow all the evils that I have detailed to flourish.
  Every time responsibility is shuffled off Parliament is denied an opportunity for debate. I much regret that step. It will allow changes to be concealed unless the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann is acted on. I hope that the Minister will give a favourable reply, because at least we would then know what fool decisions had been made, even if we are not allowed to discuss them beforehand.
  The number of 25,000 civil servants has been bandied about, but I checked and the number listed as employees of

  989
  the Northern Ireland civil service is larger than that—it has full-time equivalents of 27,661. That must be set against the total home civil service number of 546,339. In national terms, we are talking about a small number of people. There is no reason why Ministers should not be able to exercise their functions under the present system, which has worked well. I regret that the Government have clearly never heard of the advice, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," never mind tried to act on it. If there is something wrong, we have not been told. If there is nothing wrong, why fix it?
  As far as we are aware, the current system works well. It is widely accepted as fair and reasonable. It is being unnecessarily upset and ruptured simply because some folk seem to be intent on endless change. They want to give the impression of renewal and advance, but, at the end of the day, we will probably wind up in a rather worse state than that in which we started.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I do not intend to speak at length on this subject, although I am tempted to do so because, due to the mismanagement of the House's proceedings by the business managers and usual channels, we have 58 minutes left to debate it. With all due respect to the Northern Ireland civil service, the previous debate was much more important, but it had to be truncated without the subject being properly discussed.
  The Minister will be also be relieved to hear that I do not intend to go into matters of substance, although I am tempted to do so because I served on the Committee that dealt with the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill when it went through the House a couple of years ago. The substance of the matter is tangled and involved, so I shall simply ask the Minister a few questions on procedural aspects.
  The order began as a purely mechanical operation to extend the 1992 Act to Northern Ireland. It was to be a negative resolution order, which would not have been debated in the House. Two years have elapsed since then. I have complained before about the Northern Ireland Office's inefficiency in handling Order in Council procedures and the fact that it cannot even run its squalid direct rule system effectively. Although the reason for delay in this case may be other than the usual inefficiency of the Northern Ireland Office, will the Minister spell out the factors that have caused a two-year delay?
  That question touches on points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who drew attention to differences between the proposal for the draft order and the draft order now before the House. I presume that the proposal for a draft order was based on the 1992 Act. The order before us has evidently been changed. Given that it started as a parity measure extending to Northern Ireland legislation that operates in England and Wales and that it was to go through by negative resolution without debate, will the Minister say not only what those changes are and why they have been made, but whether the changes now reverse parity in England and Wales? Having adjusted the order to meet circumstances in Northern Ireland, should not we re-examine the 1992 Act?
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Ancram: The whole House will have welcomed this constructive and interesting, if short, debate. As much as I enjoy listening to speeches by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I am glad that he did not succumb to the temptation to interest the House for a lengthy period. I speak for the whole House in saying that I listened to his brief, succinct remarks with interest.
  A number of points have been raised. At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me about the undertaking to report to Parliament, which has been given in relation to the legislation that was passed some time ago. I told him that I understood that that position would be reflected as regards Northern Ireland, and that is correct. A report will be provided to Parliament periodically on the delegations made by the Department of Finance and Personnel, but the precise content of the report is yet to be decided. It is likely to follow the format of the written answer on delegations in the home civil service printed in the Official Report in January this year, which provided details of the nature of the delegations granted, the recipients and the main conditions attached to the delegations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels reassured that that safeguard will be built in. I do not wish to confirm the report's precise content. Once it is known, I shall arrange for a letter to be sent to the hon. Gentleman explaining that, if he so wishes.
  The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) raised the important matter of accountability, particularly parliamentary accountability, for management of the Northern Ireland civil service under the order. Like that of the home civil service, management of the Northern Ireland civil service is within the royal prerogative, but nothing in the order affects Parliament's right to raise questions about how it is managed. The order does not affect the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's direct accountability to Parliament for the general management and control of the Northern Ireland civil service. That accountability remains the same. In addition, as I have just said, there will be an annual report. Together, those will provide a sufficient safeguard.
  Both hon. Members asked about the order's effect on equal opportunities and fair employment. Departments and agencies operate within the Northern Ireland civil service policy statement on equality of opportunity, which is underpinned by equal opportunity and fair employment legislation. Obviously, Departments and agencies to which delegations are granted must comply with the law. They will be expected to operate in a manner, and retain in place policies and procedures, reflecting the well established priority of fair participation in employment in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also asked about the term "servant of the Crown". The term is limited to those in Crown service and cannot apply to anyone outside the public service. In that respect, accountability to Parliament for all delegations will remain with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked about changes between the proposed draft and the draft order currently before the House. The amendments to the original order were not substantive and did not alter the legislation's intent. Two of the changes clarified the terms of the proposal published in August 1993 and the

  991
  amendment to article 3(1) reflected the constitutional position in respect of the management of the Northern Ireland civil service, and brought the wording of the order closer to the terminology in the Letters Patent and Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Paragraph 4(4) of the proposal for a draft order was found unnecessary because there were no statutory bodies where the approval of two Departments was required to exercise a power relating to the management of staff. That is why the changes were made.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East also asked whether officials in the Republic of Ireland had been consulted. The proposal for a draft order was sent to a number of organisations. Several of them have a general interest in the proposed legislation and some were party leaders, who were invited to comment. In addition, notification of the proposal's publication was placed in the Belfast Gazette. Two comments were received from trade union representatives on the central Whitley council. There was no such consultation with the Republic of Ireland.
  Finally, the hon. Member for Upper Bann asked why the order had taken so long. He will recall that, when the original legislation was going through, he spoke out against the negative resolution procedure because the affirmative procedure would allow greater consultation and for comments to be made and taken into account. His comments were listened to on this occasion and the procedure which we are pursuing today is in accordance with what he requested. The effect is that a certain amount of time is taken up in the consultation process.
  This useful debate has covered a number of points. Ultimately, some will always believe that there is a hidden agenda, but in this case there is none. The draft order will simply enable delegation by the DFP of its management and control responsibilities. It must be prudent in taking such powers to allow appropriate management action to be taken.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked why we should fix something if it was not broken. I have heard that adage before. If we took that as our guiding principle in life, many improvements that have been made would not have come about because the measures which they replaced were not broken. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 37.

  Division No. 278]

  [6.18 pm

  AYES

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Clappison, James

  Bates, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coe, Sebastian

  Booth, Hartley

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Cran, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Devlin, Tim

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Dicks, Terry

  Burns, Simon

  Duncan, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  992

  Elletson, Harold

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Page, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paice, James

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Forth, Eric

  Pawsey, James

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Powell, William (Corby)

  French, Douglas

  Richards, Rod

  Gale, Roger

  Riddick, Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hague, William

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Soames, Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Hawksley, Warren

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hayes, Jerry

  Sproat, Iain

  Heald, Oliver

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hendry, Charles

  Steen, Anthony

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Stephen, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stern, Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sykes, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Thomason, Roy

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Knapman, Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Trend, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Trotter, Neville

  Legg, Barry

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lidington, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Walden, George

  MacKay, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Wells, Bowen

  Malone Gerald

  Whittingdale, John

  Mans, Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Willetts, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Merchant, Piers

  Wood, Timothy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Moss, Malcolm

  Mr. Robert Hughes and

  Nelson, Anthony

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Miller, Andrew

  Barnes, Harry

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Morley, Elliot

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  O'Hara, Edward

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cohen, Harry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Harvey, Nick

  Timms, Stephen

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Trimble, David

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Tyler, Paul

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Wareing, Robert N

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Lewis, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McNamara, Kevin

  Mr. Ray Powell and

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Mr. John Spellar.

  Mahon, Alice

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Civil Service (Management Functions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.

  Animal Welfare
  6.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I beg to move,
  That the draft Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
  How appropriate that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, should be in the Chair for this debate on animal welfare. The main purpose of the measure is to implement European directives and our commitments to the Council of Europe in respect of animal welfare. It is being introduced after full consultation with the industry, welfare organisations and other interested parties.
  Although the size of the document may appear daunting, that is principally because, as well as making the necessary changes to the legislation, we have taken the opportunity to consolidate five existing statutory instruments. The House will note that there are four schedules to the regulations, relating to battery hens, calves, pigs and other livestock. Previously, anyone trying to establish the welfare requirements relating to pigs would have had to consult three separate statutory instruments, as opposed to the single schedule in the draft regulations.
  I will now explain the main changes that we are proposing. First, I should draw the House's attention to the inclusion of a provision in the main body of the regulations which implements an important recommendation made by the admirable Farm Animal Welfare Council, to whose work I am sure the House will want to pay a warm tribute. The council was concerned that wording used in some welfare legislation could militate against a successful prosecution, particularly where a defendant denied knowledge of an animal's condition.
  The draft regulation makes it clear that references to a person
  "knowingly permitting livestock to be kept"
  also encompass those circumstances where a person might reasonably be expected to know how that livestock is kept.
  Schedule 1 on battery hens updates the previous Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987, which implement the Community directive of 1986 setting minimum standards for battery hens.
  I must now explain a complex problem which arose when the 1987 regulations were made. I hope that the House will enjoy the exceptional clarity of my explanation. The EC directive requires 450 sq cm of floor space for each hen—that is the minimum cage area. Normally, hens are kept four or five to a cage, giving as a minimum an overall cage size of 1,800 to 2,250 sq cm. This gives the birds some flexibility as to the use of space.
  Mr. Harry Cohen rose—
  Mr. Soames: I am always happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cohen: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he confirm that the floor space for hens that he has mentioned is about the size of a sheet of A4 paper?
  Mr. Soames: That is perfectly correct. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my point—whereupon he will, I hope, be clearer about the matter.
  Some cages exist in which three, two or one birds are housed. Clearly, 450 sq cm per bird is quite inappropriate
  994
  when such small numbers are considered, because the birds cannot share space as they can in the larger cages. Our domestic legislation therefore requires 550 sq cm per bird for three-bird cages, 750 sq cm per bird for two-bird cages and 1,000 sq cm for single-bird cages.
  Now for the complication. The height of the cage is regulated by reference to the minimum cage area. Although certain three, two or one-bird cages—mainly those known as A-frame cages—meet the requirements in all other respects, their height in relation to the overall floor area will be just short of the minimum required when the minimum area is the higher area specified in United Kingdom law. I know that my hon. Friends are following this closely.
  We accepted arguments put forward by the industry to the effect that it would be unreasonable to make such cages illegal from 1995. The change in the regulations before the House will thus ensure that the cage height requirement refers to the minimum cage area set in the directive—450 sq cm per bird—and not that in our domestic legislation, thus permitting continued use of these cages.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: We do, indeed, appreciate the exceptional clarity of my hon. Friend's explanation. Does he agree that there is a small trend away from using battery cages, and that that is to be encouraged? I for one welcome it.
  Mr. Soames: Any trends in modern farming in favour of more natural systems are to be welcomed. But there will always be a place for battery cages; they represent a big business. The House should be very careful before pontificating about other systems which are often even less satisfactory than battery cages—but I certainly take my hon. Friend's point.
  The measure that we are introducing will, we estimate, save the industry £9 million at current prices without adversely affecting the welfare of the birds concerned.
  I will take the schedules relating to calves and pigs together, as the changes proposed to existing requirements are similar. In November 1991, the Council of Ministers adopted Community directives laying down minimum standards for the welfare of calves and pigs. We are, of course, required to implement those directives and are somewhat overdue in doing so.
  In addition to setting new space requirements for calves and weaner pigs, the regulations implement, from 1 July 15, a ban on the pig-rearing systems commonly known as sweat boxes. They also introduce certain new provisions which, although numerous, can be summarised as relating to the maintenance of good husbandry.
  There are two important respects in which the requirements in these regulations go further than those in the directives. I refer, of course, to the ban on the use of veal crates and the phasing out of close confinement stalls and tethers for pigs.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Before my hon. Friend proceeds any further, can he tell the House when the other European Union countries will ban stalls and tethers?
  Mr. Soames: If my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed in an orderly fashion, I shall come to that.
  The phase-out of stalls and tethers was first proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who has a most distinguished record in this field. It was introduced by the Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991,

  995
  which allowed an eight-year phase-in period to the end of 1998—unlike the directive, which requires the phasing out of systems using tethers by the end of 2005 and allows the use of close confinement stalls to continue.
  The United Kingdom requirements were in place before the directives were adopted and both were introduced for the soundest reasons of animal welfare. We do not consider, therefore, that, in implementing these directives, we should take a step backwards from our own hard-won and high standards of animal welfare. We voted against the two directives precisely because we were convinced that they did not go far enough, and we shall continue to press for their amendment.
  The schedule concerning the welfare of other livestock brings together the requirements contained in the Welfare of Livestock (Intensive Units) Regulations 1978 and the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990. The intensive units regulations were introduced in 1978 as a result of our commitment to implement the Council of Europe convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. That convention has now been amended, requiring contracting parties to amend the definition of intensive farming in their law. The old definition assumed that intensive livestock farming meant the farming of animals in environmentally controlled buildings and required that they be attended on a daily basis to ensure their welfare.
  The convention now acknowledges that, particularly in the southern states of Europe, farming systems which are not in buildings may be equally intensive, and that the animals concerned may equally require daily attention if they are not to suffer. Although the change will be of little consequence to farmers in Britain—unless the present warm weather continues—it is necessary to enable us to ratify the amendment to the convention.
  By way of clarification, I should explain that the requirements in the schedule are not applied to battery hens, calves and pigs, because, as I explained at the beginning of my speech, those have been catered for in the schedules relating to them.
  The regulations maintain our reputation for standards of animal welfare which are among the highest in Europe. Some hon. Members will no doubt be disappointed that we have not taken the opportunity to go further than the directive and impose new requirements for battery cages. I make no apology for that. The decision was an entirely deliberate one on our part.
  The way forward, as my colleagues and I have stated on many occasions, is to seek to persuade our European partners of the importance of achieving satisfactory controls on a Community-wide basis.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Soames: I shall press on, if I may.
  It may be necessary from time to time for the United Kingdom, in the most honourable manner, to take a lead in that regard. We await the Commission's proposals for amendments to the battery hens directive and will be pressing hard for improved standards.
  It will be clear from my remarks that we believe that the Community still has some way to go in establishing satisfactory farm animal welfare standards and that we are
  996
  ahead of the game in some respects. The ban on veal crates and the impending ban on stalls and tethers provide two examples.
  I recognise, as will anyone who has anything to do with farming, that the measures impose extra costs on our farmers which the producers of imported meat do not have to bear. It is only right that those extra burdens should also provide, as I am sure they will, a marketing advantage.

  I hope that the welfare organisations will use some of their well-developed publicity skills to emphasise to consumers that they can give real help to the welfare cause by insisting on food produced to the highest welfare standards when they shop or order in restaurants.
  Mr. Pike: I should like to press the Minister on one point. I know that he is sympathetic on these issues. Can he assure us that these standards will be observed in the importation of livestock from outside the European Union? The hon. Gentleman says that, in some cases, the standards are still not up to those that we in Britain would want. But we know for a fact that, outside the European Union, standards are even worse than those in other parts of the European Union.
  Mr. Soames: It is not possible for me to give that assurance. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to make the point. The standards for livestock in third countries—not third-world countries—are certainly not those that we would wish to see applied. Britain has an enormous amount to do to lead opinion in Europe on this matter. Our record is not blameless—of course it is not—but we have higher standards than anywhere else in Europe. Welfare organisations must work for change in the wider Europe, not simply concentrate their fire power and money-raising activities here. They should use their hard-won skills to influence the Governments of countries whose standards and cultural and attitudinal realities are not those of this country.
  I conclude by reassuring hon. Members that we truly appreciate the concerns that have been expressed on behalf of those who are at the sharp end of the legislation—the hard-pressed British farmers. Statutory controls are truly an essential part of our programme for the protection of animal welfare. The requirements set out in many pages of the document, a number of which are new to our legislation, may appear onerous. But those who already respect and care for their animals—and that includes the greatest possible proportion of those in Britain concerned with livestock: the vast majority—have nothing to fear from them. I warmly commend them to the House.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: It was Ghandi who said that the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which it treats its animals. This is one of the few areas in which the European Union has something to learn from Britain about our standards of husbandry and the regulations that we have introduced. I welcome the regulations which consolidate a number of measures and bring about a few improvements in terms of stock densities and the keeping of animals.
  That is not to say, however, that Britain should not constantly be looking at ways of improving the welfare of animals and the way in which we treat them, or that we should not constantly be pressing within the European Union for the sort of improvements that we know the

  997
  public, the Labour party and the Government wish to see. Many farmers are constantly striving for such improvements, and their work should be recognised.
  Let me deal first with battery cages. The Minister explained with some clarity the complicated change in cage height to no less than 40 cm, which is compulsory for only 60 per cent. of the first 450 cu m. All cage heights after that can be as low as the producer wishes. That may be an improvement but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, we are still talking about an area no bigger than a sheet of A4 paper.
  Battery hens do not constitute a satisfactory method of egg production. All the research on battery cages confirms that. As early as 1985, a study by M. S. Dawkins entitled "Cage Height Preference and Use in Battery-Kept Hens" shows that 25 per cent. of hens' head movements take place at a height above 40 cm. By reducing that height, one is affecting the hens' behaviour. As the Minister will be aware, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which does an excellent job and provides impartial and professional advice to the Government, has laid down five freedoms, one of which is the freedom to exhibit natural behaviour. Battery cages do not meet that criterion.
  A recent study by Dr. Baxter, published in The Veterinary Record, concluded:
  "The scientific evidence reviewed in this paper suggests that battery cages cause suffering in laying hens in at least seven different ways."
  I shall not quote further. Suffice it to say that that is a carefully researched paper which will be endorsed by many people of an independent scientific mind.
  I recognise the point made by the Minister and the Select Committee on Agriculture in its recent report that battery cages cannot be banned overnight. That must be done over a phased period, and the case for it argued through the European Union.
  The Labour party recognises that it is of no advantage to animal welfare for Britain to ban battery cages if, because of the Single European Act, we cannot stop eggs that have been produced in the very same battery cages that we have banned flooding on to our market. We should like to see the phasing out of battery cages, but we recognise that that would have to be done in conjunction with the industry and the Council of Ministers so that similar measures can be introduced within the European Community.
  There are many alternative methods of egg production some—of them extremely efficient and semi-automated—that give hens a chance to behave in more natural ways. As we move towards the ban, I hope that the Minister will consider various cage-enrichment measures, work on which has been undertaken in respect of many different animals in recent years. For hens, such measures can include perches, scratching pads and dust baths. We want more research and development in that regard.
  I appreciate that one cannot ban battery systems overnight, and that improvements must be argued throughout Europe, but Sweden is phasing out battery cages and Switzerland has already banned them. Sweden may become a member of the European Union, so I hope that the Government will seek its support in persuading other member states to move in the right direction.
  As to schedule 2, it is a matter of pride for Britain that veal crates have rightly been banned, but this country has
  998
  a huge export trade in veal calves, which will be put in the same crates that are banned here. It is imperative that Britain argues in the Council of Ministers for similar standards to apply. We could do more than we do positively to reinforce our own producers in banning veal crates in the economics of veal production.
  In this country, veal is produced much more humanely than on the continent, yet British veal is not marketed there as being humanely produced. No resources appear to be devoted to that through the Meat and Livestock Commission or Food from Britain, to give British producers some support and advantage to reward the high standards that they encourage.
  We welcome paragraphs 6, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of schedule 2, which make it clear that there is no possibility of reintroducing restrictive crating of the kind banned in this country. My only concern is that schedule 2 still permits tethering—although it rightly specifies that the calf must be able to stand, turn around, lie down, rest and groom itself without hindrance. There appears to be some contradiction, so I would welcome the Minister's comments.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman have any estimate of the number of veal calves exported to the continent?
  Mr. Morley: A figure of 450,000 has been suggested —an enormous trade, with all the welfare implications that go with it. I should like it stopped—I make no bones about that.
  Schedule 3 relates to sow stalls and tethers, and I place on record my admiration for the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who introduced the measure with all-party support. I am grateful, too, for the Government's support in announcing that sow stalls and tethers will be phased out by 1 January 1999.
  Hon. Members may have received a brief from the British Pig Association, and I recognise its concern that the British pig industry will be disadvantaged because the European Union has announced that tethers will be banned. That will not occur until the year 2006. The Minister will be aware that the pig industry goes through particular cycles, and it is currently experiencing a difficult time.
  There is evidence that some of Britain's main competitors are expanding pig production. Figures from the BPA suggest an increase in slaughtering of 54 per cent. in Denmark. In Spain, slaughtering has increased 24 per cent. and in France, 28 per cent. In the Netherlands, slaughtering has increased 97.3 per cent., while in the United Kingdom it has declined 5.1 per cent.
  I was surprised to learn from a written answer that export refunds and private storage aid, which is available to all member states, totalled 2.6 million ecu for British producers in the provisional figures for 1993. Compare that with France, at 6.1 million ecu, and Germany, which received an incredible 33 million ecu. That shows that continental competitors are receiving a great deal of European funding. I hope that the Minister will explore ways of giving some support to the British pig industry in the move to alternative pig-rearing methods.
  In my own constituency, which is a centre of the British pig industry, there has been a dramatic move towards field systems. A paper by Mike Varley at the department of animal physiology and nutrition of Leeds university estimated a 40 per cent. move towards field systems. The

  999
  same paper demonstrates some of the problems. The number of farms with pigs has declined dramatically, having almost halved in the past two years from 22,000—farms to 12,000—but the average herd size increased. That for sows has risen from 37 to 62.
  Concentrated animal rearing brings problems that the regulations address, including tail docking and tooth clipping. I appreciate that the industry wants the right to dock tails and clip teeth for welfare reasons. If those practices are supported by veterinary opinion, there is no reason why they should not be allowed—but they must not be viewed as the norm. Such practices should be adopted on an individual basis, depending on welfare reasons.
  One cause of tail chewing is intensive rearing systems. If stocking is reduced, so is tail chewing. Some field systems have reduced welfare problems—although I accept that different systems bring their own problems and challenges.
  I hope that the Minister will reconsider the age limit on piglets for teeth clipping. Organisations such as Compassion in World Farming and the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals hold that clipping should be done within three days.
  We welcome and endorse the prohibition on pig sweat boxes after 1 July 1995, and I am sure that the industry knows that that must come. There is also a regulation on pig weaning, which we also welcome. However, that largely endorses existing intensive practice, and there may be a case for reviewing the weaning age on the basis that the current limit in the regulations is on the low side.
  I welcome the Minister's assurance that there will be no going back on the time scale for banning tethering and stalls, although I have some sympathy with the British pig industry's position. The industry is largely unsubsidised, competes commercially, receives little support and has great regard for animal welfare. That is certainly the impression that I receive when visiting pig farmers in my constituency. The BPA's brief takes a somewhat defeatist attitude to welfare marketing. The BPA considered that a premium price could not be obtained for pork produced from pigs bred in fields where high welfare standards applied, but I am not sure that I agree. I do not underestimate the difficulty of marketing food produced in such conditions, however: we need measures to make the system work effectively.
  The association raised some points that I think the Minister should consider sympathetically. For instance, it called for research into alternative ways of rearing pigs more humanely. I know that a great deal of work has been done on the idea of farrowing crates designed to minimise the stress suffered by farrowing sows. The pig industry would like more support for training to establish a high standard of stock keeping—perhaps we should reconsider the qualifications involved—and the development of skills. I think that Government have a role in that regard, through the Agricultural Development Advisory Service and other organisations.
  Then there is the question of capital investment. Those investing in agricultural machinery can claim tax relief on some 25 per cent. of the investment, but I understand that investors in new buildings in which to rear animals can claim only 3 per cent. Could our laws, or European Community laws, allow 25 per cent. relief on animal rearing systems intended to meet new welfare standards? The Minister may wish to discuss that with his Treasury colleagues. Such action might encourage those in the
  1000
  industry who have made the reasonable point that it is unfair for them to be improving welfare standards in isolation, while their competitors do nothing. Although that should not be used as an excuse for failing to aim for the highest possible welfare standards, consideration should be given to the pressure that is put on producers.
  As I have said, Labour welcomes the regulations in general. However, we want improvements in training and clarification of enforcement issues, and some related issues need to be resolved in the European Union. The treaty of Rome, for instance, defines animals as agricultural products, which we see as one of the problems of the attitude of some southern European states in particular to animal welfare standards. We want the definition to be changed to "sentient animals", which would imply a recognition that animals feel, suffer and need to be kept properly.
  This country does not compare favourably with others when it comes to marketing and adding value, especially when high welfare standards are involved. The aspiration of many farmers is simply to export live animals to the continent, where they are slaughtered and value is added at the slaughterhouses. That is not good enough. Given all the welfare problems of animal transport, the loss of jobs in our slaughter industry and the implications for our balance of trade, it makes no sense: we need more support for marketing and this country's high production standards. The Government could perform such a role through organisations such as Food From Britain and the Meat and Livestock Commission.
  That will work, however, only if food is labelled properly to facilitate consumer choice. The Minister made a fair point when he spoke of the lobbying and campaigning power of animal welfare organisations. That power should also be directed at supermarkets and other retailers, which should be encouraged to sell British goods whose production has involved high standards and to label them in a way that enables consumers to opt for them. Clear labelling would greatly benefit British producers, because consumers would then be on their side, using their buying power to reward good producers and penalise those in other countries whose standards are lower. So far, we are making little progress in that regard.
  I know that animal transport is not covered in the regulations, and I do not intend to go into detail; but it is important that we aim for high standards and try to minimise—or, preferably, eliminate—live transport for slaughter, especially where calves are concerned. There is no sense in it. Last week, at the Council of Ministers, the Government performed a dramatic U-turn, shifting from the so-called Greek compromise and backing the more progressive European member states. I hope that that attitude will continue, and that the Government will work alongside the countries—Germany, Holland and Denmark —which argue for higher welfare standards.
  Above all, I hope that the Government will appreciate that all the improvements that we have discussed—which I suspect hon. Members on both sides of the House support —must be implemented, through Europe in many cases. That will require the support and co-operation of other member states. What this country must not do is continually isolate itself, thus forfeiting the help that we need to make such advances.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I shall try not to be repetitious, although inevitably I shall repeat a little of what was said by the the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I was slightly saddened by some of his closing remarks; until then, I intended to say that most of what he had said—as a prominent member of the all-party animal welfare group—was extremely generous and well informed. I associate myself with nearly all of it; I approved especially of what he said about the need for the best possible veterinary advice on matters such as the docking of pigs' tails.
  My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned advertising. I should record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the stand that she took in Luxembourg over the transport of live animals. It is a great pity that before her negotiations she was subjected to personal attacks in the press; I find that especially disturbing because, when my hon. Friend the Minister was generous enough to find time to see me with representatives of some animal welfare organsations, he made it abundantly clear that our right hon. Friend would negotiate. It is on that small issue that I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman.
  There was no U-turn. My right hon. Friend went to Luxembourg to secure the best deal that she could in the circumstances. As it turned out, she was able to secure every modest improvement that was on the table; they were indeed modest—we acknowledge that. Moreover, she managed to secure the United Kingdom's unique privilege of maintaining minimum values in regard to the export of live horses, which is invaluable. Most important of all, she managed to keep the door open for negotiations to continue under the German presidency.
  It is a great shame that the animal welfare organisations which have told me that they wrote privately to thank my right hon. Friend for the stand that she took did not have the courage to make those thanks public. I am afraid that, with some cynicism, I have to conclude that there are perhaps more fund-raising possibilities and more bequests are available from shock-horror advertising than from saying thank you.
  I am chairman of the all-party animal welfare group which has been determined to campaign responsibly in the way that you taught us, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you chaired the group. We shall go on doing that and it is important that we do so. It is important that, when progress is made, it is recognised by us. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know only too well, however, that will not stop us fighting fiercely for future progress. However, we are grateful for the stand that my right hon. Friend the Minister took.
  Like my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, I pay tribute to the Farm Animal Welfare Council for the enormous contribution that it has made and continues to make to farm animal welfare. I will remind the House of the council's freedoms. They include freedom from hunger, freedom from thirst, freedom from discomfort, freedom from pain, freedom from injury and disease, freedom from fear, freedom from distress and—this is most important—freedom to express normal behaviour. While wishing to be generous, I must say that by those standards the regulations fail, in many cases lamentably.
  Any improvement in the welfare of battery hens is
  1002
  welcome, but the changes are minimal. It is now widely accepted that the battery cage is no longer acceptable as a means of production. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe referred to Dr. Mike Baxter's article in The Veterinary Record. Dr. Baxter is a foremost authority on the subject. In an extremely erudite paper, he has set out clearly the differences between the life style of hens in battery cages and those in percheries.
  The House must draw a clear distinction between what are known as free range chickens—subject to all the disease, discomfort and predators that are found, literally, free range and in the open—and chickens in a perchery. Those of us who have taken a keen interest in the issue generally accept that, although percheries may not be ideal, they are the best way forward.
  The battery cage does not allow for normal behaviour. It does not allow for wing flapping, perching, nesting, preening and dust bathing. Battery cages lead to brittle bones and leg injuries. The spaces referred to in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 are inadequate for birds to perform their natural behaviour. Assuming that we have to maintain battery cages, for groups of four or more hens, a space allowance of at least 650 sq cm is essential. That would allow colony housing systems to be at least commercially competitive.
  Paragraph 9 states:
  "The flock or group of laying hens shall be inspected thoroughly at least once a day."
  That is restated in the welfare codes of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is impossible in a battery system which may contain as many as 40,000 birds. I am told that to remove each bird in a system of that size would take three days. As a welfare requirement it is totally impractical.
  I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe about marketing and, particularly, labelling. I believe that many housewives, househusbands and shoppers who purchase eggs labelled "new laid" or "farm fresh" in pretty boxes with pictures of wide open fields with sunshine and grass genuinely believe that the product is from free range hens, whatever that might mean to the purchaser. In fact, that is not so at all: "fresh" means battery farm fresh—we must get that message across.
  More can be done. I know that there has been some criticism of the standards that will be set, but I am pleased to learn that later this year the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is to launch its freedom food campaign. Under the RSPCA freedom food label, which will be marketed in at least two chains of supermarkets, it is designed to make it clear that the product will be of a high welfare standard—not so high as I or the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe would like, but infinitely better and more clearly marked than anything currently available to the housewife.
  I hope that, when that campaign is launched the purchaser will use the power of the marketplace to begin to dictate high welfare standards. If the purchaser determines to buy only humanely produced products, the producers will quickly realise that it is in their interests to go down that road. That will happen not just in the United Kingdom, but—this is what we seriously wish to achieve—throughout the European Union.
  Sir Donald Thompson: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. Does he agree that

  1003
  such campaigns would not be possible if the level of welfare for pigs, calves and hens was not already higher than in most of Europe? The campaigners therefore have a solid base from which to start.
  Mr. Gale: I agree entirely that, by and large, the United Kingdom has higher farm animal welfare standards than anywhere else in Europe. That is something of which we can be justly proud, but it is not something about which we can be complacent.
  I have indicated at some length my concern about battery hens. When eggs become available under the freedom food label they will certainly not come from battery cages. There is a great deal of progress still to be made, but my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) is right that the marketing campaign would not be possible were there not at least some supplies of well-produced food.
  I am proud of the fact that we have banned the use of the veal crate in the United Kingdom. I know that there are those who feel that in doing so we have placed United Kingdom producers at a disadvantage to those throughout the European Union who still use veal crates. I do not believe that that is a reason for the United Kingdom not to take a lead. We should take pride in that. However, it would be foolish not to recognise that in one sense it has been a pyrrhic victory, as some 450,000 veal calves are exported each year to be put into veal crates and subject to even worse conditions on the continent than they would have been in the same veal crates in the United Kingdom. In fact, if veal calves are to be in crates at all, I would have preferred them to be in veal crates here where we can inspect and monitor them rather than on the continent.
  On marketing, I was pleased and reassured to learn when I questioned the House of Commons Catering Department that the veal sold in this establishment is all United Kingdom produced. I wonder how many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members and how many people who may read or listen to this debate can put hand on heart and say that every time they go into an Italian restaurant or a butcher's shop they ask where the veal was produced. We know that frequently that veal will have been produced under conditions elsewhere in the European Union that we have said are unacceptable. We have the power to change that through the money in our pockets and the manner in which we spend it.
  On advertising, I hope that we shall learn from some of the mistakes that have been made in recent weeks and that the animal welfare organisations which spend considerable sums on advertising will target some of that money and advertising on campaigns of education in the hope and expectation that the consumer will exercise the power of the bank balance and buy only humanely produced food.

  The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) went into great detail about pigs, boars, sows and gilts, which form the bulk of the third schedule. I shall not repeat his argument, but I associate myself with all his remarks. It is particularly relevant that we should pay great attention to the best possible veterinary advice. There are genuine difficulties—it is not easy to strike a balance of welfare between sows and piglets while maintaining humane conditions. Matters of genuine debate and concern must be resolved. I still feel that perhaps the directive's provisions for space and bedding are less than adequate, but I am certain that we shall be able to make progress together on that.
  1004
  I accept entirely that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food take these matters extremely seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley said, the United Kingdom has the highest standards of any European Union country. We look to Ministers not only to promote our best standards throughout the European Union but to raise them, particularly in egg production.
  I hope that we can make real progress on labelling so that those who want to buy humanely produced food can do so. If the housewife dictates the market, we shall raise farm animal welfare standards not only in the United Kingdom but much more quickly throughout the European Union.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) not only because I agree with much of his speech but because I have the greatest respect for the work that he has done with the all-party group following your previous leadership, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary initiated the debate, for two reasons: first, because he now sees the industry as being peopled by "hard-pressed British farmers". Opposition Members and, no doubt, some Conservative Back Benchers, will repeat that phrase when we debate hill livestock compensatory allowances later in the year.
  Secondly, his robust and realistic attitude on animal welfare is welcome to many hon. Members and, I am afraid that I must say, it is in contrast to the attitude of his Minister. On 24 February, I suggested to the Minister that she should
  "address her mind particularly to the differences between the animal welfare standards that we seek to achieve in this country, which are on a different time scale to those that are being sought in other member states."
  That comment was made with particular regard to the pig sector. She replied:
  "On animal welfare, the hon. Gentleman is right that our producers do not have a level playing field. I make no apology for that. I am glad that this country has a strong and well-developed animal welfare lobby. We must live with that concern, which is so strongly felt by British people."
  A few minutes later, in answer to a different question the Under-Secretary said:
  "We remain anxious to ensure that an equal regime is in place throughout the continent."—[Official Report, 24 February 1994; Vol. 238, c. 420–23.]
  The core of tonight's debate is how to achieve that consistency. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will persuade his boss that that should be the core issue for us all.
  It clearly would be absurd if hon. Members or, more generally, animal welfare organisations adopted a blinkered, little-Englander attitude that effectively was hypocritical, and that suggested that by just improving matters in this country we could persuade other countries in the European Union to follow our example. We are in a single market and it is absurd to imagine that that attitude will achieve any improvement.
  As the hon. Member for Thanet, North said, it seems hypocritical for those who are concerned about the welfare of calves to spend so much time concerning themselves with conditions in this country that we do not use all possible leverage in the Council of Agriculture Ministers

  1005
  to achieve improvements throughout the single market. Cleaning up our act in the United Kingdom would simply be wasted energy if we did not, at the same time, try to make a real start on the Augean stable on the continent.
  That is why the timing of the regulations is so important. Are we considering the regulations because Ministers feel that there is no real prospect of making major advances across the whole Union? After all, they are six months late; under the directives, they were due on 1 January. Are we doing so because we expect that, under the German presidency which starts at midnight tonight, there will be less or more progress in future? If we are seeking to lead, we must have a view about the best way to ensure that the regulations are replicated as soon as possible throughout the Union.
  Of course it is to be welcomed that we are seeking to implement the directives, but the key issue remains: will the way in which we tackle the subject secure any real advance throughout the Union? It is true that, under subsidiarity, which is possible in this area, some member states can adopt stricter regulations than others. So be it —somebody must lead—but to be so far ahead that we are not leading anyone else at all would be dangerous.
  There would be no point in any British Government leading from the front and merely taking British farmers along with them into the wilderness. Unfortunately, a balance does not seem to be struck in the regulations and in the negotiations that take place, of course, behind closed doors in the Council of Ministers.
  On a number of occasions, the National Farmers Union has rightly said, "If you impose on British farmers regulations that they are simply unable meet on grounds of cost, you will merely drive them out of the market and let in others with lower standards in other parts of Europe." Animals in Europe clearly would not benefit from such a development.
  The hon. Member for Thanet, North advanced a convincing argument on battery cages. I very much endorse his comments. We must be careful that we do not proceed so slowly by evolution—by tweaking here and tweaking there—that we end up with a cost that has no real benefit. Constantly amending and altering regulations may in the long term be more costly to the sector than the complete removal of battery cages according to a reasonable time scale. The most dangerous situation is that our industry is constantly having to adjust slightly at great cost, while other countries either lag right behind or are able to make a transformation in one step.
  I very much endorse what the hon. Member for Thanet, North said about the total unrealistic attitude to inspection in schedule 1. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has made a good case on the matter and I hope that we shall not mislead animal welfare campaigners or, indeed, the poultry industry by suggesting that the schedule somehow is adequate.
  The schedule 2 regulations make it clear that the objective should be to ensure that calves should be able to hear, smell and see other calves, but the way in which the regulations spell that out will not implement that objective. Farmers have a right to be concerned that the cost to them has been anticipated and that the Government are prepared to put something in place to ensure that they are not out of pocket as a result.
  1006
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to know why no effective action is being taken to prevent the export of 450,000 calves to systems that are clearly regarded by hon. Members and many others in the country as being inhumane. I endorse the comments that have been made by many hon. Members about labelling, but that is not sufficient to tackle the present problem. Clearly, United Kingdom regulations alone are meaningless if we seek such restrictions without at the same time tackling the conditions in which the calves will be treated when they reach a continental rearing system.
  Mr. James Paice: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said that he would rather see calves in veal crates in this country than in veal crates in Holland, because at least here we could be happier that they were being properly monitored. However, if I have understood the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) correctly, he is saying that we should have ways of stopping the 450,000 calves being exported to Holland and elsewhere, primarily in veal crates. How could one do that within the single market, other than by persuading the whole Community to give up crates? The hon. Gentleman seemed to accept that we should work towards giving up crates throughout the Community, but he also seemed to suggest that there was something that we could do on our own to stop the practice.
  Mr. Tyler: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I agree that that has to be done within the framework of the single market and the European Union mechanisms. I was about to say—I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me—that it does not seem clever to me to take unilateral action and ban the export of calves, if by doing so we simply encourage livestock producers and those who are responsible for some of the conditions that we regard as inhumane in the other continental countries to expand their production. In present circumstances, if we were suddenly to ban the export of all livestock, including calves, the Germans would be laughing all the way to the bank. What would that achieve for the welfare of calves or for the livestock producers of this country?
  Secondly, I do not believe that the regulations go far enough to ensure that calves are provided with clean and dry bedding. That seems a basic essential, and one that all those concerned with the issue have actively drawn to the Minister's attention. Nobody in the livestock sector feels that compliance would be too onerous.
  Thirdly, I believe that the RSPCA's view that calves need to be fed at least twice a day for the first two weeks of their lives would be accepted by most farmers and livestock producers. They would regard it as sensible husbandry. There would be great support for that. The regulations insist only on feeding once a day, and I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us that that is really sufficient, and is not merely the barest minimum necessary to ensure freedom from hunger.
  Much has already been said about pigs, and I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily. We must recognise that there is a huge problem here and, as I have said to the Minister before, the pig sector, which has been going through a tough time throughout the United Kingdom, bitterly resents the fact that they are working not only to a different timetable but in a different direction altogether from their competitors in other member states. I hope that

  1007
  when the Minister replies he will be able to assure us that, following the change of presidency, he will press the new holder to take a much more active role to examine ways in which the other member states can come closer to our time scale.
  With farrowing crates and weaning, there is a genuine dilemma. Those who know a little about the subject—I confess that I do not know a great deal, although my retirement job could be to keep pigs—tell me that it is a satisfying occupation, as a former Prime Minister would be the first to agree. At farrowing and at weaning there is a genuine welfare dilemma between the welfare of the sow and that of the piglets. I am not sure whether the regulations take that fully into account. They certainly do not spell it out, and I know that many farmers would agree with the concerns expressed on the subject.
  As for tooth clipping, we can all argue about whether it should be done at three, five or seven days or older, but the critical question is: who is to do it? It should be someone who is competent and has the necessary experience, expertise and training. That raises a general problem not fully addressed by the regulations. I believe that all people who handle livestock should have access to a recognised system of training, testing and qualification. That should be the basic essential, and it would meet a lot of the public concern.
  As the hon. Member for Thanet, North said, tributes have been paid to the Farm Animal Welfare Council and its five basic freedoms; yet we must admit that the regulations do not provide those five basic freedoms—nor, of course, do the current objectives of EC directives or of the discussions taking place in the Council of Ministers. We are a long way off.
  It would be deplorable if in any way the passage of the regulations meant that Ministers were prepared to relax their efforts in the EU, and were prepared to say to their colleagues in other member states and in the states seeking to join the Union that the situation is now less urgent; less of a priority. The regulations represent a short step in the right direction, but there is a great deal still to be done.
  The critical issue is surely the fact that we cannot expect producers in a single market to adopt higher and higher welfare standards at higher and higher cost to themselves, and potentially to their customers, if they cannot see real improvements among their competitor countries as well —that includes third countries outside the EU that are increasing their exports into the Community.
  As has often been said recently, both by the Commissioners and by Ministers, they are trying to open up markets to other producers, especially producers from the former communist countries of eastern Europe. But in those countries welfare standards, like environmental standards, are way below ours. It would be unreasonable to raise that iron curtain at the risk of doing huge damage to our livestock producers.
  I believe that the five freedoms suggested by the FAWC are important, and that we should keep them in mind. But I seriously question whether the role of the FAWC can be maintained if we pay lip service to those objectives yet go such a short way along the road towards achieving them. Perhaps the time has come to have an independent animal welfare commission, which many organisations outside the House, and perhaps hon. Members too, would feel had more credibility, and which would be able to speak out
  1008
  publicly when it felt that the Minister or the EU was not making sufficient progress towards achieving the five freedoms.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Before I say what I have to say, I must first declare an interest in the pig industry.
  I agree with much of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I take issue with practically all of them when they say that standards will be changed by the various pressures that they describe. They have expressed many pious hopes, but I would like to illustrate my point with an example.
  If we asked the chairman of one of the big retailers his view on animal welfare, we would get an answer that would please us. That is not unexpected, but we must bear in mind the fact that it is not the chairman of the big retailing company who actually buys the meat. The person who buys the meat is the meat buyer, who takes his instructions from a manager, who in turn has a clear directive from the board of directors of his company to make a profit. So, notwithstanding all the pious hopes expressed tonight, I have to remind the House that the commercial reality is that, with most of what is bought and sold—not only meat and meat products but other products freely bought and sold in the market—price is a very important consideration.
  I want to draw the attention of the House to the parlous state of the pig industry. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) gave us the figures for pig production in the European Union. He explained how our production has fallen by 5 per cent. over 20 years, while that of our neighbours in Holland has increased by almost 100 per cent. in the same time.
  I draw the House's attention to some other statistics. The first interesting statistic is the index of producer prices for agricultural products in the United Kingdom from 1985 to 1993, which starts in 1985 with a producer index of 100. For pigs, the index had risen by 1993 to only 101.2—in other words, the figure had scarcely changed for eight years. There can be scarcely any other product bought and sold in the marketplace today for which there has not been a substantial increase in price, or certainly an appreciation in price far greater than that experienced in the pig industry.
  I draw to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention the fact that the pig industry is technically very efficient compared with the industries in Denmark, France and the Netherlands. The number of pigs sold per sow per year is higher in this country than in the others. Our food conversion ratio is better and our labour costs are better. On so many counts, our industry is far more efficient than that of our competitors.
  We have a food and drink trade deficit of about £6 billion per annum; we still import 50 per cent. of our bacon; and, as anybody interested in agricultural matters knows, we have a surplus of home-grown cereals. Those three facts are three compelling reasons for helping rather than hindering the British pig industry. If the regulations are enforced unilaterally, as seems likely, we shall almost certainly see the increased importation of pork and bacon and a bigger surplus of home-grown cereals. I point out that those cereals are likely to be lower in value than previously and we shall see a larger trade gap.

  1009
  My hon. Friend the Minister, who follows these matters closely, will agree that there will also be a knock-on effect on the abattoir sector where there has been massive capital expenditure to comply with the latest EC regulations. That in turn has created serious overcapacity, which is the inevitable consequence of modernisation. Nobody moder-nises and reduces capacity. With the installation of more sophisticated machinery and systems, capacity is increased. Yet all the time, the abattoir industry suffers from a shortage of livestock. That is a feature of the industry that the regulations will accentuate.
  Pig farmers are unlikely to upgrade when they are already losing money. The additional costs under the regulations are estimated to be between £2.70 and £3 per pig. As several hon. Members have already pointed out, our competitor nations are not following suit.
  It may be of some interest to know that last week, I visited the largest pig abattoir in Europe. Its throughput is almost double that of any abattoir in this country. One of the major secrets of its success is that it has guaranteed throughput. The abattoir is geared up to and bears the overheads for the slaughter and processing of 50,000 pigs per week. Unless the abattoir processes that number, the economics of running it does not stack up. The Danes are in the happy position of knowing that each and every week roughly 50,000 pigs will go through the abattoir. No British abattoir can make that assumption, and that creates a huge problem for the industry.
  The regulations will do nothing to stop the rush of public companies leaving the slaughter industry. The end result will be serious for the domestic pig industry and for the domestic meat industry. The end result will be that there will be no pig processors with the financial muscle to match their continental competitors.
  The pig industry has seldom, if ever, asked for help. It has stood on its own feet. There has been no subsidy. I invite the House and my hon. Friend to compare that with the position in other European Union countries where there is state aid, as we know. Our pig industry has fought its own battles. I draw the House's attention to the fact that it has a pre-eminent position in the world in terms of its breeding and husbandry knowledge and technology. The pig industry has solved its own problems. I need refer my hon. Friend only to the action taken by the pig industry, at its own expense, to eradicate Aujesky's disease. The pig industry is content to go on standing on its own feet, fighting its own battles and solving its own problems.
  What the industry does not need and what it cannot afford is to be made to carry an unfair handicap. The regulations are an unfair handicap because they are being implemented in this country six or seven years before implementation in other countries of the European Union.
  The Minister knows my views on welfare. The role of Government and the role of politicians in this area is, without doubt, to strike a balance between what is demanded by the welfare lobby and the commercial realities of the industry. If the welfare lobby had its way entirely, there would be few home-produced eggs and scarcely any home-produced veal, and practically every last slice of bacon would be imported. In those circumstances, where would all those foods come from? The answer, which is a plain as a pikestaff, is that they
  1010
  would be imported from countries where the high standards of welfare that we want in this country, but which we are introducing prematurely, simply do not exist.
  I urge the Minister to consider the practical benefits of a thriving pig sector in British agriculture: supplying a market in which the United Kingdom is not self-sufficient, consuming cereals for which there is no other demand, creating year-round permanent employment, sustaining a domestic abattoir industry and maintaining the United Kingdom's pre-eminent position as a leading exporter of breeding stock.
  I urge my hon. Friend to give the House an assurance that the regulations will not be implemented unless and until the rest of the European Union does the same. I believe that failure to give that assurance means that the Minister will carry a heavy responsibility, the consequences of which will be with us for many a year to come. I ask my hon. Friend to be brave and resolute in defence of a vital British industry and to consider the requests and the pleas that have been made, not only by the British Pig Association, but by the National Farmers Union and other bodies representing the british farming industry.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made an excellent speech and I pay tribute to him. Labour is now radical on animal welfare issues.
  Incredible and unimaginable cruelty is associated with intensive farming methods—none more so than with battery cages. I was disappointed that the Minister effectively said that battery cages would never be abolished. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that, under Labour, they would be phased out and that we would try to take Europe with us on that issue.
  The A-frame cages are appalling; they are the size of a piece of A4 paper. There is no space for the birds to spread their wings and there is chronic overcrowding. The birds cannot exhibit natural behaviour and they suffer injuries and ill health, as has been said. Salmonella, chicken cancer and herpes-related diseases spread as a result of the overcrowding. In those intensive conditions, there is a prospect of those diseases spreading rapidly to other birds, which would also affect human health. There are alternatives to that process, so battery cages should be phased out over a clear time scale.
  This is not the time to talk about the transport of live animals, but those freedoms to which the Farm Animal Welfare Council referred—freedom from hunger and thirst and from distress, and the freedom to behave normally—apply to transportation as they do to battery hens and to other intensively farmed animals. We are moving further away from those freedoms and actions against cruelty to appease Europe's peasant farmers and, indeed, the rich boys in the farming industry.
  On issue after issue, especially the transport of live animals, we have given up our animal welfare provisions and got virtually nothing in return. The gap is exceptionally wide. On transport, for example, we had a limit of 12 hours before animals were fed, rested and watered. It should be eight hours, as the welfare organisations, such as the RSPCA, suggested. In Europe, the limit is 24 hours and the compromise, apparently, is 22

  1011
  hours. Europe continues to use battery cages, and, as has been said, will export the produce. There has been no significant progress in Europe to get rid of battery cages.
  It is right that we have a veal crate ban and that is a credit to the Government, but the countries in the European Union still use them and there will be pressure on us to lift that ban—commercial pressure at least. We do not transport live horses for slaughter, but, again, there will be enormous European and commercial pressure for that to come about. We are not carrying Europe with us.
  The Government refuse to use any muscle on the issues that matter, yet the European Community directives are unacceptable. We should be using the veto on many of the associated issues until an agreement which has animal welfare as a high priority is hammered out. That is the only way in which the United Kingdom can take the lead.
  The Government should commit themselves to the Amendola report, which redefines animals as sentient beings and not as agricultural products. I urge the Minister to make that commitment.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Soames: I shall try to deal properly with the points raised. This has been a well-informed debate in which hon. Members have spoken not only with knowledge, but with passion.
  I noted the views of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on battery cages. The Government do not consider that a ban at this stage would be appropriate, for reasons which the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. It is also fair to say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises, although sometimes I am a little concerned about what he knows and what he does not know about the agricultural world—I am sure that he knows—that all systems of egg production carry some welfare risk. It is extremely difficult to discriminate between one system and another.
  We have a good programme of research in that area and we are seeking, and we shall continue to seek, changes. Since the hon. Gentleman asked, I especially emphasise the nature of the change that we want. For battery cage systems, we are seeking an increased area per bird. We are also seeking environmental enrichment of cages by, for example, including perches and scratching bars, which is one of the points rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). We also expect the proposals to take account of the welfare needs of those laying hens which are not kept in battery cages.
  By and large, the hon. Gentleman made a reasoned, sensible and well-informed speech, until the end of his remarks, and I shall deal with that matter in a minute.
  Taxation is, of course, a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's views are drawn to his attention. I do not expect that the hon. Gentleman knows, but it is accepted that any non-therapeutic procedure, such as tooth-clipping and tail-docking of piglets, always gives cause for concern. Anyone who deals with pigs will know that it is not always possible to limit the effects of aggression by other means.
  I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about marketing. Food For Britain is an extremely important and successful operation dedicated to exporting British agricultural goods abroad. It is doing a very good job. My right hon. Friend the Minister has made marketing the
  1012
  absolute top priority for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I also note the further points that the hon. Gentleman made on that matter.
  The only truly fatuous part of the hon. Member's speech was about animal transport. It is a matter of regret that my meeting with the welfare lobbies led to what is, fundamentally, a major breakdown in trust between them and my Department. For instance, I do not think that I shall be able to take the Compassion in World Farming organisation as being a credible witness on any of those matters again in the future.
  The picture that the hon. Gentleman portrayed of my right hon. Friend's position at the meeting in Luxembourg was quite ridiculous. My right hon. Friend negotiated there, she saw the situation move in our direction, and she rightly took the opportunity to move along those lines. It is quite plain that we have now made progress and that there will be further progress in future.
  Mr. Morley rose—
  Mr. Soames: No, I shall not give way.
  Let me now deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North. Along with other hon. Members, I wish to pay tribute to his work as chairman of the all-party welfare group, because his comments were measured, humane and sensible, but extremely robust. He is also totally straight, and we know where we are with him.
  On the transport of animals, my hon. Friend portrayed the case exactly as it happened. The tribute that he paid to my right hon. Friend the Minister is entirely justified. Of course, I accept that my hon. Friend, with his strong views, and with the dedicated and principled stand that he takes, will not be fully satisfied by the regulations. I listened carefully and made a note of what he said, and I especially note his views on battery hens.
  I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the RSPCA and its food labelling initiative. However, on the general point of labelling, marketing is, essentially, a matter for the industry. It is not a principle of general United Kingdom food labelling law that information about methods of rearing or the type of animals should be required on food labels. However, voluntary indications of rearing methods are permitted, subject to the general provision—the point made by hon. Friend—of the Food Safety Act 1990, which prohibits the use of false or misleading descriptions of foods.
  I share my hon. Friend's concern about some of those matters. I give him my word, at this Dispatch Box, that he may be reassured that we shall promote the very best standards of this country throughout the European Community, and that is the declared aim and intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister and of all of us who are involved in animal welfare matters.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about hypocrisy. Whenever Liberal Democrats start talking about hypocrisy, I am reminded of the man who talked of his honour, but the more he talked of his honour, the faster we started counting the spoons.
  There is not a hair's breadth between my right hon. Friend the Minister and myself on the matters before us. She has been doing precisely what every hon. Member in the House would want her to do—proceeding in a robust, but sensible and pragmatic manner and trying to make realistic achievements in a very difficult forum. I note the

  1013
  points that the hon. Gentleman made about schedule 1, about calves' bedding and feeding practices and I shall draw them to the attention of my hon. Friends who are responsible for those matters.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked what other welfare measures we are producing. We are proud of our presently high standards, but, of course, it would be complacent to suggest that they are not capable of further improvement. We have undertaken—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will be pleased—not to introduce any new measures on a unilateral basis if that would undermine the competitive position of UK producers. As a member of the European Union, we see the way forward as being through pan-European legislation and our aim is to see our own high standards accepted and adopted by our European partners.
  In a bit of unbelievable waffle, the hon. Member for North Cornwall talked about the need for an independent commission on animal welfare. There already is one: it is called the Farm Animal Welfare Council. It is an independent body made up of members representing many areas of interest. It has total freedom to report, to recommend and to publish all that it does.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow made an important speech. I accept and understand his concerns, and those of the farmers whose interests he spoke about today. However, I do not accept that high standards of welfare are inimical to profit. Indeed, at the Norfolk show today, I was shown by a major supermarket some excellent welfare-friendly pork which is achieving remarkable results in its stores.
  I note my hon. Friend's views about the pig industry and I endorse them. It is a splendid operation and we value it. My hon. Friend is right to mention the difficulties in the abattoir sector. I note all the points that he made, and I can assure him that we will bear them in mind.
  I urge the House to adopt these important regulations which will be of great benefit to animal welfare in this country. I thank hon. Members for taking part in such an interesting and well-informed debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

  Services for Members
  [Relevant document: Part of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Finance and Services Committee on 21st June (House of Commons Paper No. 518-i).]
  8 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move,
  That this House approves the First Report from the Information Committee, on The Provision of a Parliamentary Data and Video Network (House of Commons Paper No. 237), and the First Report from the Committee of Session 1992–93, on The Provision of Members' Information Technology Equipment, Software and Services (House of Commons Paper No. 737).
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to debate the following motion:
  That this House takes note of the recommendation contained in the First Report of the Broadcasting Committee, House of Commons Paper No. 323 of Session 1991–92, that a clean television feed of proceedings in the Chamber should be made available to Members in their Parliamentary offices on completion of the Parliamentary Data and Video Network; but endorses the Resolution of the Broadcasting Committee of 27th June, set out in the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee, House of Commons Paper No. 533-i, that, in view of the information now available about the likely timetable for installing the network, work should be undertaken separately from the network with a view to supplying a clean feed to Members with offices in the Parliamentary outbuildings from the beginning of the 1994–95 Session, and thereafter as it becomes technically feasible in each outbuilding, with the aim of completing the process by the end of the Summer Recess of 1995, and that the House authorities should examine the scope for accelerating the provision of a similar facility to Members with offices in the Palace of Westminster, as part of the programme for establishing the network.
  Mr. Bennett: I shall start by conveying to the House the apologies of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) who is not here. I think that he is lying flat on his back. He has had considerable trouble with his back over the past few months, and has had treatment for it—I am not sure whether he had an operation yesterday. I am sure that the whole House will want to wish him well.
  We should be especially grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Many hon. Members, having spent two years working away to prepare a report for the House, would have liked to have their moment of glory and present it to the House. It would have been easy for the hon. Gentleman to say that we should put off the debate for a week or two, in which case he might well have been here to move the motion himself. However, he was especially keen that the report be approved as soon as possible, and that is why he asked me if I was prepared to move it on his behalf.
  In moving the motion, I thank the specialist advisers to the Information Committee, Professor Bob Hynds and Mr. Philip Virgo, the Clerk of the Committee, and a large number of officers of the House who provided information and helped us a great deal in preparing the report. I also thank Richard Morgan, the computer officer, other members of the Information Committee and the user group that was set up, whose members provided us with a great deal of valuable information on the way in which networks work. In that regard, I thank especially Mrs. Bray and Mr. Crum-Ewing, representing the Westminster branch of the Transport and General Workers Union and the Secretaries and Assistants Council.
  When I first came to the House some 20 years ago, I was a little surprised in some ways to find that there were still old scratchy pens in the Lobby and the Library, and there

  1015
  was still an ink monitor. I notice that the ink monitors still work their way through the Lobbies occasionally; the Library has moved on from scratchy pens to biros, although sometimes they disappear more quickly than the scratchy pens.
  That was about the only concession to modern technology within the building at that stage. One rarely found any computer screens. Even 10 years ago, it was not easy to find computer screens. However, if one now goes down through the Library, almost every desk has a computer on it; in many of the Departments of the House, computers are fairly commonplace, and the Departments are making excellent use of them.
  Some hon. Members will have noticed the big improvement in Hansard recently. It used to be frustrating that Hansard finished reporting the day's proceedings soon after 10 pm. On many nights now, it is able to report almost to midnight, although the House has not been sitting until that time lately. It is fairly rare for there to be a carry-over from one day to the next in Hansard. That is a tribute to both the people who work in Hansard and the way in which they use the new technology.
  Many of the Select Committee reports are now produced by the use of computers. That has cut down the repetitive typing work involved. We can see computers in the Serjeant at Arms' Department and in almost every other Department.
  I suppose that the biggest improvement is the number of computers on the desks of hon. Members and their secretaries and researchers. Ten years ago, if we heard hon. Members, researchers or secretaries talking about computers, it was usually with a measure of fear and trepidation—they were wondering whether they could possibly give them a go. Nowadays, they are much more likely to be talking about which programme they should be using and how to get the best out of the programme to improve their efficiency. The House has accepted personal computers.
  What we are talking about today is how to get the benefit of all those developments to help hon. Members' with their constituency work and to enable them to be properly informed so that they are better able to scrutinise the Executive—how we can bring it all together and get the full benefit of it. It is clear that that can be achieved only with a network.
  We have now had an experiment. It took the House of Commons a long time to agree to an experiment, but just before the 1992 election it was agreed that there would be one. We have now done that experiment and the report on it is before the House tonight. Of course, there were some problems with the experiment—I would not claim that everything went perfectly—but it was extremely useful. Having looked at the report, the House has the opportunity to see the potential of the network.
  The first thing that we must accept is that setting up the network will be expensive. There were a lot of fears in the Committee as to how much it would cost. The report makes it clear that it is difficult to come up with the precise cost for the network because of all the other implications, such as the fact that this is a historic building. I do not think that we have to worry too much about what happened 100 years ago; we must worry more about what happened 20 years ago in terms of the problems that arose when asbestos was found, and the fact that it was sealed up.
  Much of the cost of putting in the network simply relates to putting the building into a good state of repair
  1016
  and ensuring that we have the best facilities in terms of fire warnings, the telephone network and so on. I do not think, therefore, that hon. Members should be too worried about the cost. I have also noticed that as regards computers—they represent one of the few areas in which this has been happening—there has been a tendency recently for costs to come down rather than go up. I believe that the problem of cost can be overcome. I am delighted that the Finance and Services Committee supports the Committee's recommendations and that in the end the Government will not veto the expenditure.
  The other worry from the Committee's point of view was the time scale. There are many worries about that. In many ways, it hinges on the attitude of hon. Members. Looking around the Chamber, I suspect that most hon. Members who are here tonight are probably sympathetic to the idea and would be happy to be moved out of their office for a weekend, or perhaps even longer, to facilitate the introduction of the network. Other hon. Members—probably those who are not present tonight—are less sympathetic to such moves.
  The time scale comes down to the extent to which hon. Members, their secretaries and researchers are prepared to put up with disruption while the cabling work is carried out. I hope that there will be fairly rapid movement. I hope that people will be so keen to be on the network that they will be prepared to put up with more disruption. However, that is clearly a question of balance.
  So far, I have talked about the first report—that dealing with the provision of a parliamentary data and video network. We are also considering the report from the last Session which dealt with the more difficult issue of the original recommendation of the top salaries review: instead of hon. Members' having an allowance to buy the computer equipment they needed, the House should provide them with it. The Committee again took fairly detailed evidence and, in the end, came up with a compromise. The Committee felt that it would be better to leave it to Members to decide at their individual discretion where to make their purchases, but that the House should offer a general recommendation. That is a sensible compromise.
  When I first became involved with computers, I was very worried about them, but I was persuaded that using an Apple Mac machine would be easy. I do not think that I was actually told that any idiot could find his way around it, but that is what was implied, and it has given me some computer literacy.
  It would be unfair on new Members coming into the House and to people coming to work in the House who had just started to master a particular computer system if they were then told that they had to standardise on a particular system which was provided by the House. When members of the Select Committee were in Canada taking evidence, we got the impression from some Canadian Members of Parliament that the fact that their House prescribed particular pieces of equipment and computer programs was rather restrictive.
  I could speak at length about the reports, but I am conscious that we have a very limited time. As the mover of the motion, I shall be able, with the leave of the House, to respond to points raised during the debate. I shall finish with just one comment about motion No. 5, which deals with the live feed. That is tied in with the other motion because, unless we get the network, it will be very difficult to ensure that the live feed is available.

  1017
  Some people have said that, if hon. Members can watch proceedings in the Chamber in their rooms, they will not bother to come to the Chamber. It is interesting to note that Tuesday and Thursday afternoons from 3 o'clock to half-past 3, the two occasions during the week on which Members can do just that—sit in their rooms, put on BBC2 and watch the proceedings—are when the Chamber is actually at its most crowded; people do take the trouble to come.
  I find it odd that if I am able to get home early to the Barbican, I can, if I want, watch what is going on in the Chamber because it is on the network there, but I cannot watch it in my office in the House. I realise that it can be argued that it would be fairer if everyone were able to have that facility. I certainly hope that the House will approve both motions tonight.
  8.13 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): May I first take the opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for his generous remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)? The remarks were well deserved, given the amount of work that my hon. Friend put into the report. I am sure that he, like me, is grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kindness.
  My main role in the debate is simply as Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee and as a member of the Finance and Services Committee in relation to the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper concerning what the hon. Gentleman just referred to—the provision in Members' offices of what is known as the clean feed of television pictures from the Chamber.
  Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to the helpful work, in the Broadcasting Committee's consideration of matters, of the Clerk to the Committee, David Doig; of the present supervisor of parliamentary broadcasting, Margaret Douglas; of her predecessor, John Grist and of our other adviser, Bob Longman, in enabling us to consider these matters.
  Before I set out as briefly as I can the complicated background to the motion, I should just like to note—perhaps more in my role as Leader of the House—that this is the first debate following the creation of the new structure of domestic Committees after the recommendations in the House of Commons services report, known as the Ibbs report, with the House's assumption of financial control for its own accommodation and works.
  The new service—in this case the parliamentary data and video network—is proposed by the relevant domestic Committee. The views of the Finance and Services Committee are available and the House is invited to give a general endorsement, which I hope will happen later this evening. Thereafter, the details of the implementation are a matter for decision by the Finance and Services Committee and the Commission.
  I should perhaps say to the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee, hopes to be able to come to the House tonight in time to contribute to the debate, but he has been delayed on his way here. If
  1018
  he is not able to speak, I may—with the leave of the House and as long as I do not shut out other speakers—speak later on behalf of the Committee.
  Since the televising of the House's proceedings was approved on a permanent basis three years ago, there has been steady pressure from different parts of the House for Members to be able to follow events in the Chamber from their parliamentary offices. Even though the convenience of having the facility is obvious, it is fair to say that hitherto not all Members have favoured such a development. The division of opinion in the House was reflected in the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House, as it was then known, when it first considered the issue in July 1990.
  While acknowledging the benefits that access to the clean feed would bring to Members—particularly those in the parliamentary outbuildings—the Committee rejected the idea on three main grounds. These were: the possible adverse effect on attendance in the Chamber; the possible element of intrusiveness in offices shared by more than one Member or in offices where there was only a thin party wall; and the cost of the necessary wiring and sets.
  Two years later, what is now the Broadcasting Committee—which I now chair—reconsidered the subject following further representations from Members and decided that the position taken by its predecessor was no longer tenable. There were two main reasons for that change of heart. The first was that the availability to cable subscribers of the parliamentary channel's continuous coverage had brought home to many Members the existence of a facility which others could have, but to which they were denied access in their offices in the House. The second related to technological developments within the House, notably the proposed installation of the parliamentary data and video network which we are debating tonight.
  As the Committee put it,
  "we believe that the deliberate exclusion from the proposed…network of the live pictures of the House's own proceedings would strike increasing numbers of Members as increasingly odd".
  The Committee was undoubtedly right in that.
  The Committee attached one important condition to its recommendation that the clean feed be included in the package of services. That was that, in order to avoid creating different classes of Members, the clean feed should not be available to any Members in any part of the estate until it was available to all Members in all parts of the estate.
  That is where matters stood until the publication of the recent report of the Information Committee, to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spoke just now. On the basis of more up-to-date evidence than was available to the Broadcasting Committee in 1992, the Information Committee invited the Broadcasting Committee to reconsider its recommendation on the clean feed on the grounds that the likely time scale for completing the installation of the PDVN was now significantly longer—up to seven years—than was the case when the Broadcasting Committee first discussed the matter.
  In agreeing to the Information Committee's suggestion to reconsider, the Broadcasting Committee recognised two main areas of concern. One was the overall timetable for the installation of the PDVN in which the clean feed was to be included, and the other was the position of Members in outbuildings. Those in offices in Norman Shaw north

  1019
  and south were seen as being at a particular disadvantage, as compared with colleagues both in the House and in other outbuildings with more modern facilities.
  The Broadcasting Committee therefore asked the Director of Works to look at the feasibility of adopting a different approach which would achieve an accelerated provision of the clean feed to all parliamentary outbuildings. I would like to express my thanks to the Director of Works for the prompt way in which he has responded to the Committee's request and come forward with new proposals.
  The proposals, if implemented, would mean that Members in all the outbuildings would have access to the clean feed by the end of the summer recess of 1995. The cabling work to achieve that would be carried out separately and in advance of the installation of the PDVN as a whole. But as a significant proportion of the cabling and ducting work can later be used in connection with the PDVN, the additional unavoidable cost of an accelerated approach to the clean feed is estimated to be very small in relation to the project as a whole—£60,000 to £70,000. I hope that the House will agree that that is a relatively modest sum for a worthwhile improvement in the services available to Members.
  The detailed costings will, of course, have to be considered by the Finance and Services Committee and the House of Commons Commission, which Madam Speaker chairs. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned, I should point out to the House that some hon. Members may face some disturbance twice—once while the work on the clean feed is carried out and then again when the full network is installed. It is hoped that that disturbance can be kept to a minimum by concentrating work as far as possible during recesses—in particular, the summer recess.
  The Broadcasting Committee accepted the revised proposals as a sensible compromise, which meets the legitimate concerns of Members with offices in the parliamentary outbuildings. In some cases—for example, No. 1 Parliament street and No. 7 Millbank—the necessary wiring is already in place and little or no additional work is needed. The Committee therefore also decided that it would be sensible if the feed were made available in each outbuilding as it became technically feasible, starting from the beginning of the next Session, 1994–95. That does not, however, affect the overall target date of the end of the 1995 summer recess for the completion of the process outside the main building. In effect, we are talking about a project to make the clean feed available to all the outbuildings in the course of the next Session of Parliament.
  For Members in the main building, for whom access to the Chamber is much more convenient, the Committee has expressed the hope that the timetable for installing the PDVN, and with it the clean feed, can be speeded up. The Director of Works is already in the process of reviewing this matter, although I obviously cannot predict or pre-empt the outcome.
  Those conclusions of the Broadcasting Select Committee are embodied in a resolution contained in the extract from the Committee's minutes of proceedings, which have been laid before the House. As the proposal from the Committee affects the convenience of individual Members and has possible implications for the way the
  1020
  House works, it is clearly right that any decision in principle should be taken by the House as a whole. It is for the House to decide where the balance of advantage lies.
  For my part, speaking in my capacity as Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee, I hope that the House will approve the motion standing in my name, as well as the other motion. At the same time, I should like to express my personal hope that the House will accept the propositions put before it by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for introducing this important debate. In common with him, I support all three resolutions.
  Before I proceed to discuss the matters of substance, I should like to identify the parliamentary Opposition with the remarks made by my hon. Friend and by the Leader of the House about the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). We wish him a speedy recovery and we regret that he cannot be here tonight.
  I should also like to thank the Leader of the House for usefully sketching in the background to the debate and, in particular, explaining the background to the Broadcasting Select Committee resolution which is before the House for consideration.
  The House has been asked to express a view on a range of issues and our debate is helpfully informed by reports from the Information Select Committee and the Broadcasting Select Committee. We also have before us the resolution from the Broadcasting Select Committee, to which I just referred. Less excitingly for those in favour of reform, or any progress, we have before us the minutes of the Finance and Services Select Committee.
  It seems perfectly clear that the majority of Members wish to retain freedom of decision-making in the provision of office equipment. That, frankly, does not surprise me. There are a range of reasons for that. The obvious ones are that different Members prioritise their work in different ways; different constituencies require different priorities from their Members of Parliament and some Members have support from other sources, whether commercial, through their own professional lives, or perhaps even from their own constituency parties, which are able to provide office equipment and other support that other parties and other constituencies cannot provide.
  On page 7 of the Information Select Committee report, the consultants who recommended central provision of equipment claim that Members of Parliament wish to move from the 651 "tiny businesses" model towards a company model. That is highly unlikely to be true, and the responses from hon. Members which are quoted in the appendix to the report do not bear it out. The Committee accurately assesses the views of Members in paragraph 19 on page 7 and in subsequent paragraphs.

  Hon. Members mistrust central provision and I think that they are probably right to do so. Decisions on matters of this kind should not be handed over to the Executive or to the Government's business managers—by which I mean the Executive and the Government business managers of whatever party and not just the present regime, although on previous occasions I have noted its authoritarian tendencies. In my view, Members should safeguard what independence of decision-making they have. Each of us

  1021
  should be allowed to do the job that we have been elected to do to the very best of our abilities and we should each make our own decisions on how best to go about that.
  I do not believe that there is much of a future for shared computer systems paid for from our allowances. The submission in appendix 15 of the Information Select Committee report, submitted by Consort Systems Ltd., suggests that we could all put our information on the same computer and ensure through encryption that the data files created and used by members of one political party could not be accessed by members of another party. The company goes on to recommend that different constituencies within the same political party could, however, readily transfer between their respective computers, should they wish to do so. That recommendation slightly misses one or two nuances about this place.
  It occurred to me, however, that if we had such arrangements in place in the Treasury, a joint paper could be issued on its attitude to a single European currency. The Chancellor could make his amendments to the document, the Chief Secretary could then make his, and so on: the result would be one document, but its contents would depend on who got to it last.
  A separate debate has been conducted on what should be provided physically for Members here in the parliamentary estate and what should be paid for separately out of our allowances. The Information Select Committee report cheerfully refers to equipment for Members' constituency offices. The truth is that there is no guaranteed provision of a constituency office for a Member of Parliament. London Members can use the House of Commons offices, but the rest of us have to pay rent, telephone bills, cleaning costs and equipment and staffing costs from our existing secretarial allowances.
  There is a strong case for reviewing what hon. Members are expected to be able to do and what they should have provided for them in their constituencies and at Westminster. The conditions in Parliament are primitive when compared with other legislatures. For example, we are provided with telephones, but even in this day and age, if we want a facsimile machine, we have to go out and buy it. The parliamentary estate will, of course, provide us with the telephone link and cover the bill, provided it is run from the House.
  The report from the Information Select Committee makes some useful suggestions about training and maintenance. Once those recommendations were in the hands of the Finance and Services Committee, however, it said that they would have to be paid for from existing office costs allowance.
  The Information Committee report also contains a recommendation that lists of available equipment should be made available to Members. So far no one seems to have come up with a good reason why that suggestion should be thwarted, so perhaps that reasonably harmless recommendation might get implemented, unless its inclusion was an oversight on the part of the Government's business managers.
  That brings me to the twin and related issues of the cabling of the parliamentary estate and access to the clean feed. In paragraph 7 on page v of the first report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting, we are told:
  "Whilst it would, in theory, be possible relatively quickly to provide the clean feed to Members' offices in those buildings (for
  1022
  example, No 1 Parliament Street, No 7 Millbank and Speaker's Court) which are already cabled for the purpose, it would clearly not be an economic proposition elsewhere in the Parliamentary estate to undertake this work as a separate project in advance of the main cabling exercise described in the preceding paragraph."
  That turns out to be completely untrue, as the resolution from the Committee meeting of Monday 27 June makes clear and as the Leader of the House made clear tonight.
  The resolution is the unanimous view of the Committee and is presented to the House as such. Although I support it, it represents a compromise. It is intended to be as fair as possible to hon. Members in parliamentary outbuildings. The proposal is to bring the parliamentary feed to all the outbuildings by the end of the next Session and to bring the feed on stream at the beginning of the next Session where that can be done, notably at 7 Millbank and 1 Parliament street.
  That raises a further question about making television services as well as the clean feed available to Members of Parliament. The retention of existing annunciators seems archaic and almost beyond reason. The sets cost more than conventional TV sets and convey hardly any information. Only a place like this could invent such an obtuse and pathetic method of conveying information. Those who favour the system can no doubt find someone else who wants to buy it.
  Members of Parliament should have direct access in their offices to the clean feed from the Chamber, terrestrial television, Sky News and Sky Sport, as well as the central computer network support identified by the Information Committee. We should also have the same written statement as we have now, or something similar, to tell us what is happening in the Chamber.
  An entire major British city can be cabled in a shorter time scale than that proposed by the Director of Works, under the direction of the Accommodation and Works Select Committee, for the Parliament building alone. I had an opportunity to listen to the matter being debated in detail in the Broadcasting Select Committee and I proposed that we bring in the private sector to do the job. My proposal was enthusiastically supported by the parliamentary Labour party representatives, but resisted by the forces of reaction represented among Tory Members We did our best to make progress but were constantly told that progress could not be made. I do not believe a word of it. The suggestion that it would take seven years to cable this building was absolutely ridiculous.
  A further obvious thought is that the provision of support for Members of Parliament is decided in an episodic and essentially random way. This building and the collection of outbuildings surrounding it are not suited to the running of a modern Parliament. The failure to make a structured provision to support Members of Parliament exacerbates those problems. Every now and then, Back-Bench Members raid those issues and try to improve their lot. The Executive and the Government's business managers then try to claw back any gain that the rank and file have made.
  Unfortunately, it is in the Executive's interest to keep other Members of Parliament as under-resourced as possible, so a huge fight is put up over relatively minor issues such as the provision of the clean feed. We are told that it is too difficult to provide the clean feed in Members' offices; yet every Ministry already has it. The Executive's professional advisers can monitor the Chamber at their convenience and entirely at public expense. The security

  1023
  services, in their nice building south of the river, can also enjoy the clean feed, which is beamed across by satellite. But Members of Parliament cannot follow business in the Chamber while they work on other matters in their offices. Those arrangements clearly illustrate the priorities of the Executive. We should stand up for ourselves and assert the priorities of the House.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I agree with the recommendations made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I thank him for putting the case on which my colleagues on the Committee and our Chairman, who I hope will shortly be recovered, joined him for some two and a half years in careful study. The hon. Gentleman is an expert on the matter and I pay tribute to him for tutoring me on many aspects on which I was previously ignorant.
  The experience of the Select Committee, which considered the recommendations for the information technology network, or PDVN, led us to concentrate not just on providing services for those who were technologically minded but on trying to make the technology really available and useful to hon. Members and Departments of the House, bearing in mind that hon. Members were not always computer literate and that therefore any system that we recommended must be user friendly.
  Our recommendations were based on a pilot scheme, on which I was honoured to serve, the aims of which were primarily to decide the usefulness of the services provided by the network, the network's security, quality and technical reliability, the quality of training which hon. Members might receive, the quality of help desk facilities that hon. Members might need or encounter, and possible new services which might be available through the network. Colleagues on the Select Committee were not all experts or so-called computer buffs. Although many were experts, we were extremely careful to make recommendations that were useful and helpful to hon. Members.
  Above all, we strove to ensure that the network and services, if recommended and adopted by the House, would be of real service to hon. Members, that they would be user friendly, and that those aspects of particular use to Members were concentrated on first. Typically, those would be the help desk and training, aspects of the parliamentary on-line information system, POLIS, easy access to information services such as news bulletins' easy access to procedural matters such as the selection of amendments which come before the House and in due course better access to Hansard.
  The ability rapidly to transfer information between hon. Members, their staff and the House, and in due course their constituencies, was also considered at length. We considered carefully the provision of video facilities, television, teletext, the annunciator system, and so forth, bearing in mind that our recommendations should stand the test of time and be improved as and when new technology and finances were available. One of our principal objectives was to make the work of hon. Members and their staff in the House more time-effective so that they could serve their constituents better.
  I am happy to commend the motions to the House, but I am extremely grateful for the motion commended by the Leader of the House because, throughout the Committee's
  1024
  deliberations, I raised the matter frequently and was particularly concerned about it. It would be illogical to have a first-class PVDN system, a network and computer access to news bulletins without being able to watch our proceedings in the House.
  The Leader of the House rightly referred to different classes of hon. Members—some with clean feed and some without. An invidious position has arisen whereby, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) pointed out, Ministries and others have the clean feed while hon. Members, whose job it is to scrutinise everything that goes on in the House and particularly what is produced by the Executive, do not. Furthermore, the custom has been broken so that the Whips Offices have the clean feed while some senior hon. Members, such as Chairmen of Select Committees, do not.
  I am therefore particularly grateful to the Leader of the House for commending the motions. I hope that the House will approve them and I commend them both to the House.
  8.38 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) chose the right target in blaming the Government for all the difficulties in the development of the field that we are discussing. I have known sufficient Leaders of the House and Ministers who have tried to press things on both sides of the House over the years. I am afraid that the administration of the House of Commons is the real obstacle—the vested interests built up in this place, with which hon. Members do constant battle. They are perhaps winning more than they used to.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: To clear the point up, I think that there is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says.
  Dr. Bray: I am grateful, and I am sure that the Leader of the House—
  Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman will kindly allow another intervention, I refrained with great difficulty from intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) because, given how helpful I have been about this lot, I thought that the criticism was a bit unfair.
  Dr. Bray: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ought to sit down at that point.
  It is right to leave the provision of equipment to the individual responsibility of Members, to finance under their own office costs allowance. Individual procurement has produced, in recent years, a far faster rate of penetration of new techniques in the House than it would have done if there had been a centrally provided House of Commons service on the pattern of some past proposals that have been put to the House, which I, in those days, opposed.
  It is a rapidly moving sector. Individual Members have their existing stock of equipment; they have different requirements; they have different types of software. It is sensible to leave it to their initiative, with the wide range of advice available to Members.
  I see no harm in having registered suppliers. It helps to get Members going. It helps to introduce new technologies. The multi-media field will grow. Members will need help in getting their compact discs going on their machines and

  1025
  so on, so there should by all means be some registered suppliers. However, those suppliers will never be able to compete with the prices that one can obtain in the mail order pages of the computer magazines, which we all buy on our way to and from our constituencies.
  I see no harm in site licences for commonly used software, but Members will quickly drift away from any site licence standard. Some of them will want to upgrade faster; others will want to move more slowly, and any central licence provision would not cope with the variety of Members' needs; but that does not mean that, if there were a site licence, it would not meet the needs of some.
  Training is always valuable, and I am sure that the idea of partly providing that in house and being prepared to buy in training facilities to meet peak demands, as at the beginning of a new Parliament, is a good idea.
  As to the PDVN, on the initial question of the content of the services, yes, the live feed and the television access are obviously of common importance. However, for evidence of the data services available, we are indebted to the evidence from our own staff, from the representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union and the Secretaries and Assistants Council, who provided one of the only two lists of actual services that appear in the records of the Committee.
  The Library, which provides the other list, makes an important distinction, on page 102 of the first report of the Information Committee 1993–94, between the "minimum services", which should be provided without a doubt—POLIS, CD-ROM server, Library and Statistical Section servers and so on—and what it calls "desirable services"
  I think that the "desirable services" are essential for the development of an open and developing system: for example, the independent access by Members to the Press Association's Telpress service, the access to electronic mail—external electronic mail, not internal House of Commons electronic mail—to Internet, of course to JANET and to Super-JANET and the possibility of fax transmission, inward and outward, and fax storage.
  The range of information services that will be available electronically will increase enormously in future, as almost all printed material is now generated by electronic means and the electronic form of it will become available to networks. I find it extraordinary that we have allowed the situation to develop where our own Library does not even have a site licence for access to Hansard.
  We may be right in having forgone setting up the House of Commons Library as a copyright library, in the way that the Library of Congress is in the United States, but for us not to have access to the record of our own words is a bit rich. We should certainly make it a condition that all Her Majesty's Stationery Office-generated material should be available, free of charge, to Members through the House of Commons, in the same way that printed material is.
  On the openness of services, the practical freedom with which that will operate will depend enormously on the use of industry-standard software and hardware in this place. I confess that I am more than a little alarmed at the jargon in the technical report on the actual type of network to be installed in annex A on page 15 to the memorandum from the Director of Finance and Administration and the Computer Officer. I am not sure, from that, the extent of fibre-optic use in the network and the extent of coaxial
  1026
  cable or even twisted pair, but we are already wide users of fibre-optic networks in our own offices, and for that not to be the standard that is used throughout the building and outbuilding and so on seems absurd.
  When, in my constituency, all my constituents will be on fibre-optic networks shortly—the United Artists network—they will want personal interviews with their Members on their own private channel in the Netherton ward of Motherwell on a Friday evening. I shall be happy to provide that, provided that that link is into my office, both at home, where it will be provided by United Artists, I am sure, and also from this place.
  It is not only the hardware that needs to develop rapidly in terms of industry standards, but the software and the types of software that will be required. Nowadays, we have authoring systems with the capacity to produce those clever information booths, such as we have down below in the Meteorological Office weather forecasting terminal. The authoring of that type of service—public access, public inquiry systems and so on—will be well within the capacity of the good, competent research assistants that hon. Members on both sides of the House employ in large numbers.
  We are in a hugely rapidly moving field, and unless we have open and industry-standard systems, Parliament will lag far behind. I think that the spirit of Members—it is clearly and well set out in the report—is to open it up and let it rip. I am sure that the my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East is right—seven years is nonsense.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: I join in the tributes that have been paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for the hard work that he has put into the preparation of the report. Given the speed of the cabling operations that are now under way in Leeds and Bradford, I like to think that, even if he is lying on his sick bed, he may be watching our proceedings at this moment. Whether that will hasten his recovery is a different matter.
  There is no job specification for a Member of Parliament. Each of us chooses to do our job in the way that we best deem fit. For many of us, if not for all, a PDVN system is a fundamental necessity to do the job that we think we ought to be doing.
  It seems to me that four specific aspects are crucial. The first is what we as individuals want out of the system. Members may want different things; they may want electronic mail or access to databases. I find the British Rail planning system quite useful—when the trains are running. It is good that we can have bolt-on services; they will give Members for the first time the chance to operate in an IT framework—most commercial and industrial organisations would have taken that for granted a decade ago.
  We shall now be able to link the various services available in Westminster, in the Library and in Whitehall, and that will give us easier and more rapid transfer of knowledge, which will be all to, the good. As a result, we will be able to respond much more quickly to the needs of our constituents.
  Increasingly, Members of Parliament want constituency offices with which they can communicate electronically.

  1027
  Nowadays, our secretaries often work in the constituencies, so Members want their post dealt with there but printed out here, so that it can be sent off expeditiously. There is no reason why that should not be done.
  I find access to the system from home invaluable at weekends and during recesses, particularly when I cannot use the excellent services of the House Library but want access to the latest information. I hope that Library briefs will be available on the system before long. I would find them extraordinarily useful when I am rung up by a local radio station at 8 o'clock in the morning and asked to contribute to a programme in an hour's time. It would be very useful to check information that may be discussed on the programme.
  It must therefore be obvious that the Committee was absolutely right to dismiss out of hand the idea of central planning of what should be available. That will enable each of us to add to the system the peripherals that we find suitable. I am beginning to experiment with the CD-ROM drive and Hansard on them, and that too is valuable. I am sure that others will find it advantageous as well.
  When the Committee visited other Parliaments to see their networks and to examine how they worked, I was struck by the arrogant element in the decisions by other Administrations to tell their Members what they needed —the poor dears could not understand the systems for themselves, so they had to have what was given them. It was noticeable that the equipment lacked the capacity to keep up with the times and could not reflect sudden changes, or indeed, provide Members with what they would have chosen had they controlled their systems and budgets themselves.
  Similarly, it is absurd that Members cannot have a clean feed at the earliest possible opportunity. When it was put to us that the system would take about seven years to put in place, I was as horrified as everyone else. I do not think that any of us would be able to force a change of view, but in the Committee we expressed our horror at that delay. As has been said already, it would take that long to cable a major city in the United Kingdom. That cannot be right. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give the matter serious consideration, and will press for whatever is needed to bring in a modern system at the earliest possible date.
  The pilot scheme has proved a great success with the hon. Members who participated in it. The measure of that success is the number of other hon. Members who are asking to join the system, but who, because of its limited budgetary arrangements, cannot do so.
  We have a flexible and easily adapted system for the future, and I hope that the House will give it its warmest approval this evening.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: As a serving member of the Finance and Services Committee, I should like to make a brief contribution. Earlier, the Leader of the House said that this was the first debate following the creation of the new domestic Committees recommended in the Ibbs report, and it is therefore something of an historic occasion.
  The motions before us have been produced by the House's own domestic Committees, charged with the duty of giving detailed consideration to all these issues. They have produced immensely useful work, and we should pay
  1028
  tribute not only to the hon. Members for Denton And Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) but to the members of staff who assisted the process. The tributes to them all are well merited.
  We are engaged in an important process, in which the House has the chance to take a view on the work of the Committees, so that their recommendations can be returned and implemented by the Finance and Services Committee and by the House of Commons Commission. This is the first evidence we have had that the Ibbs committee procedure is working, and I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for making as much progress as he has. He was made responsible for bringing the process together and for setting up the system. The comments made earlier, to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the delay, were very far from the truth.
  I was heartened to find in 1984, only 12 short months after my election to this House, that we were turning our attention to what I considered the important question of information technology.
  Unfortunately, nothing happened for the next 10 years, until the creation of the Ibbs Committee system and the new urgency with which the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee dealt with these matters. That is all to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman. He will excuse me if I say that he is no power user of personal computers; he may be a powerful PC, but he himself would acknowledge that he is not a power user of PCs.
  I am pleased that we have come so far so fast. It has been intimated that it may take seven years to implement the full system, and the Committee has found that acceptable. Now it is for the House to take a view, which is what we have been doing this evening. I am sure that the Commission and the Committee will pay careful attention to what has been said here.
  I was impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). It is good to know that the official Opposition are so progressive. Some senior members of the Opposition—indeed of all parties —are Luddites, but we have to learn to live with these technologies as best we may.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I do not know how closely the hon. Gentleman follows current affairs, but the Labour party is going through a period of transition.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I can only hope that the PDVN assists the process.
  We need continually to investigate better ways of doing our job. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) was right about that, and the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) also had some important things to say along the same lines. If one wants to improve the legislative process, the scrutiny of the Executive and our ability to represent our constituents' interests, we must always seek ways to improve the efficiency of this place.
  Information systems which enable us to make better use of our time and resources must be embraced and welcomed, as far and as fast as resources allow. The transfer of information between Members and their staff and between Westminster and our constituencies will, during the next two or three years, become increasingly important.
  Looking at the matter the other way round, the prospect of not accepting the recommendations and abandoning the

  1029
  work that has been done is inconceiveable. The only question is how far and how fast we make progress. I hope that the House will assist that process by accepting the recommendations.
  I have two caveats. First, I do not know what other hon. Members think, but being over-ambitious about targets with information technology can lead to grief. We must become accustomed to the idea of developing individual systems in order to meet particular needs. There are particular needs within the Departments of the House, within the offices of Members of Parliament and within the offices of the shadow administration and Ministers. They will all need their own refined systems to do their particular work.
  What encourages me more than anything else about the burden of the report is that we are concentrating on getting the infrastructure right. I am sure that we should concentrate our resources on the main information byways and highways and getting in the cabling. I agree that we should be looking at fibre-optics as well. None of those things should be left out of the equation.
  However, the main thing is to put in the infrastructure so that the basic system exists into which people can dip, using and developing it in an individual way to the best of their ability and according to their needs. The core services proposed are an essential minimum in order that the system can be developed.
  The House will have to accept that some physical disruption will be inevitable if we are to speed up the introduction of the core system. I for one, as a member of the Finance and Services Committee, am prepared to face up to that. We also have to accept that there will be teething problems. But that is a small price to pay for the advantages that a properly run and used system can bring. The Finance and Services Committee considered the matter long and hard, and I am convinced that the investment is justified on a cost-benefit analysis in the long term.
  As was mentioned earlier, the training element must not be overlooked. That is as important an investment as the infrastructure. The rate at which the system can be expanded and developed depends a lot on training.
  I have two grouses that were referred to earlier, but which I wish to underscore. I make a particular plea for POLIS 3 to be developed as quickly as possible. It is a matter of some disappointment to hon. Members that we do not have access to the benefits and advantages of the higher specification of the system that was described as POLIS 3.
  A particular plea must also be made, which I hope will go out from the debate, to the Commission and to the Finance and Services Committee, for better and direct access to Hansard on line. As the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said, it is ridiculous that we do not have access to downloaded texts from the Official Report.
  If people are complaining that Whips have access to clean feed, at least it tells me, as a member of the usual channels in this place, where my 22 Members of Parliament are or are not at a given time. If we put cameras in some of the Bars, such as Annie's Bar, that would also help the Whips. I would go for full surveillance on some Back-Bench Members. [Interruption.] I may get into
  1030
  trouble as a Liberal Democrat for saying that, so I withdraw it. I was getting carried away with my own rhetoric. The clean feed is as important to Whips as it is to other Members, and the sooner we have it the better.
  Critical mass is an important element to the success of any proper network. The faster that people are signed up and make use of the network, the more use it will be to all of us. Between now and the next election will be a critical period for us. If we can use the intervening two or three years to put the core infrastructure and training in place, when the new intake comes, as it will, the new Members will be much more willing to embrace the system if we can offer it to them with training as soon as they arrive here. That is a great opportunity that we must not miss. If we do, it will be another four or five years before we have the same opportunity.
  I am grateful for the work that has been done. This is an encouraging report, which I hope the House will embrace with enthusiasm.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I join those hon. Members who have paid tribute to my. hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) who has worked hard on the Information Committee in the past few years and with whom I have had regular discussions about the progress of the work. I am not a member of the Committee but I have taken quite an interest in the parliamentary data and video network. It is important. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for the way in which he introduced the report today.
  It is a good report which covers a number of aspects of the parliamentary data and video network. It leads hon. Members into a difficult area in a readable manner.
  I pay tribute also to the staff who work on the parliamentary data and video network and to the consultants. Although they are not official House of Commons staff, they make it possible for us to join the network, and they work hard to connect our offices to it. I have had some favourable experiences. I am glad that my staff are connected to the network, and that I even have my own sub-network below the PDVN that allows me to communicate directly with my staff.
  I look forward to getting full control of the system this summer, to reduce the 80,000 pieces of paper that I estimate go through my office in a year. If we are honest, as I am sure we are, I am sure that we would admit that the odd piece of paper occasionally goes missing. How much easier it would be if many of those documents could be electronically captured and accessed with modern technology. I hope that will be one of the benefits of my office going as near-electronic as it possibly can in the next 12 months.
  The proposal before us is modest. It is a question of catching up not with 1994 but with some years back. Members of Parliament are dangerously behind in relation to the rest of the country. University students and others have moved on to electronic networking in their universities and beyond, to communicate worldwide. I am working with a number of schools in my constituency to help ensure that their pupils will be at the forefront of information technology education, so that Dover can attract the employers of the future. We want to compete for jobs with not only Europe and the rest of the country but —dare I say it—with my colleagues in the House in

  1031
  attracting the employers of the future, who look for young people trained in computer technology. It will be no use if Members of Parliament do not take the lead. Our constituents expect us to do that, and to understand the technology.
  I examined, as an accountant might do, the cost of the proposals. For a few years, it might cost £3,000 per annum per Member of Parliament. I remind the House that many of our constituents possess £3,000-worth of electronic equipment in their homes, perhaps without realising it—let alone in their offices. One pensioner wrote to me about his NICAM stereo video recorder, which cost more than £1,000. He is not particularly well off but is housebound, and regards that piece of equipment as important to him. If one adds the value of other domestic electronic equipment to be found in the homes of many of our constituents, it totals a considerable sum.
  The proposed expenditure is small by comparison with businesses. If one visits a senior manager's office in one's constituency or in the City, one will see secretaries using electronic equipment worth £20,000 or £30,000 that serves to connect the office with any part of the world. Many secretaries in London and throughout the country communicate on behalf of their bosses and companies with offices in Japan, America and elsewhere.
  It is important that Members of Parliament consider the PDVN not only on an insular basis, in respect of the House and Westminster, but how it might be used in communicating with the rest of the world.
  It is no good, however, if in doing so we set up a system that—according to the timetable in the report—might be installed by the year 2001, when many of our constituents have been using it since 1990 or 1992. The system must be modern and appropriate, and must enable us to communicate better with our constituents and take up their cases in Whitehall as soon as possible. We should accept nothing less than a one-year timetable; otherwise, perhaps heads should begin to roll.
  I do not mind if it takes a little over a year if the excuses are good, but I do not think that "There is a lot of asbestos in the basement of the House of Commons" or "This is an old building" are acceptable excuses. We must find ways of modernising the building to meet the needs of the modern age. I am fed up with the mice in the Tea Room and the quill pens in the Library: we should be operating in a proper environment, facing the electronic age and obtaining speedy questions to the representations of our constituents.
  Electronic mail and the PDVN must be introduced rapidly. I am not referring just to communications within Westminster; I am thinking of communication with Government Departments when we take up our constituents' cases, and communication with those constituents.
  The United States Congress has just begun an experiment. Through the Internet, a number of Congressmen are now receiving electronic mail from their constituents, and Congress committees can be contacted by that means. I know that because I recently joined the Internet, and have been communicating not only with people in America but with people all over the world. I have taken evidence for the Select Committee on Social Security from Americans whom I contacted by posting to a news group: ordinary American citizens have contributed information about the American child support system by that method.
  1032
  All that is possible, but we are taking things far too slowly. We are not obtaining information that is available in the rest of the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said earlier, we should be putting the Library on to the PDVN and making all its services—briefs and reports, for example—available to hon. Members in their constituencies. Hon. Members such as myself whose offices are in Millbank should be able to gain access to our offices from the Library via the PDVN when there are a large number of votes, as there will be in the next few weeks: there should be terminals in the Library for that purpose.
  The PDVN should be wired up to the Internet as soon as possible. The Internet is connected to some 2 million computers worldwide, and 40 million people are believed to have access to it. It has contact with 60 countries, and I understand that it is connected to 18 coffee houses in San Francisco. As the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) pointed out, there is a British system—Janet and Super Janet—which could be connected with the PDVN, and would provide a number of services for university students. Not only would it allow them to send questions to Members of Parliament; it could be a two-way process, allowing Members of Parliament more access to research work in universities and colleges.
  Some hon. Members will be concerned about the security implications, but we should consider all the possibilities. Unless we establish the right operation in the House of Commons, we shall not even begin to do that. It is perverse that I can read President Clinton's diary and find out his appointments—[Interruption.]—perhaps not all his appointments—when all too often I am not informed about when Ministers are coming to my constituency.
  We must address the issue of the PDVN and the Government databases. There are all sorts of databases in Whitehall that the Government make available to corporations and the corporate sector. Use of the databases is charged at £60 or £70 an hour and Members of Parliament do not have access to them under the present arrangements. That is wrong. We must have access to all Government databases so that we know what statistics and information the Government are producing.

  The PDVN must be made accessible in some way—I accept, in a secure way—to the public. We have to find a secure way of separating use by Members of Parliament from public use. There are companies that have worked out how it can be done. I understand that DEC has resolved the problem in America for its access to the Internet. It has set up a separate and secure access system.
  Since I have been on the Internet I have noticed a number of people out there who want access to Hansard. Many people have asked whether they can access the work of Parliament and the Government. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) because one learns something new from every debate. I had not fully appreciated the significance of the fact that "HMSO" appears on the bottom of Hansard. I was shocked to learn that as a consequence we have now given up the copyright. That is totally unacceptable. We must take back that copyright. We must make Hansard available not just to members of the British public but to members of the public all over the world who want to see what the British Parliament is up to.
  We are the mother of Parliaments and we are regarded by many people in the Commonwealth countries and in many of the 60 countries on the Internet as a Parliament

  1033
  that debates issues of the day in a way that they would like to discover. We should be making available to the rest of the world our debates and discussions. We must continue to be a leading Parliament.
  I should like to see us using our PDVN to access information in Europe. I want to have more control over Brussels. I am not satisfied with our control and influence over European issues in European debates. We should connect our PDVN so that we can access databases on the continent.
  Parliament is about conveying information. It is about using our speeches and words in our constituents' interests. It is about controlling the Executive and controlling the use of information that should rightly be available to Members of Parliament. We must move forward. The report is about moving forward and we should fully support it and the work of the PDVN.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Five hon. Members wish to catch my eye and we have about half an hour before we have to wind up. I make a plea for concise speeches.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: I do not understand why the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) objects to the provision of mice in the Tea Room. He should come to the Labour side where we have two who entertain us regularly after 11 o'clock. We have no objection to some of the mice in the Tea Room.
  I am a member of the Finance and Services Committee, and I am pleased to support the motions in the names of the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I congratulate them on their hard work and progressive achievements. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish for presenting the report.
  I thank all the staff who have helped in the production of the report. I know of the tremendous amount of work that has gone into the production of the report and the motions. When we read the documents and the report, it is easy to appreciate the large amount of work that has been done by everybody. I am pleased that some of the hon. Members involved have been mentioned. We will all benefit from the reports.
  The reports and resolutions to which the motions refer contain important proposals to provide hon. Members with the technological means to cope with the ever-increasing burden of parliamentary duties. The sooner the benefits of the proposed PDVN and the related facility of the clean feed of parliamentary proceedings are made available, not just to hon. Members and their staff in the outbuildings, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, in the Palace of Westminster itself, the better. I say that because we share an office upstairs above the No Lobby and we would be grateful for the provision of such facilities.
  I have the honour of being Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee. I have been privileged, along with my colleagues and their predecessors, to have played a part in on-going efforts to bring
  1034
  accommodation and facilities for hon. Members, their staff and House staff up to a reasonable standard. That has meant the acquisition and development of a number of outbuildings near the Palace of Westminster—an exercise which has recently yielded 127 extra offices for hon. Members at 7 Millbank and which will reach its culmination in 1999 when the exciting new parliamentary building, designed by Michael Hopkins and his partners, becomes available to hon. Members. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have noted that the facilities mentioned in the report will not be installed until seven years after 1999.
  In recent years, enormous strides have been made to improve the standards of hon. Members' office accommodation, which has now transformed the parliamentary estate into a campus of buildings. That welcome development emphasises the need for modern and effective methods of communication, and dictates that the technological means to bring about better communication must be in place as quickly as possible.
  I emphasise, however, that most major works projects in Parliament are necessarily limited to the summer recess. That, coupled with the need to minimise inconvenience, means that some projects need to be phased over more than one summer recess and, in some cases, over more than one year. It is important to understand that the programmes of work inevitably cause disruption and mean that Members and staff have to be relocated temporarily while their offices are refurbished.
  My Committee has foremost in its mind the need to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum and has instructed that all necessary steps, including consultation with those who will be affected, be taken to achieve that aim. That requires the co-operation and understanding of those involved. The report states that 327 hon. Members replied to the survey, and just over 50 per cent. stated that they wanted the facility. Members must appreciate, therefore, that there will be some disruption to their normal working life, even though it might be in the summer recess.
  I pay tribute, and it is rarely paid, to the Serjeant at Arms, the Deputy Serjeant at Arms, the Deputy Assistant Serjeant at Arms and particularly to Judy Scott Thomson and all the staff. They should be congratulated on the work that they have undertaken in speedily, readily and efficiently informing hon. Members of disruption while works are carried out.
  Hon. Members will recall that in March 1992, after the House had approved the Ibbs report but before the establishment of the Finance and Services Committee, the House approved the design of the new building in the first debate on a report from the Accommodation and Works Committee. My colleagues on the Committee and I will continue to monitor the progress of the new building. Should the House so decide, we will play our part in planning for the introduction of the new network of services as quickly as is practicable.
  As for the video side of the network, I accept the importance of Members being able to receive a televised clean feed of parliamentary proceedings in their offices, and I hope that serious consideration will be given to providing a satellite as well as a terrestrial broadcast. The value of regular televised news broadcasts was proved during the Gulf conflict, and Sky already provides a satellite service to the television viewing room. I hope that that aspect of television viewing can be incorporated into the planning for television reception for Members.

  1035
  I should say a lot more, but I realise that time is moving on, and my colleagues want to participate in the debate. Finally, I must point out that, as a result of the introduction of the overdue new facilities that we propose, some Members may not attend the debates in the Chamber. We all appreciate that Members serve on Committees. I refer in particular to the Leader of the House, whom I see so often in Committees that I attend; he cannot be expected to be in the Chamber all the time as well.
  I hope that people outside the House of Commons appreciate that Members of Parliament have other duties to perform, and realise that they may be serving the House and yet not in the Chamber. I hope that the media will play their part in ensuring that people outside Parliament understand that dilemma confronting Members of Parliament, and will not expect them to be in the Chamber for each and every debate.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. John Mc William: I preface my remarks by declaring an interest as a Member sponsored by the National Communications Union, because what I say concerns the telephone system too.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)—my fellow vice-chairman of the parliamentary information technology committee—my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and the Leader of the House on their speeches and the clarity of their remarks.
  Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said, some of the material is not clear. I am looking at the PDVN pilot technical review, and it looks as though what is being proposed is the tree and branch network, the branches being twisted pair. The old annunciators use one twisted quad, and the proposed network looks somewhat long in the tooth even now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East said that it took as long to cable this building as it takes to cable a major city. He is right, but that is only because of the method selected for this building. That need not be the same as the method selected for the outer buildings. As a result of the recommendations of the old Computer Sub-Committee, which I had the honour to chair 10 years ago, and which produced the original report, they were designed to take those possibilities on board.
  This building is technically an extremely difficult building to cable—but cable technology has not stood still in all that time, although to read the document one might think that it had. There have been developments such as blown fibre cabling; fibre optic cable can blown through existing conduits without disturbing anything. If a fibre optic cable comes in contact with a 250-volt bare wire, nothing happens: it is a better insulator than the insulation round the cable. So we do not need to worry about that.
  We could use far more inventive ways of cabling the building. I grant that that would cost a little more because of the cost of terminal equipment, but much of that cost would be saved. I note that another part of the report deals with the fire alarm system, the security system, the telephone system, the data system and the video system. They can all go through the same fibre, and still leave masses of spare bandwidth capacity, if it is done on a
  1036
  switch star rather than a tree and branch basis. I am sorry to have to use such terms, but there is no other way of describing the systems.
  We do not know what our successors in Parliament will need in 10 or 15 years' time. Things have changed dramatically in my 15 years in the House. The amount of paperwork, the things with which we have to deal and the information to which we need to have access have increased; the rate of change has been logarithmic and will continue. The people sitting in our places in 10 to 15 years' time will have a different perception of the system.
  The system must be resilient to technological change, so it must have the inherent bandwidth capability to take those developments. The system proposed at present, especially in this building, will not be able to do that. The position is easier in the outer buildings because they have wiring trays. It is difficult to cable in this building, but if we were imaginative, if we used new cabling technologies and if we were prepared to pay a little extra—although we could consider hanging the other systems on the fibre optic system—we would not have to wait until it was nearly time for me to retire before getting the system in this building. We could have such a system quickly and reasonably inexpensively, and we could get it done without detriment to the architectural heritage of this building, which is extremely important. We can get it done to cope with the reasonable needs of our successors in 10 to 15 years' time.
  9.30 pm
  Ms Janet Anderson: I endorse the thanks given to hon. Friends, other hon. Members and staff of the House who have made this debate possible. I have a particular interest in it. I first came to the House more than 20 years ago as a secretary. In those days, secretaries did not have individual telephones and we still used manual typewriters with carbon paper and flimsy copies. We have moved on, but not far enough.
  The Information Committee report concluded:
  "We recommend the phased introduction of a full Parliamentary Data and Video Network. It is a principal function of Parliament to oversee the actions of the Executive. Members have a responsibility to represent their constituents effectively. In both these key areas, we consider the provision of a full network would greatly increase the efficiency with which the House operates and the capacity of Members to cope with increasing workloads."
  Before compiling the report, the Information Committee conducted a questionnaire among Members of Parliament. More than 50 per cent. returned the questionnaires and more than half expressed a wish for the direct reception of the televised proceedings of the House. Direct access from their personal computers to the Official Report was requested by more than half who replied and almost as many required access to POLIS—the parliamentary on-line information service. Many showed an interest in having direct access to external information services, such as the F1' Profile which provides the ability to search for and retrieve the full text of items drawn from daily newspapers and other publications.
  The pilot scheme, to which hon. Members have already referred, has been successful and has been used extensively by members of staff as well as by Members of Parliament. Among the benefits of a full network would be direct access at any time to the Library and other information services, both from within and outside the parliamentary estate.

  1037
  As other hon. Members have said, such a system is especially important for Members who feel it increasingly important to have constituency offices. The majority of Opposition Members have such offices and I believe that many Conservative Members do as well.
  The use of electronically stored newspaper reference services, such as the FT Profile, and services now available on compact discs and CD-ROM in the Library are seen as a major benefit. CD-ROMs, although not necessarily providing full information, are cheaper as once they have been purchased, their use involves no further cost. Such cost considerations must be a major factor in any decision on the future expansion of the service.
  I believe that the service would enable hon. Members and their staff to make more effective use of their time and resources, which are always fully stretched, as we know. It would also help, certainly in the initial stages, to reduce the demand from Members on overworked and over-burdened Library staff who provide an excellent service for us all, but who must surely long for the day when we do not have to bother them with more trivial inquiries. That would no longer be necessary if all hon. Members had access to the data and video network.
  We are sent here by our constituents to represent their interests. We have a duty to ensure that we can do that as effectively as possible. As the Information Committee report concluded, the provision of a full network would greatly increase the efficiency with which the House operates and the capacity of Members to cope with the demands of their constituents.
  Therefore, we have a duty and a responsibility on behalf of our constituents to do what we can to ensure that a full network is provided for all hon. Members and their staff without further delay. I hope and feel that that is the mood of the House tonight.
  9.34 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: The Select Committee on Information was my first taste of the Committee process in the House after I was elected in the 1992 election. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), for his sterling work in chairing the Committee and, indeed, to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who moved the motion, because he has also done a tremendous amount of work on behalf of fellow Committee members.
  I joined that Committee as a result of a conversation with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) in which I expressed my frustration, as a new hon. Member, about the inadequacies of information technology in the building. At that, the hon. Member for Jarrow invited me to join the Select Committee on Information, and, as hon. Members will know, invitations from the hon. Member for Jarrow are not readily refused. I was delighted, because not only did I find myself at the heart of the debate about information technology, but, of course, because the Committee has important responsibilities in respect of the Library, which provides a sterling service for us all.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) made an interesting comment on the possibilities of what can happen from his house because of the evolution of IT systems. I find it quite extraordinary in this day and age that the gas board cannot lay a gas main to provide a
  1038
  service to my house, yet I can communicate with my constituency office and with my parliamentary office using the parliamentary data network in its pilot form. That network facility would greatly improve the efficiency of the operation of Members of Parliament and, indeed, improve the efficiency of the communication of information to our constituents, who are entitled to receive all information which emanates from this place.
  Only this week, I have needed to write a complicated letter in relation to a case which is currently in front of the Police Complaints Authority. That letter related to an enormous amount of files, some of which were here and some of which were in my parliamentary office. Instead of having to wait until next weekend, when I could get my hands on all the documentation, it was possible to put together the documents, have the letter typed at the other end, and have it checked, printed and signed by me at this end. Our constituents ought to demand such a service from us and I know that, increasingly, they will do so, because that is the sort of service that they will get from companies operating in the big, wide world outside.
  The Committee looked at the network and studied a number of examples of what happens in other countries. My hon. Friends have mentioned the Canadian system and the United States system, but one incredible statistic in the report is that, of all the countries in Europe, with the exception of one—Turkey—we do not have a parliamentary network. That is an extraordinary omission on our part and we are doing an enormous disservice to the efficiency of our offices and our constituents by not joining the current part of this century, let alone looking forward.
  One of the most basic facilities that I use heavily, which I commend to hon. Members to improve effectiveness, is the ability to control one's diary from three places simultaneously. It is an incredibly powerful tool. It needs some managerial control, or all sorts of people may end up controlling one's diary, but, with proper control, such facilities are possible.
  Recently, I found that I needed to communicate with an organisation in Geneva, with which I have had a number of contacts over the year. I did that simply by sending an E-mail message. It cost little more than the price of a local telephone call for the message to get into the Geonet network and be picked up by the mail box holder at the other end. It is a secure system; it works; it is efficient; and it is cheaper than transmitting all the message in a conventional telephone conversation. That is the sort of technology that this place needs.
  The services of the Library have been mentioned at length. The provision of those services through an extension of POLIS will be of enormous benefit to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I shall refer to the comments that have been made about cabling and the timetable. It is clear that we should examine—what my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), with his expertise in telecommunications, said is right—the cable technology of tomorrow in the context of all the low-voltage services that we need around the building.
  Mr. McWilliam: My hon. Friend should understand that I was talking about the cable technology of today, not the cable technology of tomorrow.
  Mr. Miller: I totally accept that, but the reason why I used that expression is that I believe it is technology that

  1039
  has a long lifespan ahead of it because, unlike many other areas of technology, it is very much the limit of known transmission knowledge, without going into the wireless field which would present us with all sort of other problems, although that might have to be examined. The services that we must examine in that context—the network, fire services, telephone services, television, clean feed, and security—can all be dealt with in one cable network.
  As a member of the Information Committee and an enthusiast for dragging this place into the 21st century—although I believe passionately in the need to protect the integrity of old buildings—I could speak at length on this subject, but I realise that other hon. Members want to get in before the end of the debate. I shall therefore conclude my remarks by saying that if we, as parliamentarians of one mind, are determined to drive the programme forward, we can cut down the time that is needed to develop it. On that basis, I commend the report of the Information Committee to the House.
  9.42 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: As someone who used the pilot scheme, I am glad to be able to make what will obviously be a brief contribution to what has been a non-contentious debate.
  When I entered the House, having worked as a computer network manager previously, I must confess that I was somewhat taken by surprise at the low level of development of information technology systems in the House, the variety of systems in use, their incompatibility, and the virtual absence of training for hon. Members and their staff. I suspect that we all know what the results of that have been: inefficiencies of various sorts, equipment bought which is probably not very good, poor usage of systems and duplication of effort—an enormous waste of time by people searching for the same information.
  Of course, this place uses and generates a vast amount of information. As several hon. Members have already pointed out, if one looked at any public or private sector organisation, one would see that we are years behind in the development of information systems.
  I am sure that hon. Members realise that the network will not cure all ills. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) knows that it is perfectly possible to lose a piece of data just as comprehensively in a computer system as it is to lose a letter on paper.
  I shall speak briefly about two issues. The first is the data services which are to be available. I think the core services listed in the recommendations are sensible, but I shall refer—as has been mentioned earlier—to the question of updating POLIS. That has been long overdue and as it develops it will improve access to other parliamentary information. That is where I think the priorities ought to be in the first place—on Library briefings and the inclusion of the full text of Hansard. As services such as those develop, and as access is gained to other external services, we shall find that—unless we get on quickly with the installation —first, we discourage users, and secondly, that the technology will be virtually out of date before the system has been completed.
  The second issue is the question of training, and there are a number of aspects to that. The first aspect is persuading people to use the facilities which are available and showing them what is possible. I am a little disturbed
  1040
  that the Finance Committee has suggested that none of the training should be provided directly for Members without the funds coming out of office costs. There is a case for providing some basic training free to improve people's efficiency and to ensure that they are able to use the network efficiently.
  They must know what is available and how the software can be used. We will improve the network's efficiency if we do that. I shall be certainly concerned if people are not to be barred from access to the system while they are untrained. What will the effects be of large numbers of untrained people using the network? That will have consequences for the efficiency of the system for everyone else. If we are to consider extensions of the network into expensive external systems, databases and E-mail, it is almost essential that training is forced. If people are not trained, we shall have inefficiency and greatly increased costs, which will be money wasted.
  I shall make my final point because we wish to hear from the Chairman of the Finance Committee before the debate closes. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) mentioned that this is not just about producing systems for the convenience of Members of Parliament but about increasing our efficiency and enabling us to deal with our constituents better. We shall be able to produce answers quickly and get at the information that is needed to produce those answers quickly.
  Another important aspect of our job is the ability to keep track of what the Executive is doing. It is important to bear that in mind. Someone listening to the debate might have thought that we were talking about our convenience and whether we could watch Sky Sport. While I very much like to do that, although some bits of it may irritate my staff, I am more interested in having parliamentary systems which enable me to do my job efficiently for my constituents.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. Paul Channon: First, I apologise to the House for arriving late to the debate. I have been abroad on parliamentary business and my flight was late coming back. The second, and much more serious, thing for which I ought to apologise is the fact that I am perhaps the only layman in a Chamber of experts. I feel rather like Daniel in the lions' den.
  Luckily the Finance and Services Committee have taken a course which was acceptable to the House—otherwise, I have a feeling that I would have been howled down. With the support of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), the Finance and Services Committee has come to the right decision.
  This, in fact, is the first occasion on which the House has had a debate such as this on a new service since the foundation of the Finance and Services Committee. The Committee was given the task of looking at the financial and administrative implications of recommendations made by Committees such as the Information Committee and the Broadcasting Committee. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the Chairmen of those Committees on the splendid work that has been done. The Committee has considered the network in detail, both the justification for it and the cost of its provision. Given the hour and the fact

  1041
  that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) hopes to reply to the debate, I will not go into that in great detail.
  The Committee accept the benefits and those colleagues who are more technologically minded than I am, will understand them better than I do. We accept the argument that Members should be provided with additional modern facilities to help them, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) rightly said, in their parliamentary duties, not just to have a bit of fun.
  This is a complicated matter and costs are extremely complicated. We shall monitor developments closely each year as we look at the works programme and prepare the estimates that go to the Commission. We must be guided by the Information Select Committee and by officers of the House as to what services can be funded on the network. We do not, of course, want to overburden that system and its staff. We shall have to consider that factor every year in the estimates.
  I note in particular what the hon. Member for Walthamstow said about training and obviously my Committee will consider that in the light of today's debate.
  I am rather less keen on the clean feed than any other Member in the Chamber now, but I accept that the overwhelming majority of people want it and that the overwhelming majority are very upset about the seven-year rule. The Finance and Services Select Committee obviously understands that and we shall ask the Director of Works to report to us in the autumn about how a new timing might be achieved. I understand that it is the wish of the House to speed up all this work. The House would also agree, however, that we do not want to alter works projects at the last moment. We must go through the planning stages to avoid waste and create proper control.
  With that proviso, the Finance and Services Select Committee supports the various projects. In doing so, I hope that the Committee is acting not only as the watchdog of finance in the House, by trying to get good financial management, but as the supporter of improved services for Members to help them to carry out their parliamentary duties.
  In common with other hon. Members, I hope that the House will agree to the motions.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Bennett: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to one or two of the points that were made in the debate.
  I always warn people that it is very dangerous when the House of Commons appears to be unanimous on something, because it means that trouble is afoot. We should be clear that, although a great deal of support for new services has been expressed by the hon. Members in the Chamber tonight, some of our colleagues are more cynical and sceptical about the proceedings. It is important that the enthusiasts should win those Members over.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) was a little unfair when he criticised the Executive for trying to slow the process down. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) was also a little unfair when he blamed officers of the House, because I think those individuals were won over to the benefits of change some time ago. It may be true that the
  1042
  Clerk at the Table is not waiting to punch the Votes and Proceedings of the House into a computer, but an awful lot of officers of the House see the benefits offered by new technology.
  We should be clear that, in many ways, it is our colleagues who are the biggest problem. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) could tell us how difficult it occasionally is to persuade an hon. Member to move from one office to another. That is the major problem about the time scale. If everyone who spoke in the debate does his bit to persuade other hon. Members that putting up with a little inconvenience during a recess is worthwhile for the benefit of everyone else, we could make a great deal of progress.
  I do not want to go into the technical issue of which cabling system should be used, but it is most important that the House keeps continually under review what is the most practical option. It is important that it considers the use of radio LAN because that could be a possibility for some parts of the building.
  I do not think that I am leaking any information if I say that, on Monday, the Information Committee will be considering a report from the Department of the Official Report about the possibility of having the preceding five days' Hansard on the network. That would be very useful.
  I should like to able to report to the House that the teething problems with POLIS 3 have been solved. Negotiations are going on in that respect and I hope that, by early next week, those will have been successful and progress will be made.
  We shall have to return to the training issue. The more people want to be connected with Internet, the more important training will be.
  The House must now make it clear to the country that we want to serve our constituents better. The network will give us the information to do our two key tasks—taking up constituents' problems and scrutinising the Executive—more effectively. I hope that the House will approve the motions tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the First Report from the Information Committee, on The Provision of a Parliamentary Data and Video Network (House of Commons Paper No. 237), and the First Report from the Committee of Session 1992–93, on The Provision of Members' Information Technology Equipment, Software and Services (House of Commons Paper No. 737).
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the recommendation contained in the First Report of the Broadcasting Committee, House of Commons Paper No. 323 of Session 1991–92, that a clean television feed of proceedings in the Chamber should be made available to Members in their Parliamentary offices on completion of the Parliamentary Data and Video Network; but endorses the Resolution of the Broadcasting Committee of 27th June, set out in the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee, House of Commons Paper No. 533-i, that, in view of the information now available about the likely timetable for installing the network, work should be undertaken separately from the network with a view to supplying a clean feed to Members with offices in the Parliamentary outbuildings from the beginning of the 1994–95 Session, and thereafter as it becomes technically feasible in each outbuilding, with the aim of completing the process by the end of the Summer Recess of 1995, and that the House authorities should examine the scope for accelerating the provision of a similar facility to Members with offices in the Palace of Westminster, as part of the programme for establishing the network.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  Landfill Site (Pitstone)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  9.55 pm
  Mr. George Walden: I welcome to this debate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who shares the concerns that I am about to express.
  My last Adjournment debate in the House was on new major roads in my constituency; the one before that was on gravel pits; and today's debate is on rubbish dumps. The Department of the Environment may feel a little besieged by my Adjournment debates, but many of my constituents feel that their villages are under siege.
  I need only spell out the broad lines of the proposed landfill site near Pitstone in my constituency to show why its inhabitants feel threatened. The proposal is to infill a disused quarry close to half a dozen villages in an area of outstanding natural beauty with 500,000 tonnes of rubbish annually for 20 or more years. In any sane planning system, the Minister would rise to interrupt me at this point to say that my constituents can put their minds at rest and he and I can go home and get some sleep, because such a proposal is a self-evident non-starter.
  I understand that the Minister is a keen cyclist. He would sleep all the more soundly in the knowledge that an area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns will not be spoilt but will remain available for his and other people's recreation.
  Sadly, however improbable the proposal may sound, that threat is real. Castle Cement Ltd., which used to operate a cement plant on the site, has made a formal application. The villages liable to be affected in some way are Pitstone, Ivinghoe, Bulbourne, Aldbury, Marsworth and Cheddington. Others will doubtless be added to the list. If the proposal goes through, I advise the Minister not to go cycling in the country lanes thereabouts, because he might be run down by a container truck carrying rubbish from his constituency of Ealing.
  My constituents' fears will be familiar to the Minister: smell; traffic on small rural roads; damage to wild life; scavenging seagulls and rats; alongside numerous other unwanted bonuses that landfill sites tend to attract. The possible long-term pollution of the water table with leachate is another risk.
  I know that there are complicated arguments about those matters and that Castle Cement has planned measures to deal with them. I have inspected its exhibition and know that it is a responsible company. But with so much volume going in over such a long period—3 per cent. of all the waste in south-east England—who can give guarantees? Is our knowledge so great that we can be sure what will happen over 20 years or more?
  What is true of water is also true of land. We are told that the tipping will be of non-toxic waste, and I take that as true, but the Royal Society of Chemistry said:
  "There is no completely satisfactory definition of contaminated land. In simple terms all land that contains substances above their natural concentration could be said to be contaminated."
  Protest against the proposal has been widespread, intense and well informed. I start by giving the Minister an example from the Council for the Protection of Rural England. In its view:
  "We do not accept that the risk inherent in the use of this site is acceptable. Landfill sites produce considerable quantities of
  1044
  leachate. While we accept that the quantities of leachate leaking into the underlying chalk"—
  it is chalk that we are talking about here—
  "may be virtually nil under perfect conditions, however, a failure of the containment system would alter that situation. It is clear from the literature and the experience of landfill operators that leachate generation is likely to continue over a very long period, even up to 70"—
  Its being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope]
  Mr. Walden: I shall resume in the middle of the quotation, if I may:
  "It is clear from the literature and the experience of landfill operators that leachate generation is likely to continue over a very long period, even up to 70 or 100 years. Such a lengthy time span could provide a considerable challenge to the integrity of the containment system."
  That is the view of the CPRE.
  Next, let me quote from the view of the Dacorum Environmental Forum, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West will be familiar:
  "The Quarry sides have been carefully contoured during excavation to leave a naturalistic outline, on the basis that restoration would eventually take place at the worked-out level. This was assumed from the outset when quarrying was first permitted here in 1947, when the company was advised by the distinguished landscape architect (Sir) Geoffrey Jellicoe. There is no need to fill the Quarry in order to restore the land, as the exposed chalk can quickly regenerate as downland with minimal assistance. Landfill should not be regarded as a means of restoration but as an activity to be considered on its own merits; Pitstone Hill 'restored' to its approximate original contours is not necessarily better than Pitstone Hill restored with different contours, especially if the means of achieving the original outline is unacceptable on other grounds."
  That seems to me an important and sophisticated rebuttal of what might otherwise be an obvious objection to the objectors—that filling in a quarry in the long term would be good for the environment.
  Next, I shall quote yet another highly informed group of people—the Chiltern Society, whose views, as my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree when I have quoted them, cannot be regarded as amateur. I shall quote from the passage about gas and leachate:
  "Intricate systems are proposed requiring methane flaring and pumping and storage construction adjacent to the B488, and to operate over a minimum of 20 and probably 50 years. The layout of the buildings compound is clumsy and the design of the buildings crude. These will be prominent in the view from the Ridgeway Path and Ivinghoe Hills and the proposed tree planting will do little to mitigate the effect. The vents of the gas extraction system will be discordant with the proposed contours and downland vegetation. It is not clear from documentation what form the vents will take or how high they will protrude from the ground, but they will be obtrusive. The sight, noise and smell of these operations, which cannot be screened from scarp slopes, will be intolerable. More fundamentally current geological opinion is that it is inevitable that a landfill such as that proposed will eventually contaminate/pollute the groundwater resource whether in 5, 10, 50 or more years from completion."
  Finally, but not least, I have an objection from the Dunstable and District Boat Club. I emphasise to the Minister that it is an area of outstanding natural beauty, which people like to visit. Local people like to boat there. There are canals, and other people like to come and enjoy that facility. The boat club was formed more than 30 years ago, based on the Grand Union canal at Pitstone, has a membership of 80 people and their families, and has always taken an interest in local matters. Its members come from Leighton Buzzard, Luton, Dunstable, Eaton Bray,

  1045
  Marsworth, Tring, Aylesbury, St. Albans and many other places. Here is another group of local people who are rightly and exceedingly concerned about what is proposed.
  I have also had representations from the Beacon Villages Society, to the same broad effect. Perhaps the most heartfelt protest comes from Mrs. Cato, clerk to the parish council. She writes to tell me that the village has suffered the side effects of the cement works—dust, smell, traffic—for 50 years:
  "For two and a half years Pitstone residents have experienced, many for the first time in their lives"—
  since the cement works were discontinued—
  "a normal rural atmosphere. Pitstone parish council considers that the dumping of rubbish in this quarry would be a blight on the neighbourhood. Just imagine the feelings of those villagers: if someone is banging your head against a wall, the relief when they stop is considerable. If they then start again, the pain is all the greater."
  I hesitate to anticipate the Minister's speech, but naturally I am going to, anyway. I suspect that he will tell me that the proposals must go through the usual planning hoops, and I understand that, although I shall have more to say about it later. He may also tell me that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 did much to strengthen controls over the running of rubbish sites, and that the Government deserve credit for that.
  The point, however, is that my constituents do not want 500,000 tonnes of rubbish on their doorsteps, however well managed the dumping may be. That brings me to my central point: a mass consumer society in one of the most densely populated countries in the world will always have problems with waste disposal. I understand that the Government are looking at possible ways of making incineration and recycling more attractive; but I greatly doubt whether anything will be done in time to save my constituents or the area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chiltern hills.
  In this time of rethinking and of transition, as we look at new ways to minimise environmental damage, what must surely guide Government policy is a determination not to let new landfill sites which will blight people's lives for decades slip through the net. In particular, it should be a rule of thumb that no new landfill sites should be allowed close to inhabited areas. I proposed that in the environment debate of 1990, but it was not accepted.
  Since then, the urgency has grown, as the Pitstone proposal shows. What future is there in shifting rubbish from one inhabited area and dumping it in another? We might as well leave it in the city centres and landfill the parks, because the area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns is the local people's park, to which visitors are welcome. A massive dump there would scar not just the landscape but the villagers' lives for decades to come.
  For 50 or more years, these people have put up with a cement works; now the people of Pitstone and the surrounding area have earned some environmental respite. For these and many other reasons, I ask the Minister to call in this application, for which request I know that I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones).
  10.7 pm
  The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on securing the debate, and on representing so vividly the wholly understandable fears of his constituents.
  Waste management is of great concern to my Department. I also know that my hon. Friend's remarks are of great interest to our hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), whom I see in his place. Part of the proposed landfill site is in his constituency.
  My hon. Friend began by describing the proposals that have been put to the Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire county councils as waste planning authorities. They include a railhead, a container handling area and haul road, and the restoration of about 125 acres of chalk quarry by landfilling, mainly with household waste.
  Part of the site lies within the metropolitan green belt and in the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. The county council has sent us a copy of the application and of the developers' environmental appraisal, as the EC regulations on environmental assessment demand. A dozen or so local residents have written to us, but I suspect that most of those who recently attended my hon. Friend's public meeting are evidently saving their fire for the parties directly concerned.
  Of course, the Department of the Environment may be directly concerned at some future date. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West has already asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to confirm that he will call in the application for his own decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has now reinforced that request by asking again for the application to be called in. I have taken on board all the points that my hon. Friend has made this evening, and will consider the case for intervention as we would any other. At this stage, I suspect that my hon. Friend knows that I cannot say anything more.
  Waste is an emotive subject. None of us likes it and the Government would like to see less of it. We would prefer to see it reduced at source—for example, less packaging where it serves no useful purpose. Then we want to encourage different ways of re-using or recycling it. Safe disposal is the last option, not the first. The Government will continue to fund research, advice and pilot projects for cutting down the amount of waste that has to be disposed of. Businesses, the waste industry and individual households can all contribute.
  In that sense, as my hon. Friend pointed out, we are all polluters, and many of the answers lie in our own hands. But initiatives to encourage reduction, re-use, recycling or energy recovery will never be able to deal with all our waste. There will continue to be a need for facilities for final disposal at landfill sites.
  The Government's objective is to minimise pollution at such sites and prevent harm to the environment. Landfill is not inconsistent with sustainability if it is properly managed and controlled. Landfill sites have often been developed in the holes, or voids, as the technical term is, that are left by mineral workings. In the longer term, the restoration of old mineral workings can produce a pleasanter environment for everyone to enjoy.
  In those cases where planning permission is given for landfill operations, the planning authority will often want to impose conditions or obligations. The phasing of tipping and restoration work, the hours of operation, the standards

  1047
  and specification for restoring the site can all be controlled. In that way, much can be done to reduce the impact on local people. Of course, landfill operations are also subject to legislation on the control of pollution. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we have fairly recently introduced an enhanced system of waste management licensing, which provides rigorous controls over pollution from landfill sites and other waste facilities.
  But with all those safeguards, it remains the case, as my hon. Friend said, that landfill sites are not the most popular of neighbours. Where then should they go? The Government support the proximity principle, under which waste should be disposed of or otherwise managed close to the point where it is generated. That tends to create a more responsible and therefore sustainable approach to generating waste. It should also limit pollution from transport.
  Where waste cannot be disposed of reasonably close to its source, the use of rail or water transport is desirable if it reduces the overall environmental impact and would be economically feasible.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a railway siding leads into the site which, according to the application, it is not proposed to use? That seems strange.
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to point out that close to the site there is a railway line, and I understand that part of the application is for a railhead. Those are the sort of relevant factors about which, in the first instance, Buckingham county council will want to make inquiries.
  On the time scale, which may be of interest to my hon. Friends, the Department would usually begin to take a decision on that round about August or September. Much depends on whether the local planning authority takes the view that this is a departure from the structure plan and, if it is, whether it wishes to support it. That is the sort of dialogue that needs to take place in the short term before my Department takes a decision on whether to call it in.
  On the question of proximity, there is no fixed definition, and it will vary according to the circumstances. But it should result in most of our waste being disposed of in the region where it is generated. Movement across regional boundaries is not prevented, and may make good sense in some areas, but each region should expect to provide sufficient facilities to treat or dispose of all its waste.
  Suitable disposal sites in the south-east are not evenly spread. Availability in the London area is particularly limited, while some surrounding counties, of which Buckinghamshire is one, have geological conditions particularly suited to landfill. My Department's regional planning guidance recognises that those areas can be used to meet regional needs.
  My hon. Friend referred to the prospect that waste from developed countries such as France and Germany might end up being landfilled in the United Kingdom. The Government hold firmly to the view, which I am sure my hon. Friend endorses, that countries that have or should be capable of acquiring the capacity to deal with their own waste should not send it to the UK for final disposal.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) indicated in his statement on 15 June, in future the presumption will be that waste should not be imported for final disposal in this country. That accords with
  1048
  Government policy of self-sufficiency in the final disposal of waste, and that principle is enshrined in the Basle convention and EC waste shipment regulations.
  Provision for the management of home-grown waste must be planned—it will not just happen. County councils are the waste regulation authorities as well as the waste planning authorities. In that role, they are required to draw up waste disposal plans under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Those plans cover the type, quantity and origin of waste to be disposed of in the plan area but they do not identify specific sites or criteria for new facilities.
  That matter is for the land use planning system, which aims to secure the most efficient and effective use of land in the public interest. That system is led by the development plan. Those plans should provide the framework for the development and use of land in an area. They should reflect local choices but also take on board national and regional policies.
  Mr. Walden: I referred to my previous Adjournment debates on roads and gravel pits in my constituency. Slightly to my surprise, the roads proposal was withdrawn. I presumed that a lot of strategic thinking had gone into it, but I discovered that one reason for that proposal being withdrawn was that those concerned wanted to do some strategic thinking. I was gratified by the withdrawal, but surprised to learn that strategic thinking came after the strategic decision.
  More or less the same thing occurred in respect of a gravel pit project, which I was told was part of a necessary future plan drawn up by the council, county council, industry and Government. It was found that the future demand for gravel had been grossly overestimated, so the project did not proceed.
  I have enormous confidence in my hon. Friend personally, but I am a little less confident in future planning on the grand scale—particularly having lived some of my life in communist countries. Has the Department of the Environment really thought through future demand for landfill sites? I heard my hon. Friend refer to Buckinghamshire as a rather favoured area for that sort of disposal.
  Sir George Young: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expression of confidence in my judgment. I am sure that there are people in Buckinghamshire county council who take the same objective approach. I tried to describe Government policy in general terms—it is to reduce the volume of waste generated using a whole range of measures. Ultimately, we rely on planning authorities—county councils, in this instance—to identify specific sites or criteria for new facilities. It is a land use planning matter, and those authorities are best placed to identify those parts of their counties that are best suited for that function.
  The Department has an overall role, which my hon. Friend invited me to use, in calling in plans. That is an option, but by and large we prefer to let the planning system be run by local people. We have a devolved planning system, and the presumption is that it should work. There is a safety valve in the ability to call in projects if they raise matters of national or regional importance or are departures.
  My Department will closely monitor between now and September the further inquiries made by the county

  1049
  council, whether it takes the view that the proposal is a departure, makes any request to the Department and other relevant factors.
  There must be strong reasons for taking a planning decision away from the local authority. My hon. Friend spoke of his experiences under totalitarian regimes. One feature of such regimes is that they tend to be rather centralist, and we want to avoid that if possible.
  I think that decisions of this kind should be made at local level, because in total they affect every aspect of local life. As I said, the Secretary of State's powers to call in applications for his own decision are used somewhat selectively, usually because a case raises issues of more than local importance.
  My hon. Friend has made clear his view that new rubbish dumps—to use his phrase—should never be created near inhabited areas. Nearness to housing and other developments, and the impact on the quality of life of local people, are considerations that the planning authority may wish to take into account; but each case for new or extended waste disposal facilities should be considered on its merits within the development plan context.
  It may be necessary for the planning authority to balance the shorter-term impact on local communities with any projected benefits. There are many factors to take into
  1050
  account, including the geology and hydro-geology of the site, how access would be gained, the nature of the landscape and the length of the project.
  Mr. Walden: My right hon. Friend referred to the shorter term. When the subject arose at a local meeting, a rather excited participant responded to the information that the longer-term benefits would be seen after 20 years or more by saying that, in the longer term, we are all dead.
  Sir George Young: I have read accounts of that lively public meeting, which my hon. Friend attended. I understand that representatives of the applicant considered it in their interests not to attend. Of course, we must balance the short to medium-term impact on local communities with any projected benefits.
  There are no simple answers to the problem of coping with waste. The community as a whole needs these facilities, but individual communities do not want them close at hand. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents are already making their views known to Buckinghamshire county council. As I said at the beginning, we will keep in close touch with progress; we have noted what my hon. Friend said, we have the representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West, and my Department stands ready to intervene if such a course is justified.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his Department's involvement with TECs.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has sought information and guidance from Central London's training and enterprise council in connection with initiatives such as investors in people and NVQ national standards.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Public Trust Office is to be established as an agency.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Further to my answer of 28 October 1993,Official Report, column 794, to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), I am pleased to confirm that the Lord Chancellor shall establish the Public Trust Office as an executive agency on 1 July 1994. I will arrange for a copy of the Public. Trust Office's framework document to be placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Victim Compensation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that compensation awarded by the courts to victims of criminal acts is always paid.

  Mr. Maclean
  Courts already have substantial powers of enforcement for use when an offender fails to pay promptly a compensation order or other monetary penalty. These include means inquiry and attachment of earnings or social security benefits, seizure and sale of property and imprisonment. Decisions about which enforcement sanctions to use in a particular case are for the courts. Magistrates courts are responsible for the collection and enforcement of compensation orders in individual cases. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently circulated fresh guidance on how enforcement procedures might be improved.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many discretionary life sentence prisoners do not qualify as such for the purposes of the Criminal Justice Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the case of prisoners sentenced before 1 October 1992, section 34 of the 1991 Act applies 648
  where the Secretary of State so certifies under the transitional provisions of the Act. One prisoner was not so certified.

  The application of section 34 to prisoners sentenced on or after 1 October 1992 is a matter for the courts. Information on the number of cases where section 34 has not been applied is not available.

  The status of prisoners serving a discretionary life sentence who have been transferred to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 is currently subject to appeal. Information on the number who may or may not qualify for section 34 provisions could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 are currently detained; how many of these are now adults; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available information is for 30 April 1994. On that date there were 250 persons, of whom 61 were aged under 21 and 189 were adults, held in England and Wales who had been sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mandatory life sentence prisoners have been told their tariff dates following the decision of the House of Lords in the case of R.v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and others; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As at 27 June 1994, 966 mandatory life sentence prisoners had been informed of their tariff in accordance with the arrangements set out in my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), on 4 November 1993,Official Report, columns 376–78.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases the Home Secretary has increased the tariff period recommended by the judiciary in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of cases in which the tariff has been set higher than the period recommended by either the trial judge or the Lord Chief Justice is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  11990

  57

  1991

  32

  1992

  19

  1993

  4

  1Figures available only for August—December.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been permanently or temporarily transferred to Northern Ireland following the interdepartmental working group's review of the provisions for the transfer of prisoners between United Kingdom jurisdictions in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 1 December 1992, four prisoners have been permanently transferred to Northern
  649
  Ireland and nine prisoners have been temporarily transferred. In addition, four prisoners previously temporarily transferred have been granted further periods of temporary transfer in Northern Ireland.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in respect of the age limit of 70 years for members of the new proposed police authorities; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have received four letters from hon. Members specifically on this subject since the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill entered the House of Commons. Information relating to letters from hon. Members received before this date, and to correspondence from the general public, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in respect of the timetable for people who wish to apply for membership of the new proposed police authorities; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Electoral Law and Procedure
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now announce the results of his Department's review of electoral law and procedure.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I would refer the hon. Member to a question from the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 4 March,Official Report, column 933. My officials have now met representatives of the local authority associations and will report to me in due course on the outcome of the review.

  Euthanasia
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take in respect of doctors who have intentionally ended the life of a patient.

  Mr. Maclean
  Any person who intentionally kills another person is liable to prosecution under the criminal law for murder. The investigation and prosecution of offences are matters for the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

  May Report
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of Sir John May's inquiry into the convictions of the Guildford Four will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  As I announced on 16 May, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I have received Sir John May's report of his inquiry into the case of the Guildford Four who were convicted in 1975 of murder and conspiracy to cause explosions following the Guildford public house bombings in October 1974. Paul Hill and Patrick Armstrong were additionally convicted of murder and conspiracy to cause explosions in connection 650
  with the Woolwich public house bombing in November 1974. Their convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal on 19 October 1989 following the decision of the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) to refer their case to the Court of Appeal under the provisions of section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

  This report is being published today in response to an Order of the House for a Return. We wish to thank Sir John, and all those who assisted him throughout his inquiry, for the care and thoroughness with which he and they have examined the circumstances surrounding the convictions of the four and the subsequent consideration given to representations made on their behalf to my Department that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

  In his report, Sir John examines how the Guildford and Woolwich public house bombings were investigated by Surrey constabulary and the Metropolitan police respectively, the circumstances which led to the Four's arrest, and to the arrest of others in connection with the offences, and reviews the basis of the decision to prosecute the four. He then details the admissions made by the four in various statements to the police and sets out their respective explanations for why these were made. The alibis of the four for the Guildford bombing are examined in detail, as are the alibis of Paul Hill and Patrick Armstrong for the Woolwich bombing. Sir John has also considered the conduct of the trial, the interviews given by three of the four to the police following their convictions, the disclosure of forensic correlation evidence at the trial, the arrest of the Balcombe street gang in December 1975 and the admissions made by some of them and by one of their associates with regard to the Guildford and Woolwich bombings. Sir John has also examined the events which preceded the four's appeal against conviction in 1977, the conduct of that appeal, the role of Home Office Ministers and officials in considering representations alleging that a miscarriage of justice had occurred in their case and finally the 1989 appeal which resulted in their convictions being quashed.

  This was a very serious miscarriage of justice. The Government are determined that lessons are learned from such cases and applied effectively in the future. This is why we set up Sir John's inquiry and, more recently, the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.

  Sir John's report contains a number of serious criticisms about the handling by the police of the original investigation, for example the number of arrests made, the inadequate basis for many of those arrests and the treatment accorded to those held in custody. However, it also acknowledges the many changes which have already taken place with regard to police powers and practice following the enactment of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the resulting improvements achieved through the regulation of such matters as the interrogation of suspects, the time for which they can be detained in custody before being brought before the courts and their treatment while in custody under the codes of practice issued under the 1984 Act.

  The report refers to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, in connection with the number of people arrested during the early stages of the police investigations of the Guildford and Woolwich bombings and concludes that, in relation to many of them, the police exceeded the powers available to them under the Act. Sir John draws attention to the

  651
  safeguards provided by PACE and expresses concern that there are greater risks of injustice in terrorist cases where some of the PACE safeguards do not apply.

  I have noted those points very carefully but think it important to stress that whatever early difficulties were encountered in using the Act's provisions, those do not reflect upon the way in which the Act is used now. The police are now very much better informed about the way in which their powers should be exercised. Detailed guidance has been issued and is supplemented by regular briefings. All persons detained under the PTA in England and Wales are covered either by the statutory safeguards in PACE or by the specific safeguards which have been built into PTA itself. In particular, PACE code of practice C, covering the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers applies to all persons in police detention including those arrested under the PTA.

  The allegations of misconduct and ill treatment by police officers reported by Sir John have been the subject of appropriate action, including disciplinary action, wherever sufficient evidence has been available. Since the 1970s, considerable improvements have been made to the way in which complaints against the police are conducted. If similar allegations were to be made now, the police investigation would be likely to be undertaken by another police force under the supervision of a member of the Police Complaints Authority. The Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, currently before Parliament, will provide scope for police disciplinary action to be quicker and less legalistic.

  Sir John's report notes the prosecution's failure to disclose before the trial expert witness statements and an alibi statement that might have been helpful to the defence; but he attributes those failures to regrettable human error rather than to any deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice or to any failure of the criminal justice system itself. He also recognises that in certain other respects the prosecution team made fuller disclosure than its legal obligations required. It is worth noting that since the Guildford four's convictions, the law and practice on disclosure has developed in such a way that it should be much less likely that such a situation could occur.

  In reviewing the Home Office's role in this case, Sir John concludes that the criteria which successive Home Secretaries have used to determine whether a case should be referred to the Court of Appeal are sound in law and logic and provide no grounds for criticism. I welcome his further conclusion that, within the limits imposed by those criteria, the Home Office investigated the representations it received with care and efficiency. We seek constantly to apply the lessons to be learned from cases of this kind and we shall go on doing so. In the years since the Guildford case was referred my Department has developed a broader approach to cases that come to it for review, in particular by being ready where appropriate to investigate cases more widely than the specific points raised in representations, and by being ready to start up inquiries where a case comes to attention without necessarily waiting for representations to be made.

  The Government have accepted the Royal Commission's recommendation that a new independent body should be established to take over my responsibilities for reviewing such cases in the future, and I am currently considering the responses we have received to the discussion paper which we issued last March.
  652
  Clearly, much has already been done to correct past mistakes and failings, but the Government are anxious that the criminal justice system in England and Wales should be as effective and efficient as possible in investigating crimes and prosecuting and convicting the guilty—and only the guilty.

  The Royal Commission made 352 recommendations for changes to be made to improve the criminal justice system in this country. Almost half of those have now been accepted by the Government, and some are included in the current Criminal Justice Bill before the House of Lords.

  The Government attach very great importance to the proper administration of justice and will take whatever action may be necessary in the future to safeguard against miscarriages of justice.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his Department's involvement with TECs.

  The Attorney-General
  The Law Officers' departments have not been involved formally with TECs.

  Prosecuting Authorities
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the prosecuting authorities.

  The Attorney-General
  The review team, headed by Mr. John Graham, which examined the handling of serious fraud has now delivered its report. Copies of the report and of annexes 1 to 5 and 7 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Annex 6 of the report has not been published. It is a summary of some recent and current cases in both Departments which should, in line with the general handling of such material, be retained within the prosecuting departments.

  The review team undertook a comprehensive study of the arrangements for the investigation and prosecution of criminal fraud cases in the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, examining in particular relative work loads and the criteria for allocating cases between the two Departments and the organisation and management of investigation and prosecution work in the two Departments. It took account of the role of the police in fraud investigations and of the DTI in company matters generally. The review did not constitute the feasibility study into the possibility of a merger between the Serious Fraud Office and the fraud investigation group of the Crown Prosecution Service suggested by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, but the review team was asked in its terms of reference to carry out its work in the light of the Royal Commission's recommendation 36.

  I am grateful to Mr. John Graham and his team for the work which they have done. The report identifies management and organisational issues which need to be addressed by the Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office and on which the review team has made helpful recommendations. In many cases, the issues had already been identified within the prosecuting Departments and improvements set in hand. The vast majority of the remaining recommendations are accepted and I have asked the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the

  653
  Serious Fraud Office to take these forward urgently, consulting the police where appropriate. A joint vetting committee is being established to ensure all complex and serious fraud cases are handled by the prosecuting department which has the most suitable powers and resources for the particular case. The copies of the report placed in the Libraries are accompanied by a response jointly prepared by the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, which deals briefly with each recommendation in so far as it affects each Department.

  The report concludes that there is a range of cases which can be satisfactorily handled only through the multidisciplinary approach to investigation and prosecution recommended by the fraud trials committee chaired by Lord Roskill. There are, however, some cases which can be described as serious or complex but which do not require that approach. The review team noted that there was some overlap between cases allocated to the fraud investigation group of the Crown Prosecution Service and to the Serious Fraud Office. It identified some potential benefits which could flow from the establishment of a single organisation which would deal with all serious or complex fraud cases but handle them on a differential basis. The review team saw scope for arrangements under which some cases would be both investigated and prosecuted by the new organisation while other cases would only be prosecuted by it. The review team made no recommendation as to whether any new organisation should constitute part of an enlarged Serious Fraud Office or Crown Prosecution Service but identified advantages and disadvantages associated with each option.

  Further consideration will be given to the question of merger in conjunction with the studies I announced on 6 December 1993, Official Report, column 60, to establish whether executive agency status was appropriate for the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service. Ministers will wish to take a final decision about a possible merger in the light of recommendations arising from those studies.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on BSE.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government's Chief Medical Officer continues to advise that there is no evidence that humans can contract Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from an animal with BSE. There has been no significant increase in the incidence of CJD in the United Kingdom over the years 1985 to 1993. Also, the Chief Veterinary Officer advises me that the incidence of BSE among cattle in the United Kingdom continues to fall as a result of the control measures that have been put in place. There has been a particularly sharp decline in the incidence of the disease in cattle less than five years old.

  A large number of monitoring and research studies have been undertaken into BSE since 1988, and these continue. They include a BSE pathogenesis experiment which has involved the feeding of calves with a high dose of BSE-infected brain tissue. Some preliminary positive results from the BSE pathogenesis experiment will be published shortly in the "Veterinary Record". The
  654
  experiment, begun in December 1991 and still continuing, is designed to investigate the biological pathways through which the disease develops in cattle.

  These results show that it is possible to transmit BSE to laboratory mice from intestines taken from young cattle when fed a substantial dose of brain material known to contain BSE. It is not surprising that BSE has been found in those tissues, which scientists have always considered a likely route for feedborne infection. The relatively short period in which the infectivity has shown up, in one case six months after being fed the BSE dose, does however raise the issue of whether calves up to six months should continue to be exempt from the ban on the use of specified bovine offals—SBOs—of which the intestine is one.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have sought the advice of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—SEAC—and have considered this with the Chief Medical Officer. The Committee noted the reduced risk of feedborne infection following the ban on feeding ruminant protein to ruminants such as cattle, which was introduced in 1988, and the continuing lack of evidence of significant maternal or horizontal transmission. They concluded that the theoretical risk of infection of man from food from infected calves is minuscule. They advised that the continuing results of the experiment should be carefully monitored to confirm this basic conclusion.

  I have carefully considered this advice in consultation with my right hon. Friends the other Agriculture Ministers and the Secretary of State for Health. We have concluded while the assessment of SEAC and of the CMO is that any risk to health is minuscule, the Government's policy of extreme caution in relation to BSE requires us to ensure that the tissues in which infectivity might potentially occur are removed from the human and animal food chain. We accordingly propose to extend the scope of the existing ban on the use of specified bovine offals to the intestines and thymus of calves under the age of six months. An exception will be made for calves which die before two months of age which cannot be used for human consumption under other existing legislation. The necessary orders will be duly made with the minimum of delay. This action is purely precautionary and will be kept under review.

  I intend to give particular thought to the possible scope for alternative safeguards less restrictive than those now in place in the case of cattle from herds which have not been exposed to BSE. Such an approach is now becoming appropriate as the epidemic continues to decline.

  I should repeat that the Chief Medical Officer continues to advise that there is no evidence whatever that BSE causes Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease and, similarly, not the slightest evidence that eating beef or hamburgers causes CJD.

  I am making available, in the House Library, a background document giving more detailed information about the experimental results and the advice of SEAC, the CMO and the CVO.

  I am informing the EU Commission and the EU Scientific Veterinary Committee of the action being taken.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many individual payments have been made to farmers as compensation for the slaughter of cows infected with BSE; and if she will make a statement.
  655
  Mr. Jack
  It is not possible without disproportionate costs to break down the total amount paid out in BSE compensation into a list of individual payments made to specific farmers. However, the total number of cattle compulsorily slaughtered as BSE suspects since August 1988 and up to 28 June 1994 on which compensation would have automatically been paid is 122,171 in England, 6,455 in Scotland and 13,603 in Wales. There are also occasions where, because compulsory slaughter has not taken place, compensation is not automatically paid. In those circumstances, each individual case is assessed on its merits and ex-gratia payments may be awarded.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount of compensation is given to farmers for each cow slaughtered because of BSE; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Compensation paid to farmers for an animal compulsorily slaughtered as a BSE suspect is an amount equal to 100 per cent. of either the market value of the animal or the monthly indicative market price—IMP—whichever is the lower figure. Where subsequent laboratory examination does not confirm that the animal was affected by BSE, compensation is an amount equal to 100 per cent. of the market value of the animal or 125 per cent. of the monthly IMP, whichever is the lower figure. The monthly IMP is a weighted average of prices of Friesian and Holstein cows, heifers in milk and in calf, and barren dairy cattle taking into account the age distribution of cattle slaughtered as BSE suspects in the month. The IMP for July will be £890.

  Cormorants
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations her Department has received from angling organisations and angling clubs in England and Wales, and from individual anglers, about cormorant predation; what action is being taken in response; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The following individuals, organisations and clubs have expressed their concern to the Ministry about cormorant predation.

  G. R. Hemus, Esq.

  P. M. Hobson, Esq.

  F. Sandison, Esq.

  Major D. J. Shaw

  Aramstone Fishery

  Atlantic Salmon Association

  Blue Circle Northfleet Works Coarse Angling Club

  British Field Sports Society

  Duncan Cameron and Sons Ltd.

  Ernest Cook Trust

  Furness Fishing Association

  Hampton Bishop Fishery

  Harris and Sheldon Group Ltd.

  Hereford and District Angling Association

  Kingfisher Angling and Preservation Society

  Lancashire Fishery Conservation Association

  Luggs Mouth and Lower Carrots Fishery

  Orpington and District Angling Association

  Ouse Angling Preservation Society

  P. M. Fisheries

  Salmon and Trout Association

  Sam Davies Angling Syndicate

  Severn Fisheries Consultative Council

  St. Helens Angling Association

  Wantsum Angling Association

  Wye Salmon Fishery Owners Association

  656
  Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Ministry is a licensing authority for the killing of cormorants where evidence of serious damage to a fishery has been provided. The Ministry considers each application on its merits and is advised by Agricultural Development Advisory Service, the Ministry's wildlife advisers. In addition, the Ministry consults English Nature. Together with other Government Departments, conservation bodies and fisheries interests such as the Salmon and Trout Association, the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Country Landowners Association and the British Field Sports Society, the Ministry is reviewing its research and development programme on piscivorous birds to inform policy better.

  Dogs
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes she is planning to the regulations that apply to the bringing into the United Kingdom of dogs from other European Union countries; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 24 June 1994]: The Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) (Amendment) Order 1994 has been made today. This order implements the derogation negotiated by the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland for the importation of commercially traded dogs and cats under the live animals trade directive (92/65/EEC), commonly called the "balai".

  Under the amendment order, from 1 July 1994, commercially traded dogs and cats will be able to be imported into the United Kingdom from other member states without quarantine if they comply with all the following strict criteria. They must:

  be the subject of a commercial trade;

  come from a registered holding;

  on the day of dispatch show no signs of contagious disease;

  have an implanted microchip identifying the animal with a unique number which will also be shown on the accompanying certification (the importer will be required to supply a suitable reader with each import);

  have been born and kept on the holding of origin since birth with no contact with wild animals;

  in the case of dogs, have been vaccinated against distemper; be transported by an authorised carrier;

  have vaccination and health certificates signed by an Official Veterinary Surgeon;

  have been vaccinated against rabies when at least 3 months old and at least 6 months prior to export (with boosters if appropriate);

  have been blood tested not less than 30 days after vaccination to show that the vaccination has been effective; and have the movement notified in advance to the local Divisional Veterinary Officer.

  The order also includes powers to check the identity of the imported animals and their vaccination status. These stringent new procedures replicate our quarantine arrangements in many respects and provide sufficient safeguards to protect our rabies-free status.

PRIME MINISTER

  EC President
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make it his policy not to agree to any change in the procedure for choosing a President of the European Commission which would directly or indirectly remove or restrict the requirement for consensus;
  657
  (2) if he will make it his policy not to agree to the appointment as a member of the European Commission any person who has not made it clear that he is opposed to any further transfer of power from Whitehall and Westminster to Brussels and Strasbourg;

  (3) if he will make it his policy not to agree to the appointment as President of the European Commission of a person with known federalist views;

  (4) if he will make it his policy not to agree to the appointment as a member of the European Commission of any person who has advocated the transfer of responsibility for monetary and exchange rate policy to the EC and its institutions.

  The Prime Minister
  I shall continue to insist that the President and other members of the Commission are appointed by common accord of the Governments of the member states, as the treaty requires. I shall consider candidates for the Presidency of the Commission on their merits.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 June.

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

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty's Government have given to lawyers of the two Libyan suspects of the bombing of Pan Am 103 who have made representations to Her Majesty's Government regarding the statement of Youssef Chaabane in a Beirut court that he planted the bomb.

  The Prime Minister
  We have received no such representations.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Government decided to oppose the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill at Report stage.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: The Government made clear their doubts about the Bill as a whole at Second Reading and on other occasions, but we had also indicated that we would see what, if any, parts were appropriate to take further. In the event, debates during Committee confirmed our doubts, and the Government explained the reasons why they were unable to support the Bill at Report stage on 6 May.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department and agencies for which 658
  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. Waldegrave
  Information is not available for the period January 1980 to December 1983. From 1984 on, the available information on the number and value of contracts let to these consultancies by my Departments and their predecessors is as follows:

  Period

  Contracts let

  Costs (£000)

  Firms1

  1984 to 1987

  6

  216

  (a), (d), (e), (f)

  1988 to 1991

  9

  177

  (a), (b), (d), (f)

  1992–93

  56

  2,723

  (a), (b), (c). (d), (e), (f)

  Note: To preserve commercial confidentiality contracts have not been identified under specific categories. The costs of contracts have been aggregated and are attributable to the firms indicated1.

  1(a) Coopers and Lybrand

  (f) Touche Ross

  (b) KPMG Peat Marwick

  (g) Grant Thornton

  (c) Ernst and Young

  (h) Robson Rhodes

  (d) Price Waterhouse

  (i) Pannell Kerr Forster

  (e) Arthur Andersen

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult prior to legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which have a statutory base.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, sponsored by the Cabinet Office, was set up by an Order in Council which resulted from the Abuses of Honours Act 1925.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the advisory bodies which he has set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993."

  Mr. Waldegrave
  "Public Bodies 1993", published in December 1993, lists non-departmental public bodies in existence at 1 April 1993. The following advisory non-departmental public bodies have been established by my Department since then:Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force
  Technology Foresight Steering Group
  659
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to review the need to bring executive agencies of Government fully within the scope of competition regulation and fair trading control.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  As the citizens charter second report 1994 explains, Crown immunity is being progressively reduced as legislative opportunities arise. In the meantime, Crown bodies are expected to behave as if they were bound by regulations. This applies to executive agencies, which are required to behave in accordance with the principles underlying competition law.

  Receivers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to proposals under which accountants acting as receivers, administrators and liquidators would be required to publish information about their affairs.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am not aware of any proposals under which accountants acting as receivers, administrators and liquidators would be required to publish information about their affairs.

  Insolvency Regulator
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to proposals for appointing an independent regulator for insolvency.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have considered proposals for the appointment of an independent monitor in individual insolvencies. I am anxious to encourage creditors to make use of the powers available to them to supervise insolvencies and I do not believe that the additional cost of such an independent monitor is justified.

  However, the Government welcome the setting up of the joint institute monitoring unit by professional bodies whose members are engaged in insolvency practice. This will provide users of insolvency procedures with a basic level of assurance as to professional standards and regulatory compliance.

  Intra-EEC Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish figures corresponding to those in the December 1993 issue of "Business Monitor MM20" for total trade in tables 3 and 4 for intra-EEC trade together with those for 1992.
  660
  Mr. Needham
  Information for 1993, including intra-EC trade, was published by the Central Statistical Office in tables 2 and 3 in the December 1993 issue of "Business Monitor MM20A", "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom with the World (including data for countries within the European Community: Intrastat)". Information for 1992 was published in "Business Monitor MA20", "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom". Both publications are available in the Library of the House.

  External Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table corresponding to table F2 of the 1991 "Supplement to the Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" showing separately the weighted average, excluding the United Kingdom, against the EC Six and the other listed countries.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Main manufacturing countries' exports of manufactures: unit value indices 1985=100

  Weighted average excluding United Kingdom

  Non-EC1

  EC(6)

  1975q1

  64

  83

  1975q2

  65

  83

  1975q3

  63

  78

  1975q4

  64

  77

  1976q1

  64

  77

  1976q2

  66

  78

  1976q3

  66

  80

  1976q4

  68

  83

  1977q1

  68

  85

  1977q2

  69

  86

  1977q3

  70

  88

  1977q4

  73

  91

  1978q1

  75

  96

  1978q2

  78

  98

  1978q3

  83

  102

  1978q4

  85

  108

  1979q1

  87

  112

  1979q2

  88

  112

  1979q3

  91

  121

  1979q4

  92

  126

  1980q1

  93

  132

  1980q2

  96

  131

  1980q3

  99

  134

  1980q4

  101

  129

  1981q1

  101

  120

  1981q2

  100

  113

  1981q3

  100

  109

  1981q4

  104

  116

  1982q1

  104

  113

  1982q2

  103

  112

  1982q3

  101

  107

  1982q4

  100

  107

  1983q1

  102

  110

  1983q2

  101

  106

  1983q3

  100

  102

  1983q4

  102

  102

  1984q1

  102

  103

  1984q2

  103

  103

  1984q3

  100

  98

  1984q4

  99

  95

  1985q1

  97

  91

  1985q2

  98

  96

  1985q3

  101

  104

  1985q4

  105

  112

  1986q1

  108

  122

  1986q2

  110

  124

  1986q3

  114

  131

  1986q4

  115

  135

  1987q1

  119

  145

  661

  Non-EC1

  EC(6)

  1987q2

  122

  147

  1987q3

  122

  145

  1987q4

  126

  155

  1988q1

  129

  156

  1988q2

  130

  155

  1988q3

  127

  145

  1988q4

  131

  155

  1989q1

  131

  152

  1989q2

  128

  148

  1989q3

  128

  149

  1989q4

  130

  157

  1990q1

  132

  167

  1990q2

  132

  169

  1990q3

  137

  177

  1990q4

  142

  187

  1991q1

  141

  183

  1991q2

  136

  163

  1991q3

  136

  162

  1991q4

  139

  174

  1992q1

  125

  —

  Weighted average excluding United Kingdom

  Year

  Non-EC1

  EC (6)

  1975

  64

  80

  1976

  66

  80

  1977

  70

  88

  1978

  80

  101

  1979

  90

  118

  1980

  97

  131

  1981

  101

  115

  1982

  102

  110

  1983

  101

  105

  1984

  101

  99

  1985

  100

  101

  1986

  112

  128

  1987

  122

  148

  1988

  130

  153

  1989

  129

  152

  1990

  138

  175

  1991

  134

  170

  1Non-EC comprises: Sweden, Switzerland, United States of America, Canada and Japan.

  Note: Manufactures is defined as SITC sections 5–8.

  Data is only available back to 1975.

  Updated and rebased to 1990=100 data will be available from 8 July 1994 on the central shared database, which can be accessed from the Library.

  Trade and Industry Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing by standard industrial trade classification two-digit division the industries whose share of the United Kingdom market has increased(a) since 1973 and (b) since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing by SITC two-digit division the industries whose share of exports by the main manufacturing countries has declined since 1985.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is given in the table.
  662

  SITC divisions for which the United Kingdom share of main manufacturing countries' exports decreased between 1985 and 1991.

  SITC Code

  Description

  00

  Live animals

  01

  Meat, meat preparations

  05

  Vegetables and fruit

  06

  Sugar, surgical preparations, honey

  07

  Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices

  09

  Miscellaneous edible products etc.

  12

  Tobacco, tobacco manufactures

  21

  Hides, skins, furskins, raw

  22

  Oil seed, oleaginus fruit

  24

  Cork and wood

  28

  Metalliferous ore, scrap

  29

  Crude animal, vegetable material

  32

  Coal, coke, briquettes

  33

  Petroleum, petroleum products

  34

  Gas, natural, manufactured

  43

  Animal, vegetable fats, oils, nes

  51

  Organic chemicals

  52

  Inorganic chemicals

  53

  Dyes, colouring materials

  55

  Essential oils, perfume, etc.

  57

  Plastics in primary form

  59

  Chemical materials nes

  61

  Leather, leather goods

  63

  Cork, wood manufactures

  65

  Textile yarn, fabric, etc.

  66

  Non-metallic, mineral manufactures

  69

  Metals manufactures, nes

  72

  Special industrial machinery

  73

  Metal working machinery

  74

  General industrial machinery nes

  77

  Electrical mch. apparatus, parts nes

  81

  Prefabricated buildings, fittings etc.

  82

  Furniture, bedding, etc.

  84

  Clothing and accessories

  87

  Scientific equipment nes

  Postal Services
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about his plans for the postal service.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I am today publishing a Green Paper on the future of postal services. It sets out the challenges and opportunities facing the Post Office businesses and the Government's response to them.

  We have one of the best postal services in the world. The Post Office and its employees have responded well to the challenges of recent years, but enormous changes are taking place in the markets in which the Post Office operates. If the Post Office businesses are to seize the opportunities and respond to increasing competition, while providing further improvements in the service to customers, then more fundamental changes are required. In its recent report on the future of the Post Office, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry said:
  "What is undoubtedly true is that the Post Office cannot be retained in its present form".

  The Government agree. The status quo is not an option.

  As I made clear in my statement to the House on 19 May, the Government's consideration of those issues is subject to three vital and non-negotiable commitments. These are the maintenance of a nationwide letter and parcel service with daily delivery to every address in the United Kingdom, a uniform and affordable structure of prices, and a nationwide network of post offices.

  The Government propose to retain the current structure of the nationwide network of post offices, keeping Post

  663
  Office Counters in the public sector. It believes that the present partnership between Post Office Counters, at the hub of the network, and the private sector business people who run sub-post offices—which represent over 19,000 of the nearly 20,000 post offices—works well and should continue. The Government intend to maintain and strengthen the business and the network by allowing them to take on new areas of work, building on their existing activities. It also proposes that there should be significant investment in the automation of many of their clerical routines, in particular benefit payments.

  As for Royal Mail, the Government accept that, to survive and prosper, the business needs greater commercial freedom to seize new opportunities and to meet greater competitive challenges in the communications market. The Green Paper sets out the options for achieving this that the Government are considering.

  The Government's preferred option is a new partnership arrangement under which the Royal Mail, together with Parcelforce, would be jointly owned by the Government, the public, sub-postmasters and employees, with the Government retaining a stake of 49 per cent. of the shares. Any further sale of shares by the Government would be subject to parliamentary approval. Under this option, the Government would guarantee the three non-negotiable commitments through legislation.

  The Green Paper discusses the issues of regulation and competition in the postal sector, and describes how greater competition and choice would be progressively introduced for customers. It also discusses consumer representation, the position of the Post Office's employees and sub-postmasters and VAT, as well as the royal associations which the Post Office has traditionally enjoyed.

  The Government are inviting comments on the Green Paper by 30 September.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether consideration has been given to the impact of paragraph 6.4.2 of chapter 3 of the European Green Paper on post as it relates to the privatisation of(a) the Royal Mail and (b) Parcelforce; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The EC Green Paper has no legislative force and therefore has no impact on the legal position. The section referred to by the hon. Member does indicate that the Commission intends to review the competitive interface between public postal services and those of other operators in respect of VAT. The Government have also addressed this issue in their own Green Paper, published today. The Commission has not, however, brought forward any proposals in this sector. Public postal services, such as the universal services which will under any outcome continue to be provided by Royal Mail and Parcelforce, therefore remain free of VAT.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people are in current full-time employment with Parcelforce in Stoke-on-Trent; how many of them are currently in temporary contracts; how many of them are currently employed as casual workers; what are the recruitment procedures used in respect of(a) permanent, (b) part-time and (c) casual work; and if he will give details of different rates of pay and conditions of employment in respect of (i) permanent, (ii) part-time and (iii) casual work.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Parcelforce's staffing and recruitment practices are commercial matters for the business.

  EC Sixth VAT Directive
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the European Commission about amending article 13(a)(1)(a) of the EC sixth VAT directive, whereby public postal services are exempt from VAT.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Commission has indicated in its Green Paper on postal services its intention to review the VAT treatment of postal services, and this has arisen in discussions with them. The Commission has not, however, brought forward any proposed amendment.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the European Commission about the interpretation of article 13(a)(1)(a) of the EC sixth VAT directive as it relates to the privatisation of Parcelforce.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My officials, together with those of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, have had a number of contacts with the Commission of the European Communities about that provision of the sixth directive. The Government are satisfied that, under the directive as it stands, privatisation would not mean the imposition of VAT on the universal letter and parcel services provided by Royal Mail and Parcelforce. The Government have made it clear that under any option they finally adopt, stamps will continue to be free of VAT.

  Invisible Exports
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the share of invisible exports which go to other EC countries; and if he will make a statement about the significance of invisible exports to the United Kingdom economy.

  Mr. Needham
  EC member states accounted for 35 per cent. of the United Kingdom's invisible credits in 1992, the latest year for which an analysis by country is available. Total invisible credits accounted for nearly half of United Kingdom's overseas earnings in 1993, and represented 18 per cent. of "money GDP".

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration was given to evidence from the trustees before the Official Receiver's decision not to apply to the courts for a suspension before the automatic discharge in November of the bankruptcy of Mr. Asil Nadir; and on what grounds this decision was reached.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Official Receiver's application under section 279(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 in the case of Mr. Asil Nadir—Suspension of automatic discharge—was lodged in court on 5 May 1994 and is due to be heard on 1 July 1994.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 225, if he will publish a table indicating the downtrend of manufacturing employment in the developed world between 1979 and 1994.
  665
  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 28 June 1994]: The information requested is published in the OECD's "Labour Force Statistics (1971–1991)", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Business Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the rate of new business formation and failure in(a) Fife and (b) Scotland on a quarterly basis over the last three years.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: Not all the figures requested are available. The best guide to trends in the number of business starts and closures comes from the annual VAT data; quarterly data are not available. Figures for the years 1990 to 1992 are published in "VAT Registrations and Deregistrations, County and District Analysis", 1980 to 1991, and 1992 editions. Both these documents are available in the Library of the House or online via NOMIS.

  Quarterly figures for company insolvencies in Scotland were last published on 6 May in the Association of British Chambers of Commerce's "Business Briefing", which is available in the Library of the House. Equivalent figures for Fife are not available.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Initiative
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what his estimate is of(a) current job vacancies and (b) job vacancies to be covered by the new training initiative.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In May 1994, the seasonally adjusted number of unfilled vacancies at United Kingdom jobcentres stood at 147,000. It is estimated that, nationally, jobcentre vacancies represent about one third of all unfilled vacancies.

  Modern apprenticeships are training places; high-quality training, typically taking about three years to complete. In five years' time there could be over 150,000 apprentices in training if employers respond, as I am sure that they will.

  Disabled People (Employment)
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what sum his Department is currently spending on promoting the employment of disabled persons; and what the figures were in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  People with disabilities have access to all the Department's employment and training programmes, and benefit from all the Department's initiatives on promoting employment opportunities. Expenditure on disabled people within mainstream programmes cannot be disaggregated from overall programme expenditure. The following table contains such information as is available on programme expenditure on specialist programmes and initiatives for disabled people only and relates to expenditure from 1986–87 onward. It is not possible to provide figures for the years before 1986–87 without incurring disproportionate cost.
  666

  Employment Department Expenditure on Promoting People with Disabilities

  £000

  1986–87

  90,451

  1987–88

  94,181

  1988–89

  98,465

  1989–90

  1116,764

  1990–91

  128,892

  1991–92

  142,807

  1992–93

  2160,011

  1993–94

  163,651

  1994–95

  3174,461

  Notes: All yearly totals are cash figures. The figures are based on Employment Department and Employment Service (ES) published appropriation accounts, except the 1993–94 and 1994–95 figures, which are based on the ES supply estimates. They do not include any administration costs or Supported (formerly sheltered) Employment research and development costs.

  1From and including 1989–90, totals include expenditure on services for people with disabilities which, in previous years, were not separately identifiable.

  2Totals for 1992–93 and 1993–94 include expenditure on advertising and publicity which, in previous years, were not separately identifiable.

  3Includes resources transferred from the revenue support grant of the Department of the Environment, Scottish and Welsh Offices for local authority expenditure on Supported Employment.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will announce the membership of the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities following its reconstitution.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am appointing seven new members and reappointing 10 existing members to the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities for a period of three years from 1 July 1994. The chairman of the Council, Mr. Alan Smith MBE, FIPM, FBIM, FinstD, has also been reappointed.

  The members of the council are:

  Members appointed after consultation with organisations representing employers

  Ms J. T. Mellor

  Mr. P. H. Newman

  Mr. R. C. Spoor OBE, RD. DCL, DL, FCA

  Members appointed after consultation with organisations representing workers

  Mrs. G. M. Davies RGN

  Ms R. Donaghy

  Mr. R. D. Exell

  Other Members

  Professor I. W. Bruce BSocSc, CIMgt

  Mr. W. G. Davies

  Dr. S. Duckworth MSc., LRCP., MRCS

  Dr. A. L. M. Fingret MBBS., MFOM

  Sir P. Large CBE

  Mr. H. W. Massie OBE

  Mr. T. V. F. Papé BSc

  Ms S. Scott-Parker

  Mr. T. R. Sermon FCIS

  Mr. I. N. Sneddon

  Ms F. D. Worman FIPM

  Job Finders' Grant
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the job finders' grant to areas other than the pilot areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The job finders' grant pilots are being evaluated. No decision has been taken to extend them to other areas.

  Trade Union Membership
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what account was taken in preparation of the Government's White Paper on competitiveness (Cm 2563) of the paper by Professor Beenstock et al on the United Kingdom economic recovery in the 1930s published in Bank of England Panel Paper No. 23; and if he will publish a table giving figures comparable to their Chart 42 for trade union membership as a percentage of employees in employment of the period since 1964.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Today's circumstances are very different from those of the 1930s. The trend in trade union membership from 1964 to 1992 is presented in the following table:

  Trade union membership as a percentage of employees in employment in the United Kingdom 1964–1992

  Year

  Per cent.

  1964

  45

  1965

  45

  1966

  44

  1967

  45

  1968

  45

  1969

  46

  1970

  50

  1971

  50

  1972

  51

  1973

  51

  1974

  52

  11975

  54

  11975

  53

  1976

  55

  21977

  57

  21978

  57

  1979

  57

  1980

  58

  1981

  56

  1982

  55

  1983

  53

  1984

  51

  1985

  50

  1986

  49

  1987

  48

  1988

  46

  1989

  44

  1990

  44

  1991

  43

  1992

  42

  Note:

  Union membership totals are the end of year figures.

  1Discontinuity:—Thirty-one organisations previously regarded as trade unions are excluded from 1975 onwards because they failed to satisfy the statutory definition of a trade union in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, 1974. To help provide a link in the series, two sets of figures are given for 1975. The first gives the figures on the original basis for comparison with earlier years, while the second gives estimates for comparison with later years.

  2The employees in employment estimates are at June of each year between 1964 and 1977, and at December of each year between 1978 and 1992.

  British Telecom
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information has been given to his Department by BT plc about the expected number of redundancies of each grade of employee for the year April 1994 to March 1995.
  668
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information given to the Department under the statutory redundancy handling provisions is provided in confidence.

  Redundancies
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now introduce legislation requiring companies to consult representatives of their employees on redundancies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Employers have been required since 1975 to consult recognised trade unions about proposed redundancies. The Government are presently considering what changes need to be made to those arrangements following a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the percentage of the total work force working under 20 hours per week for(a) 1984 and (b) 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates from the labour force survey for Great Britain show that 11·per cent. of employees and self-employed people usually worked fewer than 20 hours per week in their main job in spring 1984, compared with 13·6 per cent. in winter 1993–94.

  Training
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what process his Department monitors companies which provide training or initiate quotations as training providers; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils contract directly with training providers. The TEC operating agreement between the Department and TECs sets out the monitoring requirements placed on them in a number of areas to ensure that their providers give value for money and that the use of public funds is managed in a robust and efficient manner.

  Cathedral Employment Enterprises
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what help, financial or other, his Department is prepared to offer Cathedral Employment Enterprises; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Department does not contract directly with providers for training—other than the Employment Service for job clubs. Therefore, it is not in a position to give financial support to Cathedral Employment Enterprises. The ES currently has around £20,000 owing to Cathedral and is waiting to be advised by Cathedral's accountants of new arrangements for paying this figure. Both the ES and South Thames training and enterprise council, with which Cathedral had substantial contracts, gave Cathedral's invoices priority treatment to ease its cash-flow problems. All three TECs that currently have contracts with Cathedral, and the ES, are making alternative arrangements to help those trainees affected.

HEALTH

  Bullying (NHS Staff)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department intends to take to eliminate the bullying of national health staff at work.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for individual national health service employers, who will want to take account of the general Whitley council agreement on harassment at work, copies of which are available in the Library.

  South West Thames Region
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will detail for each financial year since 1990–91 the resource allocation, per head of population, for each health district in the old South West Thames region.

  Mr. Sackville
  The per capita spend for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 is shown in the table. Comparisons of those per capita spend figures need to be treated with caution. First, not all the expenditure covered arises from population related activities. Secondly, crude populations do not reflect differences in age structure or relative health care need. Those differences feature in the formulae used to inform the main allocations made to district health authorities. Thirdly, before 1991–92, DHAs were funded for their catchment populations and not for their resident populations.

  District health authority

  1990–91 (£)

  1991–92 (£)

  1992–93 (£)

  North West Surrey

  278

  341

  369

  West Surrey

  182

  268

  285

  South West Surrey

  346

  361

  359

  Mid Surrey

  396

  372

  407

  East Surrey

  361

  379

  402

  Chichester

  266

  336

  377

  Mid Downs

  233

  305

  314

  Worthing

  229

  332

  355

  Croydon

  280

  342

  365

  Kingston and Esher

  325

  373

  407

  Richmond and Twickenham

  237

  413

  425

  Wandsworth

  702

  534

  569

  Merton and Sutton

  279

  386

  410

  Source: Expenditure - 1992–93 annual accounts of health authorities (England)

  Population - Mid year population estimates.

  Figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Community Care Policy
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the cost of providing public-funded residential care for people in England who have returned to, or remained within, the community under the community care policy ; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowls
  The policy of replacing long-stay hospitals when appropriate with a range of health and social services in the community has been pursued by successive Governments over many years. It is not therefore possible accurately to estimate either the total or the current cost of residential care solely for people discharged from long-stay hospitals and those who might in other circumstances have entered such hospitals.

  IGF-1
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the extent of a link between IGF-1 levels in milk and serious gastro-intestinal disorders in humans; and what research her Department has undertaken into the link.

  Mr. Sackville
  IGF-1 is a naturally occurring hormone in humans. Human blood normally contains 10 times the concentration of IGF-1 as that found in cows' milk. Any contribution to this from ingestion of milk would be minimal.

  The Department has undertaken no research into the link between IGF-1 levels in milk and serious gastro-intestinal disorders in humans.

  Doctors and Dentists (Working Hours)
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors and dentists in each region in England are contracted for more than(a) 83 hours a week or (b) 72 hours a week in on-call posts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 31 March 1994, the returns from the 14 English regional task forces on junior doctors' hours were as follows:

  Region

  (a) Contracted for more than 83 hours a week

  (b) Contracted for between 73 and 83 hours a week in hard-pressed on-call posts

  Northern

  0

  453

  Yorkshire

  2

  978

  Trent

  0

  342

  East Anglian

  0

  254

  North West Thames

  1

  419

  North East Thames

  0

  674

  South East Thames

  5

  392

  South West Thames

  4

  478

  Wessex

  0

  323

  Oxford

  0

  263

  South Western

  1

  128

  West Midlands

  0

  529

  Mersey

  0

  317

  North Western

  0

  974

  Total

  13

  6,524

  Research Units
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 November,Official Report, columns 240–2, if she will list for each of the 13 research units which have been subject to peer review, the date of the site visit, whether the report of the review has now been discussed with the unit, whether a decision has been made about the future of the unit and the nature of the decisions which have been made.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The dates of site visits are shown in the table:

  Research Unit

  Site Visit Date

  Completed

  Childhood Cancer Research Group

  October 1991

  Medical Care Research Unit

  October 1992

  National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit

  June 1993

  Social Medicine and Health Services Research Unit

  July 1993

  671

  Research Unit

  Site Visit Date

  Centre for Primary Care Research

  July 1993

  Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit

  October 1993

  National Institute for Social work

  October 1993

  Clinical Operational Research Unit

  November 1993

  Social Policy Research Unit

  January 1994

  Thomas Coram Research Unit

  March 1994

  Personal Social Services Research Unit

  April 1994

  Dartington social Research Unit

  April 1994

  Centre for Health Economics

  (planned for July 1994)

  With the exception of the centre for health economics, where the visit has yet to take place, the conclusion of the site visit teams are now being prepared.

  Latest developments regarding some of the units visited early in the programme are as follows:
  National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit
  Announcements have been made about the appointment of a new Director and the appointment process is currently in train.
  Centre for Primary Care Research
  Won a competitive tender for new Research Centre funding. I announced this on 21 February 1994.
  Social Medicine and Health Services Research Unit
  A new Director has been appointed and discussions are taking place about a new programme of work.

  Discussions are currently taking place with the directors of the cancer screening evaluation unit, the childhood cancer research group, the medical care research unit and the clinical operational research unit.

  The remaining units work in personal social services. They were visited and reviewed later in the cycle of visits. In respect of the National Institute for Social Work, the report of the reviewing panel has been sent formally to the institute's director. The review team's report on the social policy research unit has also been completed and will shortly be sent formally to the unit's director. Reports on the remainder are nearing completion. Decisions on those units will be taken as soon as possible.

  Grants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount of grant which could have been claimed by each local authority, and how much was claimed by each authority, for(a) community care special transitional grant, (b) projects working with people with HIV-related illness and (c) for other health and community care projects, in each year for which such grants were claimable.

  Mr. Bowls
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: The community care special transitional grant was allocated to local authorities on the basis of a formula for both 1993–94 and 1994–95 and not on the basis of claims made. Details of the allocations are set out in special grant reports 6 and 7—HC 404 and HC 405—for 1993–94 and special grant report 10—HC 218—for 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library.

  From its introduction in 1989–90 to 1993–94, local authorities were invited to submit bids for the HIV/AIDS specific grant without reference to indicative allocations but subject to an agreed national total. Details of the bids submitted and grants awarded will be placed in the Library. For 1994–95, local authorities were invited to submit expenditure plans which were assessed against indicative allocations of grant based on information provided to the Department by the Public Health Laboratory Service and
  672
  available for the first time on the distribution of AIDS cases by local authority area. Details of the indicative allocations and grants awarded will be placed in the Library.

  Two other specific grants support health and community care projects: they are for services for people with a mental illness and for people who misuse alcohol and drugs. For each year since its introduction in 1991–92, local authorities have been invited to bid for the mental illness specific grant against indicative allocations issued by the Department of Health. Details of the indicative allocations and the grants awarded will be placed in the Library. From its introduction in 1991–92, the alcohol and drugs specific grant has been allocated on the basis of open-ended bids invited by the Department of Health from local authorities supporting voluntary sector projects. Information about the original bids made could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Details of the successful bids made by voluntary organisations for each year since 1991–92, together with details of the local authority supporting each project, will be placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  Public Borrowing
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of maintaining the current level of public borrowing.

  Mr. Portillo
  Had we not taken effective action to put public finances on a sound and sustainable basis, confidence would have been severely damaged and the recovery weakened.

  Profit Share Tax Relief Schemes
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what analysis he has made of the efficacy of profit share tax relief schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  An evaluation of the tax relief for profit-related pay has been commissioned by the Inland Revenue, the Department of Employment and the Treasury, and is currently under way.

  Alcohol and Tobacco (Illegal Imports)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the volume of illegal imports of alcohol and tobacco.

  Sir John Cope
  The law prescribes severe penalties of up to seven years' imprisonment and unlimited fines for smuggling. Customs and Excise have deployed specially assigned staff and intelligence directed checks are used to seek out illicit goods. When cases are detected, the contraband is seized and in some cases the vehicle, too. Prosecutions have resulted in fines and custodial sentences.

  Growth Forecast
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for growth during the current financial year.
  673
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We are now facing the prospect of sustained growth and low inflation. I am forecasting that the economy will grow by 2¾ per cent. in both 1994 and 1995.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic conclusions he draws from the most recent unemployment figures.

  Mr. Portillo
  Unemployment has now fallen by over 300,000 since December 1992, much sooner and much faster than most people expected. In part that reflects the improved labour markets flexibility resulting from our supply-side reforms.

  VAT (Average Payments)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much an average family paid per week in VAT in(a) 1979 and (b) 1993; and what he estimates this figure will be in 1994.

  Sir John Cope
  A couple with two children on average earnings paid VAT of £12.95 per week in 1979–80, in 1993–94 prices, and an estimated £19.48 per week in 1993–94. Since 1978–79, the real take-home pay of such a family has risen by £83 per week.

  Taxation Changes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on changes in taxation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have received a wide range of representations on changes in taxation.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many more people will pay income tax this year than last year; and what proportion of these are pensioners.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The total number of income tax payers is expected on increase by 300,000 in 1994–95, mainly because of increases in income. About 70,000 of the increase in the respect of taxpayers aged 65 and over.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Government income tax policies over the last 15 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since 1979, Government policy has been to reduce marginal rates of income tax, whenever it has been prudent to do so, to sharpen incentives to work and create wealth.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates will be raised by the Treasury in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97 from the freezing of personal income tax allowances.

  Mr. Dorrell
  That information was given in table 4.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95" published on 30 November 1993.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total revenue raised by value added tax in the last financial year; and what will be the likely value added tax take in the current financial year.

  Sir John Cope
  Net VAT receipts by Customs and Excise amounted to £39,248 million in 1993–94. The forecast for 1994–95 is £43,400 million.

  Training
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much Government investment in training will be cut next year.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government's spending plans for the years 1995–96 to 1997–98 will be announced at the time of the Budget in the normal way.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the need to review the tax regime to encourage film producers to use British facilities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received no recent representations.

  Public Sector Investment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much public sector investment will change over the next three years, as measured by public sector asset creation; and if he will estimate by how much public sector investment has changed in real terms since 1989–90.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Public Sector Asset Creation, 1989–90 to 1996–97

  £ billion

  Cash

  Real1

  1989–90

  29.2

  34.8

  1990–91

  28.8

  31.8

  1991–92

  28.5

  29.5

  1992–93

  29.0

  29.0

  1993–94

  29.3

  28.4

  1994–95

  28.8

  26.8

  1995–96

  29.3

  26.3

  1996–97

  29.8

  26.1

  11992–93 prices

  German GDP
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the revised OECD estimate in respect of the change in the level of German gross domestic product in 1994.

  Mr. Nelson
  The OECD, along with most forecasters, has revised upwards its estimates of the growth in German gross domestic product for 1994. The OECD now expects growth in Germany to be 1.8 per cent. in 1994. That compares with its projection for United Kingdom growth in 1994 of 2.8 per cent.

  VAT (Standing Charges)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received over the adding of value added tax on standing charges for gas and electricity; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  I have received a large number of representations, both from right hon. and hon. Members and from members of the public. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that the standing charge has always been regarded as part of the consideration for a single supply of fuel and power. If it were not, it would have been liable to VAT at the standard rate since 1 April 1973 and would be liable at that rate now.

  Royal Family (Tax Returns)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements he has made for the market testing of the office dealing with the tax returns of the Royal Family.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue's current market testing programme consists of typing, secretarial, information technology and ancillary support services. If such services were to be transferred to a private sector organisation, the Inland Revenue would remain responsible for continuing to ensure proper standards of privacy and confidentiality for all citizens. Confidentiality is not a

  Average equivalised disposable income by household type and by quintile groups

  £ million

  1992

  Quintile groups of all households ranked by equivalised disposable income

  Household type

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All households

  One adult with children

  5,275

  7,816

  11,106

  15,892

  27,471

  8,449

  Two adults with one child

  4,635

  8,140

  11,416

  15,883

  30,236

  16,117

  Two adults with two children

  4,875

  8,231

  11,297

  15,837

  28,369

  13,899

  Two adults with three or more children

  4,924

  8,085

  11,190

  15,877

  27,524

  11,052

  Other households with children

  5,137

  8,092

  11,377

  15,834

  24,362

  11,578

  The quintile groups are based on all households ranked by equivalised disposable income. The difference between the average equivalised disposable income of household types within each quintile group is affected by the composition of the quintile group and the distribution of the incomes of the different household types within the quintile group.

  Those figures are not strictly comparable over time because of changes in classification of both income and taxation and because of changes in the family expenditure survey.

  The information is taken from an analysis published in "Economic Trends" which examines the differential impact of taxes and benefits on households at different income levels in the given year. It provides five measures of income and appropriate deflators have not been developed across the range of measures. For the particular measure of disposable income, a possible deflator would be the all-items retail prices index, excluding local taxes.

  EEC Membership Costs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now publish a White Paper setting out the effect on(a) jobs, (b) the balance of payments and (c) food prices in the United Kingdom of joining the EEC.
  676
  bar to market testing, but the Inland Revenue would need to be sure that an outside contractor could replicate existing security procedures and conditions.

  Manufacturing Sector
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next meet the Engineering Employers Federation to discuss ways in which he could stimulate the country's manufacturing sector.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have no plans at present to meet the Engineering Employers Federation. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary attended a presentation by it on 11 May and spoke to its council on 15 June. My officials have had regular contacts with the EEF over the last year.

  Income Statistics
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average equivalised income at current prices for 1979 and 1992 of (i) single-parent households, (ii) two-parent households with(a) one child, (b) two children and (c) three or more children, and (iii) other households with children, by quintile groups of households; and if he will make a statement on the unavailability of such information at other than current prices.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 July 1993,Official Report, column 238, for the figures for 1979. The figures for 1992 are in the table.

  Mr. Nelson
  No. I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 17 March,Official Report, column 822, and the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 18 May, Official Report, column 470, in answer to very similar questions from the hon. Member.

  Price Increases
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list of production industries as described in tables 7.1, 9 and 10 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" for which he has evidence of price increases in excess of that required to provide a return on capital sufficient to enable the industry to maintain its United Kingdom assets at current rates of exchange.

  Mr. Nelson
  Price indices of the output of manufacturing industry are published in table 18.6 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics". Information on required rates of return on capital is not available.

  Money Supply
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account is taken of the level of employment in the Government's policy on increases in the money supply.
  677
  Mr. Nelson
  It is the role of monetary policy to deliver low inflation. Decisions are based on an assessment of a range of indicators including the money supply and estimates of spare capacity in the economy. The minutes of the monthly monetary meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England set out the basis for monetary policy decisions and are now published.

  Investment
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal measures he is taking to encourage investment in(a) the private sector and (b) the public sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government are taking a number of measures to encourage investment:

  (i) in his November Budget last year my right hon. and learned Friend announced three tax measures to attract equity investment into unlisted companies: the Enterprise Investment Scheme, Venture Capital Trusts and an extension of Capital Gains Tax reinvestment relief;

  (ii) the Government now make a clear distinction between capital and current spending in the fiscal projections. This recognises that capital spending generates a future stream of benefits which current spending does not;

  (iii) the Private Finance Initiative will lead to more and better capital projects by allowing the public sector to draw on private sector management skills and financial resources.

  More generally, the Government have delivered the best possible economic environment for investment: low inflation, low interest rates and a clear strategy to reduce the PSBR, all of which provide the key to sustainable growth.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the cost of local government reform in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received a number of representations on the cost of local government reform from interested parties, including the hon. Member.

  English Wine
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the level of tax on English wine; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Each year, before making his budget decisions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer reviews the level of taxation on alcoholic beverages, including wine. Consideration is given to a wide range of social, economic and health factors as well as the revenue effect.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Benefits
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 402, if he will set out the severance benefits including pension, life insurance policies or grants that are available to Members of the European Parliament which are not available to hon. Members.
  678
  Mr. Newton
  As I said in my answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 402, resettlement grants and pensions are available to Members of the European Parliament and Members of this House on the same basis.

  There are differences in the arrangements for the reimbursement of expenses and other allowances. Payments of this kind to Members of the European Parliament are the responsibility of the European Parliament, but I am not aware of any payments from that source which relate to severance.

  1 Parliament Street
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee how many meals have been sold each day since the opening of Bellamy's Club dining room at 1 Parliament street; how the takings differ from those of the former coffee lounge; and what representations he has received from staff now excluded from the two rooms.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The conversion of the Clubroom, on a trial basis, was undertaken in response to representations from Members. Numerous representations have been received from staff now excluded from the two rooms, but it is as yet too early to form an opinion regarding the long-term viability of the new Clubroom. I understand that the Director of Catering Services intends to review the operation of the Clubroom after Christmas. The Catering Committee will wish to be informed of the results of that review and will then also consider the representations which it has received.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee how much the recent adaptions to the coffee bar and lounge in the Parliament street buildings has cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  I understand from the Director of Catering Services that the new servery counters purchased for Bellamy's Clubroom cost £25,849, paid from funds available in the Refreshment Department trading account. No costs have been incurred by the House of Commons works vote or administration vote. The servery counters have been specifically designed for flexibility of use and can, if necessary, be used for other purposes in the Refreshment Department.

  Visually Impaired Visitors
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what information is available in Braille to blind and visually impaired people visiting the House; if he will review how the availability of this information is advertised in the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  Braille guides, which include a tactile map of the Line of Route, are available from the Serjeant at Arms and braille guides to the Galleries are available from the Admissions Order Office and Doorkeepers on request. These guides are described in the leaflet "Arrangements for the Assistance of Disabled Visitors", which is available from the Sergeant at Arms Office and reception desks in the outbuildings. The current inquiry by the Accommodation and Works Committee into ways of improving access for disabled people visiting the Palace includes consideration of the provisions made for blind and partially sighted visitors.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the role of the Organisation of African Unity's observer mission in Burundi: what countries contribute personnel; and how the British Government have responded to its appeal for financial and logistical support.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The OAU mission is to assist in restoring democratic institutions, rebuilding confidence and stabilising the situation in Burundi. Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Cameroon, Tunisia and Egypt have contributed personnel.

  We have no plans to contribute towards this initiative. The United Kingdom has already committed $1 million to the United Nations Trust Fund for Liberia and we anticipate that others, who did not contribute to this fund, will take the lead in Burundi.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the French Government about its proposed military mission in Rwanda; and what assessment he has made about France's suitability for military involvement after its past involvement in that country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have supported the French initiative. A military mission as authorised by Security Council resolution 929 has a specific and restricted humanitarian mandate.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what terms and conditions he has put on his support for the French initiative in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under the terms of SCR 929, France is required to co-ordinate its initiative closely with the United Nations, and to complete its mission within two months.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Kenya about ethnic clashes in the country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Ethnic clashes are a major concern. We raise the issue regularly with the Kenyan authorities at all levels.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what human rights issues he has raised with the Government of Kenya in the past year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Human rights issues such as ethnic clashes and press freedom feature prominently in our regular discussions at all levels with the Kenyan Government.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the European Union about the issues Involved in continued support for Kenya.
  680
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We discuss regularly with our EU partners all issues relevant to continued support for Kenya.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the role of the Kenyan Government in ethnic clashes; and what representations he has made on this subject.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are concerned at continued ethnic clashes in Kenya and regularly make our concerns known to the appropriate authorities. We were recently more reassured by the Government's speedy action to contain violence in the Rift valley.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent British oil interests in the Ogoni area of Rivers state in Nigeria are being damaged by political unrest; and what representations he has made to the Nigerian Government on this issue.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I understand that the political unrest in the Ogoni area has led to a significant reduction in output from the Shell/AGIP/Elf joint venture with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation. The oil companies concerned have made representations to the Nigerian Government for a greater share of the oil revenue to be expended in the oil producing area.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking further to improve the United Kingdom's relationship with Nigeria.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We value our relationship with Nigeria and maintain close contact with the Nigerian Government through our high commission. We look forward to progress towards a restoration of democratic civilian government, which would permit closer relations to develop.

  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the possible impact on the United Kingdom, its investors, and its exporters, if further economic sanctions were to be imposed limiting trade with Nigeria; if he will make it his policy to oppose the introduction of any such sanctions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We and our European Union partners have introduced a number of measures directed at Nigeria's military Government to demonstrate our strong support for a return to democratic civilian rule. It is not the intention that such measures should harm economic relations.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the plight of the Ogoni people in the Rivers state of Nigeria; what view he has formed on this; and what representations he has made to the Nigerian Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received a number of representations on this matter f0rom hon. Members and
  681
  from the public. The problems in Rivers state are rooted in a complex set of issues. The Nigerian Government are fully aware, through our contacts with them, of the importance that we attach to human rights.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Nigerian high commissioner; and what was discussed at that meeting.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Nigerian high commissioner to London briefly at the diplomatic banquet on 17 June. A wide range of issues are discussed in the course of regular diplomatic contacts with the high commissioner.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to the announcement by the Nigerian Government of its federal government political programme; and what steps he is taking to assist the work of the local government caretaker committee, the national constitutional conference, and other bodies established by the Nigerian authorities to prepare the ground for further movement towards democracy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave her on 28 June,Official Report, columns 525–26. We are not familiar with the work of the local government caretaker committee. We do, however, welcome the start of the national constitutional conference, and hope to see firm progress towards democratic, civilian rule.

  Diplomatic Entertaining Costs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of entertaining foreign guests at each British high commission situated in each other Commonwealth country in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Expenditure on official entertainment in 1993 at British high commissions overseas was £1,343,538. It is our practice not to publish how this is divided between posts.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of entertaining foreign guests at each British embassy situated in each other EU country in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Expenditure on official entertainment in 1993 at British embassies in European Union countries was £1,595,717. It is our practice not to publish how this is divided between posts.

  Switzerland
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 178, if he will propose that regulations with Switzerland on bilateral agreements include extradition for tax evasion.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Foreign Affairs Council agreed in November 1993 that the priority areas for negotiations with Switzerland were road transport,682
  aviation, research, free movement of people, trade in agricultural goods, public procurement and technical barriers to trade. Extradition is not a matter of Community competence. The United Kingdom has reciprocal extradition arrangements with Switzerland through the Council of Europe convention on extradition, but tax offences are not covered since, unlike the United Kingdom, Switzerland is not party to the relevant section of the second protocol to the convention.

  Turkish Cypriots
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the movement of Turkish Cypriots into the United Kingdom from Cyprus.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A person who is neither a British citizen nor a Commonwealth citizen with right of abode nor an EEA national would need to fulfil the requirements of the immigration rules in order to be admitted to the United Kingdom.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sewerage Pipe
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 393, what are the statutory obligations relating to pollution that concern the standards of equipment used to transport sewage.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are none applying to equipment and sewers. It is up to the water companies how they comply with the conditions attached to discharge consents issued by the National Rivers Authority and more generally how they avoid infringing other requirements relating to pollution.

  Minis Report
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish his departmental Minis report 15.

  Mr. Gummer
  I expect to publish Minis 15 during July.

  Drinking Water
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 344, how many times the drinking water inspectorate has been informed by water companies of incidents which affected, or threatened to affect, drinking water quality (a) for each year since 2 January 1990 and (b) by each company.

  Mr. Atkins
  The numbers of incidents reported to the drinking water inspectorate during the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 were 79, 59, 56 and 52 respectively. Additionally, for those years there were 24 informal notifications where, although the water companies had been concerned about a threat to drinking water quality, it did not materialise; these are classified as non-incidents. For 1994, up to 8 June, 25 notifications have been received. The total number of notifications for the period 2 January 1990 to 8 June 1994 was 295.
  683
  Most of the incidents were minor happenings. A typical reported incident is one where some failure in the system resulted in a company advising consumers to boil their water as a precautionary measure while the microbiological quality of the water was carefully investigated.

  Incidents by company for years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and to 24 June 1994

  Company

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  Total

  Bournemouth

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bristol

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1

  5

  Cambridge

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Chester

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Cholderton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  East Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Shields

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  East Worcester

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Essex

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  5

  Folkestone

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Hartlepools

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Mid Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Mid Southern

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  North East2

  1

  —

  —

  5

  1

  7

  North Surrey

  3

  —

  1

  —

  1

  5

  Portsmouth

  —

  1

  2

  2

  —

  5

  South East3

  2

  3

  1

  —

  1

  7

  South Staffordshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Suffolk

  4

  1

  —

  2

  —

  7

  Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Tendring Hundred

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Three Valleys4

  3

  4

  2

  1

  2

  12

  West Hampshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wrexham

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  York

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Anglian

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Northumbrian

  1

  3

  1

  6

  1

  12

  North West

  11

  7

  5

  7

  3

  33

  Severn Trent

  —

  3

  14

  7

  1

  25

  Southern

  2

  1

  4

  —

  2

  9

  South West

  9

  5

  2

  3

  1

  20

  Thames

  8

  3

  3

  1

  —

  15

  Welsh

  20

  13

  8

  2

  2

  45

  Wessex

  1

  4

  2

  3

  2

  12

  Yorkshire

  3

  3

  4

  11

  5

  26

  Non-incidents

  9

  2

  10

  3

  —

  24

  TOTAL

  79

  59

  56

  52

  25

  295

  1To 24 June 1994.

  2North East Water includes the original companies of Newcastle and Gateshead and Sunderland and South.

  3South East includes original companies of Eastbourne, Mid-Sussex and West Kent.

  4Three Valleys includes the original companies of Colne Valley, Lee Valley and Rickmansworth.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tests in each year since 1990 by water companies of compliance with the standards for drinking water did not demonstrate compliance with the relevant water quality standards(a) by year and (b) by water company.

  Mr. Atkins
  Each year, the companies collectively carry out a total of around 3·75 million tests on drinking water. These data are audited by the drinking water

  Drinking Water Quality—Compliance Results

  Number of Tests

  Company

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Total

  Non Compliance

  Total

  Non Compliance

  Total

  Non Compliance

  Anglian

  329,789

  6,506

  353,673

  5,181

  311,531

  3,697

  Bournemouth1

  6,506

  9

  8,529

  61

  8,106

  34

  Bristol

  25,464

  737

  28,647

  727

  35,058

  491

  Cambridge

  7,952

  26

  8,814

  20

  9,626

  29

  684
  Data on individual companies, showing the number of incidents reported each year, is as tabulated.

  inspectorate. In 1992, 98·7 per cent. of these tests demonstrated compliance with the standards. Of the 1·3 per cent. which demonstrated non-compliance with standards, there is no evidence that any of these contraventions was of such a magnitude or duration as to endanger the health of consumers.

  The breakdown of the results by company are given in the table for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. Data for 1993 are being processed and will be published in the drinking water inspectorate's next annual report.
  685

  Company

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Total

  Non Compliance

  Total

  Non Compliance

  Total

  Non Compliance

  Chester

  3,027

  3

  3,996

  3

  4,302

  1

  Cholderton and District

  l04

  0

  310

  3

  298

  0

  Colne Valley2

  19,997

  980

  18,807

  759

  22,451

  550

  Dw^r Cymru

  107,066

  730

  123,692

  1,154

  111,493

  764

  East Surrey

  20,130

  242

  13,092

  176

  16,899

  238

  East Worcester3

  8,229

  37

  12,546

  18

  12,028

  49

  Eastbourne4

  5,389

  38

  12,375

  54

  13,935

  180

  Essex

  30,451

  1,486

  114,077

  3,672

  152,603

  5,316

  Folkestone and Dover

  13,000

  40

  5,429

  29

  4,669

  52

  Hartlepools

  1,333

  11

  1,190

  2

  1,156

  6

  Lee Valley2

  22,561

  327

  27,416

  287

  42,937

  310

  Mid Kent

  12,719

  133

  18,904

  144

  17,859

  251

  Mid Southern

  28,491

  326

  28,341

  203

  26,965

  135

  Mid Sussex4

  23,239

  254

  31,892

  379

  24,548

  726

  North East5

  48,146

  476

  60,503

  221

  51,141

  187

  North Surrey

  11,965

  174

  17,472

  529

  21,570

  462

  North West

  455,023

  3,258

  303,015

  2,132

  294,380

  1,774

  Northumbrian

  64,069

  281

  65,093

  436

  62,112

  212

  Portsmouth

  15,391

  52

  17,755

  41

  16,540

  36

  Rickmansworth2

  16,434

  81

  18,676

  67

  23,328

  45

  Severn Trent

  583,433

  2,512

  451,245

  2,271

  402,934

  1,381

  South Staffordshire

  23,450

  268

  29,128

  193

  23,232

  144

  South West

  50,980

  457

  66,257

  273

  73,819

  238

  Southern

  61,563

  487

  74,311

  474

  78,187

  453

  Suffolk

  12,259

  105

  11,744

  38

  12,161

  36

  Sutton District

  7,359

  40

  8,335

  65

  9,978

  59

  Tendring Hundred

  2,751

  29

  3,074

  15

  3,347

  9

  Thames Water

  130,624

  5,959

  346,957

  19,690

  492,311

  27,532

  Wessex

  54,248

  204

  76,500

  270

  74,087

  235

  West Hampshire1

  5,644

  14

  6,628

  23

  6,820

  33

  West Kent4

  7,528

  49

  10,388

  23

  6,185

  12

  Wrexham and East Denbighshire

  5,932

  11

  5,564

  19

  4,896

  13

  York Waterworks

  5,882

  22

  7,259

  27

  6,481

  12

  Yorkshire

  136,072

  1,459

  233,133

  2,046

  295,614

  1,937

  1Bournemouth and West Hampshire are now one company.

  2Colne Valley, Lee Valley and Rickmansworth together are now Three Valleys Water Co.

  3East Worcester is now part of Severn Trent.

  4Eastbourne, Mid-Sussex and West Kent together are now South East Water.

  5North East was previously Newcastle and Gateshead and Sunderland and South Shield Water Companies.

  Foleshill Gas Works
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current position concerning negotiations with British Gas on the redevelopment of the Foleshill gas works site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for English Partnerships and British Gas. However, I understand that negotiations are continuing on the basis of English Partnerships's earlier proposal of grant and a possible joint venture to cover the two parts of the site.

  Sea Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the outcome of the Paris Commission meeting on sea pollution held in Karlskrona, Sweden, indicating the decisions taken and the United Kingdom position in each instance.

  Mr. Atkins
  The annual joint meeting of the commissions established by the 1972 Oslo convention for the prevention of marine pollution by dumping from ships and aircraft and the 1974 Paris convention for the prevention of marine pollution from land-based sources took place in Karlskrona from 13 to 17 June. The commissions consist of representatives of the contracting parties, which are the littoral states of the north-east Atlantic and the European Community.
  686
  The commissions reviewed progress in implementing the conventions and in bringing into force the 1992 convention on the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic, and took a number of decisions about their future internal organisations. They adopted the following decisions and recommendations under the conventions—decisions bind those contracting parties that accept them; recommendations have no binding force.

  They are:

  a. PARCOM Recommendation 94/1 on best available techniques for new aluminium electrolysis plants: adopted by a three-quarters majority with reservations by Germany and the UK; the UK reservation was entered because the recommendation selected only certain features from the agreed description of best available techniques and therefore risked distorting the effects of the description, because the emission limit values were only specified in relation to production volumes and not to total emissions, and because no target date was set for bringing emissions from existing plants within the emission limit values for new plants, which could distort competition;

  b. PARCOM Recommendation 94/2 on best available techniques and best environmental practice for the integrated and non-integrated sulphite paper pulp industry: adopted by a three-quarters majority with reservations by France, by Portugal and by the UK (for the same reasons, in part, as with Recommendation 94/1):

  c. PARCOM Recommendation 94/3 on best available techniques and best environmental practice for the integrated and non-integrated kraft pulp industry: adopted by a three quarters majority with reservations by France and by the UK (for the same reasons, in part, as with Recommendation 94/1):

  d. PARCOM Recommendation 94/4 on best available techniques for the organic chemical industry: adopted by a

  687
  three-quarters majority with reservations by the UK and Portugal; the UK reservation was entered because the four-page recommendation was too superficial for such a complex subject;

  e. PARCOM Recommendation 94/5 concerning best available techniques and best environmental practice for wet processes in the textile processing industry: adopted by a three-quarters majority with reservations by Portugal and by the UK (for the same reasons, in part, as with Recommendation 94/1).

  f. PARCOM Decision 94/1 on substances/preparations used and discharged offshore: adopted by a three-quarters majority with reservations by France, by the European Community, by Spain and by the UK; the UK reservation was entered because the decision gave no basis for the selection of the substances named in it and thus cut across the collective work already successfully being undertaken to develop a harrnonised control system;

  g. PARCOM Recommendation 94/6 on best environmental practice for the reduction of inputs of potentially toxic chemicals from aquaculture use: adopted by a three-quarters majority with reservations by Belgium, by Spain and by the UK; the UK reservation was entered because the Recommendation does not adequately describe best environmental practice;

  h. PARCOM Recommendation 94/7 on the elaboration of national action plans and best environmental practice for the reduction of inputs to the environment of pesticides from agricultural use: adopted unanimously; this Recommendation amended last year's Recommendation on the same subject;

  i. PARCOM Recommendation 94/8 concerning environmental impact resulting from discharges of radioactive substances: adopted unanimously; this Recommendation commits the Commissions to further review of the environmental impacts of radioactive discharges, past and present;

  j. PARCOM Recommendation 94/9 concerning the management of spent nuclear fuel: adopted unanimously; this Recommendation commits the Commissions to requesting the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD to carry out a review of the management of spent nuclear fuel.

  The Commissions also discussed a number of other draft recommendations and decisions which failed to achieve a three-quarters majority. These are to be studied further. The Commissions also agreed that the difficulties seen by the United Kingdom in a number of the recommendations and decisions were of importance for establishing future recommendations and decisions, and should be looked into during the forthcoming year.

  North Sea Pollution
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures have been taken to control the discharge of industrial effluent into the North sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under the Water Resources Act 1991, discharges of effluent to rivers and coastal waters require the consent of the relevant regulatory authority—the National Rivers Authority for England and Wales. Consents are designed to ensure that the receiving waters meet environmental quality standards. In addition, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 introduced a system of integrated pollution control for industrial processes with the most potential for polluting releases. Tight control of discharges has led to a progressive reduction in United Kingdom inputs of the most hazardous substances to the North sea, in line with international commitments made at North sea conferences.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to monitor chemical pollution of the North sea; and if he will make a statement.
  688
  Mr. Atkins
  The marine pollution monitoring management group, consisting of scientists from the relevant Government Departments and regulatory authorities, has prepared a national monitoring plan, which is implemented by the agencies with statutory monitoring responsibilities. This is based on a network of inshore, estuarine and offshore monitoring sites. This provides comprehensive information on the seas around the United Kingdom and formed the basis of the United Kingdom input to the monitoring master plan of the North sea task force, which was established by the North sea states,inter alia, to prepare the North sea quality status report, which was published in March this year.

  Cleveland
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the Prime Minister's oral answer to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) of 16 June,Official Report, column 754, regarding consultation on local government reorganisation in Rutland and Huntingdon, if he will make it his policy to ensure that every household in Cleveland is also consulted on the future of local government in its area.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend's decisions on the future local government of Cleveland, which were announced on 18 January, took into account the extensive local consultation undertaken by the Local Government Commission, as well as the representations we received on the Commission's final recommendations for the area.

  Council Tax Appeals
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against council tax banding have been received to date; how many have already been decided; and how many are expected to have been decided by(a) 31 December 1994 and (b) 31 March 1995.

  Mr. Curry
  The Valuation Office Agency received 909,365 banding appeals in respect of dwellings in England by the end of May, of which 363,542 had already been settled. Around 690,000 appeals are expected to be settled before 31 December 1994 and around 793.000 before 31 March 1995.

  Hazardous Wastes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which developing country parties to the Basel convention have replied to the European Commission indicating(a) they do not want to receive exports of green list wastes as classified by the OECD and (b) they would like the red and amber list procedures applied to green list wastes; and what measures he intends to take to respect their wishes.

  Mr. Atkins
  We understand from the European Commission that the following non-OECD parties to the Basel convention have said that they do not wish to receive shipments of any "green list" waste from the European Community:

  Chile

  Indonesia

  Maldives

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  689

  Seychelles

  St. Lucia

  Tanzania

  Brazil and the Republic of Korea have said that they would allow imports of some green list wastes. The following non-OECD parties to the Basel convention have said that they wish amber or red list procedures to apply to shipments of green list waste from the European Community:

  Argentina

  Czech Republic

  Estonia

  India

  Malaysia

  Mexico

  Poland

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Discussions are taking place within the European Community on appropriate action.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment with which parties and non-parties to the Basel convention the United Kingdom has established bilateral agreements for the import or export of hazardous waste; and what steps he has taken to prohibit imports of hazardous waste from(a) the United States and (b) other non-parties under article 4.5 of the Basel convention.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom has concluded no bilateral agreements under article 11 of the Basel convention. Imports of hazardous waste into the United Kingdom from non-parties to the convention, other than imports of waste destined for recovery from OECD countries, are prohibited by Council regulation (EEC) No. 259/93. It is for competent authorities to ensure compliance with the provisions of the regulation.

  Colchester (Officials' Visits)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons the EC paid for the mayor of Colchester, the town clerk and the community services director of Colchester borough council to visit Argos in Greece; under what programme this expenditure was made; who authorised it; how much is to be spent on such trips in the current year; which EC official is responsible; and to which director general in the Commission he is answerable.

  Mr. Curry
  I understand that the visit was made under the EC's exchange of experience programme, which is run by DG XVI of the Commission. In the United Kingdom, the programme is managed by the Local Government International Bureau, which is sponsored by the local authority associations. Participation in the programme is a matter for individual authorities.

  British Waterways Board
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the British Waterways Board has responded to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the service provided by the BWB; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have today placed in the Library of the House the British Waterways Board's initial response to the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which was published in January 1994.

  I am grateful to the commission for the extensive review of the British Waterways Board which it has undertaken. I
  690
  am happy to report that, in addition to meeting its statutory duties, the MMC found an organisation which has been transformed by devolving responsibility from the centre to individual waterways, the overall performance of which has been improved, and which is developing a strong commercial outlook. The enthusiasm and dedication of staff and their substantial achievements since the MMC's last report in 1987 have been commended. The commission concluded that the BWB must aim to strike the right balance between sustaining the considerable progress already made in developing its commercial ethos and discharging its wider responsibilities, especially for conservation. It made 48 recommendations aimed at securing further improvements in the BWB's performance, in particular in expanding its share of the leisure market. I welcome and endorse the commission's recognition of the BWB's achievements and its constructive recommendations for the future.

  I also welcome the BWB's positive response to the MMC's report, which demonstrates a firm commitment to improving the efficiency of the business. Most of the commission's recommendations have been accepted in whole or in part and many have already been implemented. Where appropriate, the board has embarked upon further work as recommended by the MMC. I am satisfied that the BWB has addressed fully those recommendations which have not been accepted. I support the board's programme of seeking increased private sector involvement in the business through market testing and contracting out and I am pleased that the BWB has taken steps to explore potential in the leisure market and to improve relations with its customers.

  A number of recommendations would require action either by the Government or jointly by the Government and the BWB. We are keen that the BWB should develop its commercial approach and, with the new chairman, Mr. Bernard Henderson, will be reviewing the board's strategy during 1994–95, in particular the prospects for increasing private sector—including voluntary sector—participation in the BWB's business. This will include consideration of the criteria against which strategic options for the future should be assessed and corporate planning and targets. In the light of the MMC's recommendations we shall also look at appointments to the board and the time that the chairman needs to spend on board matters. We have already confirmed arrangements with the BWB over the treatment of proceeds from property disposals. We are taking into account, as the opportunity arises, the MMC's recommendations on radio communications, development of the BWB's property, development control, dredging tips, wayleaves and inland waterway commercial transport.

  I shall continue to monitor the BWB's progress in implementing the MMC's recommendations and will report to the House in due course.

  Warrington Borough Council
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has decided to take against Warrington borough council following the notice served on the authority on 17 February, under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988, in respect of street cleaning work.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to the response which Warrington borough council has made to the notice served earlier this year and
  691
  has today given a direction under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988. The effect of the direction is to require the authority to seek the Secretary of State's consent if it wishes to award street cleaning work to their Direct Service Organisation again when the current arrangements expire in 1997.

  Local Government Earnings
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each local authority area and for England as a whole, for the latest available date, the average earnings of local government employees.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: Information on the earnings of employees in local government is available from the "New Earnings Survey". The table gives the average weekly earnings of all employees in the local government sector for each county area for London boroughs and for England as a whole. The figures include employees of both district and county councils. Information on individual county and district councils is not held centrally.

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

  Local government sector

  £

  England

  340·8

  South East Region

  Greater London

  389·0

  City of London

  1—

  Barking

  369·3

  Barnet

  406·3

  Bexley

  1—

  Brent

  354·7

  Bromley

  366·0

  Camden

  415·9

  Croydon

  350·5

  Ealing

  389·0

  Enfield

  1—

  Greenwich

  362·0

  Hackney

  387·8

  Hammersmith

  383·2

  Haringey

  354·2

  Harrow

  377·0

  Havering

  1—

  Hillingdon

  346·9

  Hounslow

  339·5

  Islington

  381·1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1—

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  407·3

  Lambeth

  1—;

  Lewisham

  362·9

  Merton

  1—

  Newham

  349·6

  Redbridge

  396·5

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1—;

  Southwark

  413·8

  Sutton

  1—

  Tower Hamlets

  420·6

  Waltham Forest

  1—

  Wandsworth

  1—

  City of Westminster

  451·9

  Remainder of South East Region

  Bedfordshire

  334·0

  Berkshire

  368·0

  Buckinghamshire

  343·0

  East Sussex

  331·8

  Essex

  338·9

  Hampshire

  355·0

  Hertfordshire

  353·2

  Isle of Wight

  1—

  Kent

  341·6

  692

  Local government sector

  £

  Oxfordshire

  344·9

  Surrey

  356·1

  West Sussex

  326·8

  East Anglia Region

  Cambridgeshire

  323·4

  Norfolk

  345·5

  Suffolk

  349·0

  South West Region

  Avon

  333·3

  Cornwall

  319·4

  Devon

  345·8

  Dorset

  319·3

  Gloucestershire

  326·7

  Somerset

  323·7

  Wiltshire

  362·1

  West Midlands Region

  West Midlands MC

  328·9

  Hereford and Worcester

  332·1

  Shropshire

  310·9

  Staffordshire

  304·2

  Warwickshire

  339·5

  East Midlands Region

  Derbyshire

  311·9

  Leicestershire

  324·8

  Lincolnshire

  346·9

  Northamptonshire

  334·0

  Nottinghamshire

  302·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  South Yorkshire MC

  320·7

  West Yorkshire MC

  326·9

  Humberside

  305·8

  North Yorkshire

  328·6

  North West Region

  Greater Manchester MC

  321·1

  Merseyside MC

  326·6

  Cheshire

  360·8

  Lancashire

  329·1

  North Region

  Tyne and Wear MC

  306·4

  Cleveland

  257·5

  Cumbria

  352·9

  Durham

  313·5

  Northumberland

  335·7

  Source: "New Earnings Survey".

  1Denotes sample too small and/or standard error too large for reliable estimate.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are(a) the names of all members of the Northern Ireland tourist board, (b) the organisation each member represents, (c) the perceived religious affiliation of each member, (d) the date of appointment and the period of such appointment, (e) the political party affiliation of each member and (f) the council area of Northern Ireland in which each member resides.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Members do not represent an organisation, but are appointed on merit. Personal information on religious and political affiliation cannot be disclosed. The other information requested is as follows.
  693

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Name

  Date of Appointment

  Period of Appointment

  Northern Ireland Council Area in which Member Resides

  Hon. Hugh O'Neill (Chairman)

  1 July 1994

  2 Years

  Ballymena Borough Council

  Mr. Brian Adgey

  1 April 1993

  3 Years

  Ards Borough Council

  Mr. Roy Bailic

  1 July 1994

  3 Years

  Antrim Borough Council

  Mr. Gerry Bums, MBE

  1 July 1994

  3 Years

  Fermanagh District Council

  Mrs. Annie Courtney

  1 July 1994

  3 Years

  Derry City Council

  Mr. Tony Hopkins

  1 April 1992

  3 Years

  North Down Borough Council

  Mr. Alan Lambert

  1 April 1994

  3 Years

  Great Britain Resident

  Mr. William McGinnis

  1 July 1994

  3 Years

  Magherafelt District Council

  Dr. Mary Peters, CBE

  1 April 1993

  3 Years

  Lisburn Borough Council

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria he applies when selecting persons for appointment to the Northern Ireland tourist board.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Appointments are made on the basis of an individual's experience and expertise and potential to contribute to the functions of the tourist board.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the current members of the Northern Ireland tourist board have a career background in(a) the hotel, (b) the catering and (c) the tourist sectors.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The NITB chairman, the hon. Hugh O'Neill, and Mr. Brian Adgey have a career background in these fields. Other members bring further experience in financial and business matters, local/regional issues and PR/events management.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what were the conclusions of the Fair Employment Commission on the areas from which the work force of Howden Sirocco is drawn; which of those areas were omitted from the catchment area on which the quotas were set for applications and appointees; and what was the reason for the omission of each of those areas;

  (2) how many of the employees of the Sunblest bakery at Orby Link, Castlereagh, were found by the Fair Employment Commission to be drawn from the district council areas of North Down and Ards;

  (3) in how many of the cases setting the quotas for applicants and appointees specified in the affirmative action programmes published by the Fair Employment Commission in June, the commission omitted the requirement that all appointments will be made on the basis of merit; and for what reasons in each case;

  (4) which district council areas were omitted in the affirmative action programme published by the Fair Employment Commission in June for the Sunblest bakery at Orby Link, Castlereagh from the catchment area on which the quotas set for applications and appointees are based; and for what reason in each case.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is primarily a matter for the Fair Employment Commission. I am satisfied that in agreeing affirmative action programmes with firms, the Fair Employment Commissioin acts with due regard to all the circumstances of each particular case. The content of those agreements and the data upon which they are based are a matter for the Commission and the firms concerned. Under fair employment legislation, quotas are unlawful but there 694
  is provision for setting goals and timetables—that is, targets that firms would expect and should make good faith efforts, to reach within a certain time scale.

  Neil Latimer
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress there has been in the review of the conviction of Neil Latimer; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In my reply of 22 April,Official Report, columns 721–22, I explained the criterion for the exercise of my statutory power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. I pointed out that so far none of the representations received had fulfilled that criterion.

  Since then, I have given consideration to the points raised about Mr. Latimer's conviction during an Adjournment debate on 23 February and have requested further material. When I have received and considered it I shall write to all those hon. Members who have made representations to me in recent months about this case.

  Lisnevin Training School
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of children who are currently being held in Lisnevin training school, by(a) age, (b) sex, (c) ethnic origin and (d) legislation under which they are being held; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of children detained in Lisnevin training school on Friday 24 June 1994 is as follows:

  Age

  Special unit

  Remand unit

  PACE orders

  Total

  13

  1

  nil

  nil

  1

  14

  nil

  3

  nil

  3

  15

  3

  11

  nil

  14

  16

  4

  7

  nil

  11

  17

  1

  2

  nil

  3

  18

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Total

  9

  23

  nil

  32

  Note:

  All children detained in the School on 24 June 1994 are (a) male; (b) white; and (c) detained under the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of children who were received into Lisnevin training school, by(a) age, (b) sex, (c) ethnic origin and (d) legislation under which they were held, for each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement.
  695
  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of children received into Lisnevin training school in the(a) special unit; (b) remand unit; and (c) PACE remand categories are given in the tables.

  Special Unit

  Year

  Age

  Total

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  1985

  —

  —

  1

  2

  8

  5

  2

  —

  18

  1986

  —

  —

  1

  2

  4

  2

  —

  1

  10

  1987

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  2

  1

  —

  9

  1988

  —

  —

  2

  4

  3

  2

  —

  —

  11

  1989

  —

  —

  1

  2

  7

  1

  2

  —

  13

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  3

  6

  —

  —

  —

  9

  1991

  —

  —

  2

  4

  5

  1

  —

  —

  12

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  3

  —

  —

  10

  1993

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  1

  —

  —

  7

  Total

  —

  —

  10

  23

  43

  17

  5

  99

  Grand Total

  99

  Note: All children included in this table are (a) male, (b) while and (c) detained under the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968.

  Remand Unit

  Year

  Age

  Total

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  1985

  —

  —

  1

  21

  38

  48

  16

  —

  124

  1986

  —

  —

  10

  30

  60

  62

  5

  —

  167

  1987

  —

  5

  12

  29

  50

  67

  7

  —

  170

  1988

  —

  2

  10

  22

  34

  62

  —

  —

  130

  1989

  —

  2

  5

  21

  42

  88

  4

  —

  162

  1990

  —

  —

  4

  19

  40

  66

  4

  —

  133

  1991

  —

  —

  7

  21

  47

  75

  14

  —

  164

  1992

  —

  4

  12

  27

  35

  82

  14

  —

  174

  1993

  1

  5

  8

  35

  62

  92

  4

  1

  208

  Total

  1

  18

  69

  225

  408

  642

  68

  1

  1,432

  Grand Total

  1,432

  Note: All children included in this table are (a) male, (b) white and (c) detained under the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968.

  PACE Remands

  Year

  Total

  1990

  69

  1991

  31

  1992

  61

  1993

  96

  Total

  257

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the occupancy rate of Lisnevin training school(a) as a total and (b) broken down by age for each month since January 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Lisnevin training school is registered to accommodate up to 40 children—15 special unit places and 25 remand unit places.

  The average occupancy figure for each month since January 1990 is shown in the table.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  January

  28

  20

  21

  22

  February

  30

  25

  25

  31

  March

  30

  26

  28

  34

  April

  28

  29

  34

  37

  May

  28

  26

  38

  36

  696

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  June

  27

  25

  40

  31

  July

  20

  24

  37

  25

  August

  17

  25

  28

  21

  September

  20

  28

  28

  25

  October

  24

  26

  32

  23

  November

  18

  28

  28

  19

  December

  15

  23

  23

  25

  Note: Breakdown by age could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current re-offending rate for children leaving Lisnevin training school; if he will place a copy of research into this matter in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Research into reconviction rates for those young persons who had been at Lisnevin was commissioned by the Northern Ireland Office in 1990. The draft report was submitted in October 1993. It contains information which would suggest that the average reconviction rates for those leaving the special unit at Lisnevin after one year is 37 per cent. which rises to 85 per cent. after three years. The latter figure should not be attributed to the effects of the secure environment because the young person has long since returned to the crimogenic environment from whence he originally came. The
  697
  researcher is presently working on a final version of the report, a copy of which, when it is published, will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the riot which occurred in Lisnevin training school over Easter 1994, with particular reference to(a) how the incident started, (b) how long it lasted, (c) how many children were involved, (d) how many children were hurt in the riot and (e) how much damage was caused by the riot.

  Sir John Wheeler
  There was no riot, but an incident did occur at 7.30 pm on 5 April when young men, evacuated to the dining room following the activation of the fire alarm, took advantage of the situation and caused damage estimated at £29,000 to that area. There were 32 young men in the establishment at that time. Control was restored at approx 10.15 pm. Two young men received hospital treatment as a result of injuries received during the disturbance.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding the current inquiry into the riot at Lisnevin training school, the inquiry's terms of reference, the inquiry team's members, the progress of the report to date and the expected completion and publication dates for the inquiry report; and if he will place a copy of the inquiry report in the Library when it is available.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I requested an investigation into the unrest at Lisnevin on 5 April 1994. Its terms of reference were"To examine the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the unrest at Lisnevin over the Easter period in April 1994 and report to the Minister lessons to be learnt".

  Membership was drawn from the criminal justice services division of the Northern Ireland Office, the social services inspectorate of the Department of Health and Social Services and the Lisnevin management board.

  The report of the investigation, which is now complete, will be with me on 1 July 1994. The investigation, as is normal in such circumstances, is internal. A report therefore will not be placed in the Library.

  Compensation Agency
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the business plan for 1994–95 for the Compensation Agency will be published.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Compensation Agency's business plan will be published today. The plan explains the agency's business and organisation and sets out assumptions about work loads and resources which underpin the plans and targets identified for this year. I have made arrangements for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received the nineteenth report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The report for the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 has been published today, and copies have been laid before Parliament.
  698
  The Commission has considered a wide and varied range of matters during the period under review. They include important questions relating to the findings of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and how they could be applied to Northern Ireland and a conclusion to the Commission's examination of the problems of under-achievement in schools. I welcome also its careful and considered views on security-related issues. They raise a number of issues which I shall keep under review.

  I very much value the advice and insight which the Commission gives me on a wide range of human rights issues. The Commission's recommendations have influenced the evolution of a number of important policy proposals affecting the rights of children. I look forward to the outcome of its work on disability, and to the important contribution that it will make to the employment equality review.

  Copies of my response to the Commission's 19th report and the report itself have been placed in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Driving Test Centres
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 333, if he will list how each driving test centre in the United Kingdom scored on the criteria listed as marked A to D in the chief executive's reply;

  (2) if he will list by driving test centre the number of driving tests conducted during 1993;

  (3) if he will list the driving test centres that are being considered for closure by the Driving Standards Agency.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive, Dr. S. J. Ford. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given. An annex of figures on total tests conducted by region will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from John Ford to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 20 June 1994:
  Driving Standards Agency
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to the questions you raised about certain of DSA's operations.
  PQ 2552/93/94
  You asked about the driving test centres currently being considered for closure.
  Although the Agency will continue to keep its estate under review, there are no driving test centres, in addition to the 22 announced recently, that are currently being considered for closure.
  PQ 2596/93/94
  You also asked by driving test centre for the number of tests conducted during 1993.
  The figures are in the attached annex for the second half of the year, the first being for car tests and the second for LGV/PCV. Because of changes in the way statistics were compiled, the information for the last six months of 1993 is more readily available. Those tests conducted at occasional centres are included in the those for the main centre. I hope this will be satisfactory.

  699
  PQ 2560/93/94
  Finally, you asked, pursuant to Mr. Key's reply of 24 February to Mr. Brian Donohoe, Official Report, column 333, about how each driving test centre in the United Kingdom scored on the criterion I listed as marked A to D in my reply.
  In reviewing its test centre estate, the Agency did not score each and every test centre individually against the criteria quoted in my reply of 24 February. Centres were identified for consideration against the criteria based upon the experience of our Regional staff.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements have been made by his Department for private investigators to gather data on protesters against road schemes, other than the contract awarded to Bray's detective agency regarding Twyford down.

  Mr. Key
  As the information requested relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 28 June 1994:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about whether any arrangements have been made for the use of private investigators, other than at Twyford Down, to gather data on protestors against road schemes.
  In addition to the contract awarded to Brays Detective Agency for the M3 extension at Twyford Down, the Highways Agency have made arrangements for the gathering of information about protestors against road schemes at three other locations.
  The Agency will be using the information gathered to ensure that the progress of these particular schemes, which have all successfully completed the statutory procedures, is not unduly disrupted and that they can he completed as quickly as possible.

  Salisbury Bypass
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the Salisbury bypass; and what are(a) the current estimated costs, (b) the planned commencement date and (c) expected completion date of the project.

  Mr. Steven Norris
  The question is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. The chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Nigel Jones, dated 29 June 1994:
  A36 Salisbury Bypass
  I am writing in response to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Transport about the A36 Salisbury Bypass. This is a matter for which the Highways Agency is responsible.
  In response to the published proposals, the Highways Agency received 296 objections, 39 letters of support and 26 other representations. At the public inquiry, which ran from April 1993 to April 1994, there were 87 personal appearances. The need for the bypass and the published route is supported by Wiltshire County Council, Salisbury District Council and Salisbury's Civic Society and Chamber of Commerce. There were no objections from the statutory environmental bodies, ie the Countryside Commission, English Nature, the National Rivers Authority and English Heritage.
  The estimated cost of the scheme is approximately £65M for works excluding VAT, and land. The start of construction depends upon the outcome of the recent public inquiry, the subsequent decision of the Secretaries of State for Environment and Transport and the continuing availability of funds.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. Norris
  My Department has no responsibilities for the funding and sponsorship of TECs. The Department and its agencies have dealt with local TECs in connection with work to meet the investors in people standard in respect of the Department's own staff. The Department has also worked with appropriate TECs in their role in the regeneration of local economies. TEC resource centres have been used to preview training material and staff have occasionally attended events sponsored by TECs.

  Passenger Rail Franchises
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects the Franchising Director to publish the minimum specification requirements for proposed passenger train franchises.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Franchising Director will be formally consulting local authorities and rail users consultative committees on the proposed specifications for franchises before inviting tenders. I expect the first of those consultations to take place early next year.

  I understand that the Franchising Director is also intending to submit for comment his overall approach to setting such specifications, as the policy on this is further developed.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Railtrack board since 1 April.

  Mr. Freeman
  Railtrack began operations as planned on 1 April as a separate Government-owned company following many months of work to put the necessary organisation and contracts in place. Railtrack has successfully established itself as the owner and operator of the national railway infrastructure.

  Rail Consultants
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Shandwick Consultants is being paid by(a) the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and (b) by his Department; and what is its remit.

  Mr. Freeman
  Payment to Shandwick Consultants by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Department of Transport will be by reference to hourly rates for work done. For commercial reasons, it is not the practice to disclose these rates. Shandwick Consultants's remit is to provide advice to Opraf on the marketing of franchises, and to the Department on overarching privatisation marketing issues.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the introduction of a remote sensing system to measure vehicle emissions.
  701
  Mr. Key
  The Department of Transport has been undertaking research on a remote sensing emissions analyser developed with the aim of detecting "gross polluters" as they pass through a beam crossing the carriageway. Results so far are, however, disappointing and we see no immediate prospects of using such a device as means of assessing vehicle emissions.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve and encourage proper levels of vehicle maintenance to reduce emissions.

  Mr. Key
  The Government have already adopted a number of measures. Since September 1992, heavy diesel-powered vehicles have been required to meet specified smoke limits based on an instrumented test carried out at the annual inspection. The test was extended to diesel cars and other light vehicles from February this year as a requirement of the MOT test. For petrol vehicles, the MOT test has included checks on CO and hydrocarbons since November 1991. I shall be consulting shortly on new regulations that will tighten the limits for all vehicles in line with the EC roadworthiness directive 92/55/EEC.

  The Department regularly issues publications advising motorists and vehicle operators on the need for good maintenance and other measures that will reduce emissions.

  In the longer term, the Department is pressing the European Commission to introduce a requirement for "on-board" diagnostic systems for post-2000 vehicles that will warn the driver in the event of a malfunction of the emissions control system and prompt him to seek immediate repairs. Such a system could be highly effective not only in promoting rapid repairs but in permitting more effective roadside and annual enforcement of emissions standards.

  London underground fire and smoke incidents between 1 January 1994 and 28 May 1994

  Period 11

  Period.12

  Period.13

  Period 1

  Period.2

  1 January 1994 to 29 January 1994

  30 January 1994 to 26 February 1994

  27 February 1994 to 31 March 1994

  1 April 1994 to 30 April 1994

  1 May 1994 to 28 May 1994

  Category

  A

  B

  C

  A

  B

  C

  A

  B

  C

  A

  B

  C

  A

  B

  C

  Bakerloo

  1

  1

  19

  0

  0

  17

  0

  2

  19

  3

  0

  14

  0

  0

  9

  Central

  1

  4

  14

  1

  5

  22

  2

  3

  21

  0

  2

  15

  3

  0

  9

  Circle/H and C

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  13

  0

  0

  5

  1

  0

  4

  0

  1

  12

  District

  1

  2

  8

  0

  1

  6

  0

  4

  12

  1

  1

  15

  1

  4

  8

  Jubilee/ELL

  0

  1

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  0

  6

  1

  0

  2

  2

  4

  6

  Metropolitan

  0

  1

  8

  0

  2

  15

  2

  2

  14

  0

  0

  14

  1

  3

  7

  Northern

  0

  0

  17

  3

  1

  18

  3

  4

  22

  2

  1

  21

  1

  2

  19

  Piccadilly

  0

  0

  27

  0

  1

  23

  0

  0

  16

  0

  1

  17

  0

  0

  16

  Victoria

  0

  1

  12

  0

  0

  13

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  7

  Notes:

  H and C= Hammersmith and City Line; ELL=East London Line.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing for each London Underground line and for each four-week period

  Traffic Area Officers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date traffic area co-ordinating division reached the decision that traffic area officers would withdraw from Driving Standards Agency work; when the Driving Standards Agency was notified; and when the unions were informed.

  Mr. Key
  The possible withdrawal of the traffic area offices from Driving Standards Agency work has been under consideration for some time, and the Driving Standards Agency was informed of the intention to withdraw on 1 June 1994. No decision has yet been taken on the precise date of withdrawal. This matter is on the agenda for a meeting with the unions on 11 July.

  Car Design
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to urge the European Commission to bring forward proposals for(a) a side-impact protection directive and (b) a new European standard for car design for pedestrian protection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We have already urged the Commission to bring forward early proposals for both of these.

  London Underground
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing for each London underground line and for each four-week period between 1 January and 24 June the number of fire and smoke incidents and the proportion that were(a) category A, (b) category B and (c) category C.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 28 June 1994]: The figures requested are available up to 28 May. These are shown on a line-by-line basis in the table.

  between 1 January and 24 June the number of (i) crimes of violence, (ii) robbery and (iii) other offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 28 June 1994]: Figures are available up to 28 May. These are shown in the table:
  703

  London underground: crime figures

  Line

  Type of crime

  Period 11

  Period 12

  Period 13

  Period 1

  Period 2

  1 January 1994 to 29 January 1994

  30 January 1994 to 26 February 1994

  27 February 1994 to 31 March 1994

  1 April 1994 to 30 April 1994

  1 May 1994 to 28 May 1994

  Bakerloo

  Crimes of violence

  4

  5

  4

  0

  5

  Robbery

  6

  3

  4

  5

  4

  Other offences

  53

  24

  44

  42

  25

  Central

  Crimes of violence

  9

  5

  12

  10

  8

  Robbery

  14

  3

  6

  7

  8

  Other offences

  179

  189

  211

  153

  143

  Circle/H and C

  Crimes of violence

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Robbery

  1

  1

  3

  0

  0

  Other offences

  22

  40

  48

  47

  26

  District Line

  Crimes of violence

  14

  7

  13

  10

  8

  Robbery

  5

  4

  6

  5

  3

  Other offences

  123

  95

  153

  142

  145

  Jubilee/ELL

  Crimes of violence

  7

  5

  4

  3

  5

  Robbery

  2

  3

  5

  2

  3

  Other offences

  42

  26

  40

  51

  44

  Metropolitan

  Crimes of violence

  4

  4

  9

  6

  7

  Robbery

  5

  8

  8

  4

  5

  Other offences

  100

  107

  109

  96

  82

  Northern

  Crimes of violence

  8

  7

  14

  14

  8

  Robbery

  5

  11

  6

  9

  10

  Other offences

  147

  151

  178

  147

  114

  Piccadilly

  Crimes of violence

  12

  12

  9

  7

  9

  Robbery

  11

  5

  9

  9

  6

  Other offences

  298

  196

  206

  255

  221

  Victoria

  Crimes of violence

  6

  1

  7

  8

  2

  Robbery

  5

  2

  4

  7

  1

  Other offences

  88

  74

  119

  94

  70

  Notes:

  1. H and C=Hammersmith and City Line; ELL=East London Line.

  2. Crimes of violence include aggravated assaults on staff, BTP officers and passengers.

  3. Robbery offences include assaults with intent to rob.

  4. All data supplied to LUL by the BTP.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the actual number of new jobs created by the establishment of the Child Support Agency; what was the original estimate; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 30 June 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of new jobs created by the Child Support Agency.
  The original staffing requirement for the Child Support Agency was estimated at 5,000 made up of 3,000 new posts and approximately 2,000 posts previously allocated to the Benefits Agency.
  The Agency has now recruited up to its original requirement and is continuing to recruit to meet identified staffing needs. The number of staff currently in post is 5,268.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how often he meets the chief executive of the Child Support Agency to discuss the operation and policy of the agency; what is his best estimate of how long, on average, he spends at such meetings each month; and if he will make a statement.
  704
  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not have a regular schedule of meetings with the chief executive of the Child Support Agency. Although much of the contact between the chief executive and Ministers is in writing, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I do have frequent meetings with the chief executive to discuss items of particular significance. In addition, as Minister responsible for matters relating to child support, I have monthly meetings with the chief executive to discuss the operation and performance of the agency. Those meetings are usually of two hours duration, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is kept fully appraised of the issues that arise from them.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the annual reports of the independent living (1993) fund and the independent living (extension) fund to be made available to Parliament.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the funds that the annual reports of both funds will be published during the first week in July. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Benefits (Irish Citizens)
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions he has given to his officers at Neath and Port Talbot regarding residence qualifications for new entrants to the area from Ireland and their entitlement to social security payments.

  Mr. Burt
  None.
  705
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of social security payments made to caravan owners and their families coming to the United Kingdom from Ireland.

  Mr. Burt
  None. Information is not held centrally on the number of people coming to the United Kingdom from Ireland who are in receipt of social security benefits.

  Information Technology Services Agency
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the Director of ITSA has been paid a performance-related bonus for the most recent reporting year.

  Mr. Hague
  The ITSA chief executive's entitlement to a performance-related bonus is largely determined by the achievement of key performance targets for the agency. Details of achievement against these targets will be included in the agency's 1993–94 report and accounts, a copy of which will be placed in the Library before the summer recess.

  Industrial Injuries Benefit
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the decision to abolish reduced earnings allowance for people claiming industrial injuries benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Reduced earnings allowance for new accidents and diseases was abolished in October 1990 as part of a package of measures designed to focus benefit on those with the most severe disabilities. The REA may still be claimed for accidents occurring before October 1990 or prescribed diseases which were listed before then and where the onset of the disease was earlier.

  A defect in the legislation also enables claims to be made in respect of diseases added to the prescribed list since October 1990, although only where the onset was before that date. This was never the policy intention. We shall bring forward an amendment with effect from October 1994 so that the REA will not be payable for any further extension of the prescribed list.

  In the meantime, the Benefits Agency will carry out a special exercise to identify people who have been awarded an assessment of at least 1 per cent. for diseases added to the list since October 1990 and where the date of onset was earlier. Those people will be invited to make a claim for REA.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many steel manufacturing jobs there were in Wales(a) in 1988 and (b) in 1993.

  Mr. Redwood
  A total of 20,207 jobs in 1988 and around 18,000 in 1993. The steel industry has improved its productivity substantially and is an important Welsh success story.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of jobs in manufacturing in Wales(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1993; and if he will make a statement.
  706
  Mr. Redwood
  The number of employees in employment in manufacturing in Wales in June 1979 was 315,000 and in June 1993 was 210,000. This reflects the remarkable growth in productivity in Wales over the period. Output per employee in the production industries in Wales increased by almost 70 per cent. between 1979 and 1993. There was also, over the same period, an increase in employment in service industries of 100,000.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many coal industry jobs there were in Wales(a) in 1988 and (b) in 1993.

  Mr. Redwood
  Some 9,200 jobs in 1988 and 3,200 in 1993.

  Teachers (Assaults)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of pupils assaulting teachers have been reported in Wales in(a) 1973, (b) 1983 and (c) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Best-kept Village Competition
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to reinstate on a national level the best-kept village competition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This scheme was previously organised by the voluntary sector in Wales, but it has not operated on an all-Wales basis since 1991. I understand the voluntary sector considers that other schemes, such as the Prince of Wales awards and the Shell Better Britain campaign are better able to promote environmental improvements in local communities. I believe that this view has not really been contested to date.

  Mussel Purification Centre
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will permit the mussel purification centre in Conwy to remain open until alternative arrangements can be made; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will explain the reasons for the closure of the mussel purification centre at Benarth road, Conwy; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what financial assistance his Department will give to establish modern mussel purification facilities in Conwy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Conwy mussel purification centre was closed at the end of the 1993–94 season because it does not comply with the minimum European Union standards for construction and hygiene set out in the Food Safety (Live Bivalve Mollusc and Other Shellfish) Regulations 1992. For the same reasons, the facilities cannot be temporarily reopened. The Welsh Office has been in contact with representatives of the local shellfish industry to offer advice on the availability of financial assistance from United Kingdom and EC sources for any private sector project to establish a new purification facility.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what restrictions there will be upon employees of the Welsh Joint Education Committee standing for election to the new Welsh unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office's view is that employees working for the Welsh Joint Education Committee would be disqualified for standing for election to a unitary authority under section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972.

  BSE
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of compensation is given to farmers in Wales for each cow slaughtered because of BSE; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Compensation paid to farmers in Wales for an animal compulsorily slaughtered as a BSE suspect is an amount equal to 100 per cent. of either the market value of the animal or the monthly indicative market price—IMP—whichever is the lower figure. Where subsequent laboratory examination does not confirm that the animal was affected by BSE, compensation is an amount equal to 100 per cent. of the market value of the animal or 125 per cent. of the monthly IMP, whichever is the lower figure. The monthly IMP is a weighted average of prices of Friesian and Holstein cows, heifers in milk and in calf, and barren dairy cattle, taking into account the age distribution of cattle slaughte. ed as BSE suspects in the month. The IMP for July will be £890.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many individual payments have been made to farmers in Wales as compensation for the slaughter of cows infected with BSE; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not possible without disproportionate costs to separate the total amount paid out in BSE compensation into individual payments made to farmers. However, the total number of cattle compulsorily slaughtered as BSE suspects since August 1988 and up to 28 June 1994 on which compensation would have automatically been paid in Wales is 13,603. There are also occasions where because compulsory slaughter has not taken place compensation is not automatically paid. In those circumstances, each individual case is assessed on its merits and ex-gratia payments may be awarded.

  Brynmawr School
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he received an application from Brynmawr grant-maintained school for extra grant.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have not received an application for extra grant from Brynmawr grant-maintained school.

  Welsh Health Common Services Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions have been made to advertise for competitive tender the proposed privatisation of the supplies division of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  708
  Mr. Redwood
  The authority will be preparing specific proposals for market testing.

  Repair Grants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action has been taken to fulfil his departmental commitment to discuss with Church authorities in Wales the need for repair grants arising from damage caused by atmospheric polluters.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 June, c. 156]: A printing error was made in the final sentence. The figure for repairs to historic religious buildings should have read £577,331 in 1993–94.

DEFENCE

  RAF Flying Training
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the practical viability of completing the full advanced flying training requirement at RAF Chivenor;

  (2) how much would be saved annually by closing RAF Valley.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department's study of the RAF's flying training organisation which I announced on 7 December 1993,Official Report, column 177, considered options for providing RAF flying training in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. The scope for carrying out flying training at RAF Chivenor was considered as part of this study. Chivenor does not, however, have the capacity to undertake all the future advanced flying training—AFT—task and, because it only has a single runway—compared to Valley's three—it would not be suitable for a high volume of concentrated AFT operations.

  The study also concluded that, for operational reasons, RAF Valley should not be closed, and figures relating to savings which might result from its closure are not therefore available.

  Service Forecasts
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the trend in pilot into productive service forecasts.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is at present and for the foreseeable future a sufficient number of pilots coming out of training to meet the needs of the Royal Air Force. Since the mid-1980s, the number of pilots entering productive service has progressively reduced because of reductions in the front line caused by "Options for Change" and other adjustments.

  RAF St. Athan
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimate he has made of the on-going costs of operating the entire weapons range training requirement from RAF St. Athan;

  (2) if he will estimate the costs involved in increasing the licensed weapons loading platforms and otherwise preparing the base at RAF St. Athan for the task of supporting weapons range training sorties.
  709
  Mr. Hanley
  As set out in the consultation document issued on 7 December 1993, the cost of preparing RAF St. Athan for use as a weapons detachment facility is estimated to be around £3,500,000. In addition, the associated annual operating costs are estimated to be £470,000. The savings from closing RAF Chivenor are assessed to be approximately £127 million, at net present values, over 10 years.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many self-destruct mines have been recovered intact in Kuwait; and what are the policy consequences of this.

  Mr. Hanley
  Figures for the whole of Kuwait are not available. However, I understand that Royal Ordnance plc discovered 146 self-destruct mines in its clearance area, all of which, for safety reasons, it destroyed in situ, without attempting to establish their condition. There are no policy consequences from this.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the manufacture or export by British firms of anti-personnel landmines that are not of a self-destructive or self-neutralising kind.

  Mr. Aitken
  No such landmines have been manufactured or exported by British industry for over a decade.

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

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department liaises closely with the training and enterprise councils in areas where significant reductions in either service or civilian staff are planned. For civilian staff, all major decisions likely to affect employment are notified separately to the appropriate TECs at the time that they are announced, and the commercial companies providing my Department's outplacement service work with the local TEC to ensure the best direction of effort to help those staff made redundant. Service leavers are more dispersed geographically and obtain TEC services through measures such as the tri-service resettlement organisation's regional resettlement centres.

  Royal Naval College
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 203, what further consideration has been given to the costs of maintaining the premises currently occupied by the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, if they were no longer used as a staff college, and if no other appropriate use could be found for them;

  (2) what consideration he has given to the feasibility of locating all three service staff colleges at Greenwich, if buildings adjacent to the Royal Naval College which are currently vacant, such as the former Dreadnought seaman's hospital, were to be brought into use for this purpose;

  (3) further to his answer of 12 May, Official Report, column 203, whether he has yet received recommendations concerning the future location of the three service staff colleges and the future of the Royal Naval College premises at Greenwich;
  710
  (4) what consideration has been given by his Department to the use of the premises formerly occupied by the Dreadnought seaman's hospital at Greenwich to enhance the staff college facilities at Greenwich.

  Mr. Hanley
  The defence costs study into training has examined staff training at all three service staff colleges. The study has completed its work and has made a number of formal recommendations which are now under consideration by Ministers. No decisions have yet been taken. We hope to announce the broad outcome of the defence costs study as a whole before the House rises for the summer recess.

  Defence Satellites
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it cost to send into orbit the two defence satellites recently launched by a French ballistic rocket.

  Mr. Aitken
  Details of the cost of sending into orbit the two small defence technology research satellites launched by an Ariane 4 commercial launcher on 17 June 1994 are subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Russian Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessments have been made by the nuclear-powered warships safety committee of the safety record, and conformity with United Kingdom nuclear safety standards, of the Russian Typhoon class submarine.

  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Russian authorities concerning visits by Russian nuclear-powered submarines to British ports during 1994.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such discussions.

  Clyde Submarine Base
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names, countries of origin and dates of all foreign naval vessel visits to the Clyde submarine base since 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date

  Vessel

  Nationality

  1990

  16–20 February

  HNLMS Isaac Sweers

  Netherlands

  11–13 March

  HNLMS Potvis

  Netherlands

  22 September

  HMCS Ojibwa

  Canada

  1–5 October

  FS Rubis

  France

  6–12 October

  HMCS Ojibwa

  Canada

  20 October

  HNLMS Tijgerhaai

  Netherlands

  20 October

  HNLMS Haarlem

  Netherlands

  26–29 October

  HNLMS Tonjin

  Netherlands

  3–5 November

  HMCS Ojibwa

  Canada

  8 November

  HNLMS Zeeleeuw

  Netherlands

  21–22 November

  BNS Westdiep

  Belgium

  1991

  8–10 February

  HNLMS Potvis

  Netherlands

  18–21 May

  HNLMS Walrus

  Netherlands

  711

  Date

  Vessel

  Nationality

  26 May

  HNLMS Walrus

  Netherlands

  7–10 June

  HNLMS Zwaardvis

  Netherlands

  14–18 June

  HNLMS Zwaardvis

  Netherlands

  23–27 September

  USS Groton

  USA

  6–7 October

  HNLMS Potvis

  Netherlands

  8–12 November

  FS Beveziers

  France

  22 November

  BNS Wielengen

  Belgium

  27 November to 1 December

  HNLMS Tijgerhaai

  Netherlands

  1992

  29 February to 3 March

  HMCS Ojibwa

  Canada

  6 March

  HMCS Ojibwa

  Canada

  17–18 April

  HNLMS Zeeleeuw

  Netherlands

  1 May

  HNLMS Zeeleeuw

  Netherlands

  15–18 May

  HNLMS Walrus

  Netherlands

  22–27 May

  HNLMS Walrus

  Netherlands

  29 May

  NHLMS Walrus

  Netherlands

  13 June

  HNLMS Walrus

  Netherlands

  29–31 July

  USS Newport News

  USA

  25–31 August

  FS Emeraud

  France

  31 August to 3 September

  USS Albany

  USA

  14–23 September

  USS Sturgeon

  USA

  16–18 November

  USS Finback

  USA

  1993

  8–9 January

  USS Baltimore

  USA

  19–22 February

  HNLMS Zeeleeuw

  Netherlands

  6–13 April

  HNLMS Tijgerhaai

  Netherlands

  19–20 April

  HNLMS Tijgerhaai

  Netherlands

  21–23 April

  HNLMS Tijgerhaai

  Netherlands

  10–17 May

  USS San Juan

  USA

  21–24 May

  HNLMS Zwaardvis

  Netherlands

  25–28 May

  HNLMS Dolfijn

  Netherlands

  27–29 May

  HNLMS Bruinvis

  Netherlands

  31 May to 1 June

  HNLMS Zwaardvis

  Netherlands

  31 May to 2 June

  HNLMS Dolfijn

  Netherlands

  2–3 June

  HNLMS Zwaardvis

  Netherlands

  3 June

  HNLMS Dolfijn

  Netherlands

  3–7 June

  HNLMS Bruinvis

  Netherlands

  4 June

  HNLMS Dolfijn

  Netherlands

  20–22 August

  USS Alexandria

  USA

  30 August

  FS Amethyste

  France

  13 September to 5 October

  FS Agosta

  France

  14–16 October

  USS Dallas

  USA

  14–18 October

  HNLMS Dolfijn

  Netherlands

  19–22 October

  USS Dallas

  USA

  25–28 October

  HNLMS Dolfijn

  Netherlands

  29 October to 1 November

  SNS Andalucia

  Spain

  31 October to 1 November

  USS Dallas

  USA

  23–30 December

  USS Albany

  USA

  1994

  18–22 February

  HNLMS Tijgerhaai

  Netherlands

  18–22 February

  HNLMS Mercuur

  Netherlands

  24–25 February

  HNLMS Mercuur

  Netherlands

  13–17 March

  USS Phoenix

  USA

  31 March to 1 April

  HNLMS Walrus

  Netherlands

  11–12 April

  HNLMS Walrus

  Netherlands

  23–27 May

  HNLMS Zeeleeuw

  Netherlands

  3–6 June

  KNM Utsira

  Norway

  10–13 June

  KNM Utsira

  Norway

  23–25 June

  USS Whale

  USA

  Peace Operations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much in cash terms and in constant prices the Government spent in 1980, 1990, 1991 and 1992 on peace operations in east and central Europe involving British military personnel.

  Mr. Hanley
  British military personnel were not involved an any peacekeeping operations in east and west Europe in 1980, 1990 or 1991. During 1992, the cost of the United Kingdom contribution to the UN protection force in the former Yugoslavia was £64,310,000.

  Air Training Corps
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Air Training Corps, with particular reference to units in Renfrewshire.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 21 February 1994,Official Report, columns 67–68. Those apply equally to the units in Renfrewshire.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list (1) those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult before legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them;

  (2) his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no statutory requirement for the Government to consult any of MOD's advisory non-departmental public bodies before legislation proposals or to publish any advice that might be provided, or responses to that advice. More recently, however, in line with our commitment to greater oppenness, my Department has placed the report by the National Employer Liaison Committee on the subject of consultation with employers on the future of the armed forces, and a summary of the response by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in the Libraries of both Houses.

  South Georgia
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assistance military personnel have given to the refurbishment of the church on South Georgia;

  (2) what funds are available for a grant towards the replacement of the windows and painting of the church in South Georgia.

  Mr. Hanley
  The work to refurbish the church at Grytviken, South Georgia was undertaken by tradesmen of the Royal Engineers who are part of the Falkland Islands field squadron. It was undertaken under the standard rules for military aid to the civil community and no charge was therefore raised for labour. No grant was available to defray the costs of materials used in the refurbishment—£3,100—nor was this sum provided from the defence budget.

  Kirkcudbright Test Site
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the reply by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the Member of the European Parliament for South of Scotland on 24 August 1993 regarding depleted uranium testing at the Kirkcudbright test site.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Test Ranges
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has reviewed the future of the Defence Research Agency and the proof and experimental establishment at Dundrennan and Eskmead test ranges in regard to work conducted for his Department's testing programme on depleted uranium shells.

  Mr. Aitken
  The future of all our test and evaluation establishments was recently reviewed by the Director General of Test and Evaluation. Options arising from this are still being considered, but I hope that an announcement can be made in the not-too-distant future. This will be followed by a period of consultation with interested parties.

  Volunteer Services
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated total cost of(a) the Territorial Army and (b) the total volunteer services during the current financial year.

  Mr. Hanley
  The full cost of maintaining the reserve forces, including such things as equipment development, fuel, ammunition, accommodation and utilities, food or transport, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The figures for pay, allowances, earnings-related national insurance contributions and training bounties are as follows:

  1994–95 estimates£ million

  Territorial Army

  114·2

  Total Volunteer Services

  129·8

  Those figures exclude the home service part-time element of the Royal Irish Regiment, and the TA non-regular permanent staff.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated recruited strength of the Territorial Army at the most recent available date.

  Mr. Hanley
  The recruited strength of the Territorial Army as at 1 May 1994 was 63,204.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the established strength, including overbearing, of the Territorial Army at the present time.

  Mr. Hanley
  The estimated strength of the Territorial Army in peacetime is 63,500. We would, however, expect this figure to rise to around 78,000 in times of war.

SCOTLAND

  Playing Fields
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers he has to call in any planning application which relates to or includes the change of use of playing fields; what steps may be taken by the local community and by the district council to ensure that zoning for recreational purposes in the urban area local plans and the district local plans is adhered to; what powers are enjoyed by regional councils in relation to their role as strategic planning authorities as distinct from their role as property owners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend is empowered by section 32 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 to call in any planning application for his own determination. These powers are exercised sparingly.

  As far as district and community interests are concerned, section 18A of the 1972 Act provides that any planning authority must determine planning applications in accordance with the relevant development plans unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Sections 10 and 26 also provide that district authorities must take into account any representations made in their preparation of local plans and in their determining of particular planning applications.

  As far as regional interests are concerned, sections 5 to 8 of the 1972 Act provide powers for the preparation of structure plans by the relevant planning authorities, and for their approval by the Secretary of State. Similarly, section 179 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 provides such regional authorities with powers to call in planning applications which are contrary to their approved structure plans or which raise major planning issues of general significance to the districts in question.

  Infertility
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the provision for infertility treatment in the Tayside health board area;

  (2) what provision is made for infertility investigation in the Tayside health board area;

  (3) whether Tayside health board has sought advice from this Department as to the most cost-effective and cost-efficient means of providing for infertility investigation and treatment in its area.

  Mr. Stewart
  A full range of infertility investigation and treatment is provided in Tayside heath board through General Medical Services and at Perth royal infirmary and Ninewells hospital.

  Following the publication of the National Medical Advisory Committee report on infertility services in Scotland in March 1993, Tayside health board is examining the needs of its population in relation to infertility services.

  Fire Services
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the salary range of each rank of fire service officer in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Relevant information is as follows:
  715

  Salary range

  Rank

  Minimum2 £

  Maximum £

  (Whole-time operational personnel)1

  Firefighter

  12,705

  15,300

  Leading firefighter

  17,046

  17,745

  Sub-officer

  17,724

  18,852

  Station officer

  20,559

  21,864

  Assistant divisional officer

  21,669

  23,691

  Divisional officer III

  23,211

  24,885

  Divisional officer II

  24,645

  27,318

  Divisional officer I

  27,219

  29,178

  Senior divisional officer

  29,301

  31,608

  Assistant firemaster

  38,673

  3—

  Firemaster4

  38,960

  68,124

  (Whole-time control room personnel)

  Fire control operator

  9,876

  15,501

  Leading fire control operator

  13,824

  16,548

  Senior fire control operator

  14,178

  17,571

  Fire control officer

  18,924

  20,391

  Group fire control officer

  21,351

  22,872

  Principal fire control officer

  23,565

  25,683

  1Retained personnel receive an annual retaining fee of from £1,314 to £2,184 together with turn-out and attendance fees. Volunteer personnel receive an hourly fee for authorised duty.

  2Incremental stages between minima and maxima at most ranks are related to both years of service in rank and total years of service.

  3The salary scale for an Assistant Firemaster is at 75 per cent. at all points of the scale of the Firemaster except where an Assistant Firemaster is appointed as Deputy Firemaster, in which case the salary scale is at 80 per cent. at all points of the scale of the Firemaster.

  4The salary range for Firemasters has a minimum and a maximum for each of 9 population bands. The minimum shown is that for the lowest population band of up to 240,000. The maximum is that for the highest band in Scotland of 1,700,001 to 2,300,000.

  This table reflects in summary form salary scales agreed by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades and the National Joint Council for Chief and Assistant Chief Officers of Local Authorities' Fire Brigades.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the identifiable(a) capital and (b) revenue or current expenditure by Strathclyde regional council by regional council electoral division, or on any other geographical basis on which the data is collated or accounted, in each year since 1990; how much in both expenditure categories is (i) Legally committed and (ii) planned for fiscal years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what is the pro-rata expenditure in each category for each regional council electoral division, expressed as a percentage of the total capital and revenue budgets measured against their respective populations; if he will rank the regional council electoral divisions in decending order by level of expenditure in both categories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information about the geographical breakdown of expenditure by Strathclyde regional council is not held by the Scottish Office.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the identifiable(a) capital and (b) revenue or current expenditure by Renfrew district council by regional council electoral division, or on any other geographical basis on which the data is collated or accounted, in each year since 1990; how much in both expenditure categories is (i) legally
  716
  committed and (ii) planned for fiscal years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what is the pro-rata expenditure in each category for each regional council electoral division, expressed as a percentage of the total capital and revenue budgets measured against their respective populations; if he will rank the regional council electoral divisions in descending order by level of expenditure in both categories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information about the geographical breakdown of expenditure by the Renfrew district council is not held by the Scottish Office.

  Arthritis Care
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of Arthritis Care to discuss needs and concerns of its members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Arthritis Care has not sought a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and he therefore currently has no plans to meet its representatives.

  Renfrewshire Enterprise
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his most recent estimate of the population of(a) the area covered by Renfrewshire Enterprise, (b) each of its three constituent district councils and (c) each regional council electoral division within the area.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Registrar General's latest estimates for(a) and (b) are as follows. I regret that population estimates are not available for regional council electoral divisions.

  Mid-1993 population estimates

  Estimate

  (a) Renfrewshire Enterprise area

  352,070

  (b) Eastwood District

  60,930

  Inverclyde District

  89,990

  Renfrew District

  201,150

  Trespass
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the laws relating to trespass in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Simple trespass is not an offence under the criminal law of Scotland. However, the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 provides that it is an offence to lodge in private premises or occupy or encamp on private land, without the owner's consent. In addition, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill contains provisions which extend to Scotland and which address certain types of disruptive behaviour often associated with trespass.

  As regards the civil law, if someone intrudes on land without permission and without any other legal right to do so then this will constitute trespass under Scots civil law. There are two possible civil remedies open to the owner of the land. An action of ejection would secure the removal of a person from occupying heritable property without right or title hitherto. An action of interdict would seek to prevent a person from doing something, such as returning

  717
  to the property. The two processes can be combined in one action, namely an action of ejection of a trespasser and interdict against his or her return.

  Dog Registration
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the fee that would be required to be charged to fund a self-financing dog registration scheme in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government do not believe that a registration scheme would address the main problems associated with dogs. No estimate of the fee which would be required to fund a self-financing scheme in Scotland has been made.

  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the cost of implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in Scotland; what would be the total annual cost to(a) central Government, (b) local authorities and (c) other bodies of full implementation, what would be the total cost expressed in (i) annual and (ii) weekly terms for each (1) council tax payer and (2) taxpayer—including and excluding indirect taxation—when he plans to fully implement the Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on the estimated cost of implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in Scotland is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  There are no plans at present to implement sections 1, 2 and 3 of this Act. Most of the major provisions of the Act have been implemented bringing substantial benefits to disabled people and their carers. The requirements of the sections of the Act which have not been implemented are now, to a very large extent, reflected in the new and wide-ranging community care arrangements which demonstrates our commitment to high quality care responsive to the needs and wishes of service users and their carers. We intend to review the situation once we have some years' experience of the community care arrangements.

  Council Services (Contracting Out)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he or officers of his Department have had with councillors or officers of Kyle and Carrick district council regarding contracting out of council services; which services were the subject of these discussions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office provides advice to Scottish local authorities regarding the legal context of public procurement. Kyle and Carrick district council has sought general advice about the compulsory competitive tendering legislation and the European Community public procurement directives. Responsibility for placing individual contracts rests entirely with local authorities, who must satisfy themselves that their actions are within the law.

  Evening Primrose Oil
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has funded into the efficacy of evening primrose oil as a treatment for arthritis; in what circumstances evening primrose oil is available on prescription; if he Department intends to fund further research into the value of evening primrose oil for treatment or illness and disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Two evening primrose oil products, Epogam and Efamast, are licensed by the Medicines Control Agency and are prescribable on the NHS. Epogam is prescribable for use in the treatment of atopic eczema, and Efamast for use in the treatment of mastalgia. No evening primrose oil preparation has satisfied the licensing requirements of safety and efficacy for any other medical condition.

  The Scottish Office Home and Health Department has not funded, and has no present plans to fund, any research into the value of evening primrose oil for the treatment of arthritis or any other medical condition. However, the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department is always willing to consider any applications for the funding of soundly based reasearchable projects related to health and health services.

  Mr. Andrew Freemantle
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the posts held by Mr. Andrew Freemantle before his appointment to his current position in the Scottish ambulance service.

  Mr. Stewart
  Prior to his appointment three yeas ago as general manager of the Scottish Ambulance Service Mr. Freemantle served for a number of years as a member of Her Majesty's forces, latterly with the rank of brigadier. Details of his career can be found in "Who's Who in Scotland".

  Local Authority Direct Service Organisations
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions apply to the sale of products to the general public from factories which are wholly or mainly owned by local authorities; if he will bring forward measures to allow local authority direct service organisations to sell manufactured goods designed for house improvement to owner-occupiers who wish to purchase these goods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is for local authorities, in the first instance, to satisfy themselves that, in the individual circumstances of a particular case, their actions are within the law. The Government have no plans to bring forward measures in relation to direct service organisations and owner occupiers.

  Disabled People (Voting Rights)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he takes to ensure that all disabled people are able to exercise their right to vote in elections for which he is responsible; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Section 18(3)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended by
  719
  the Representation of the People Act 1985, provides that returning officers should designate as polling places, so far as is reasonable and practicable, places which are accessible to disabled voters. The Government also provide financial assistance towards the cost of providing temporary ramps for polling stations to assist access by disabled voters. Guidance on this matter is issued from time to time to returning officers.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) adults and (b) young people on average participated in local enterprise company-sponsored training schemes in each month in the past two years; if he will break down these figures into local enterprise company areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Questions relating to the numbers of adults and young people participating in each local enterprise company area are a matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to the hon. Member with the figures requested for each local enterprise company and totals for each of their networks.

  Police
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the latest estimate of the(a) normal and (b) overtime hours spent by police officers giving evidence and waiting to give evidence in each constabulary in Scotland; what was the total cost of this; what is the estimated burden on (i) normal payroll and (ii) overtime budgets expressed in cash terms and as a percentage of each budget; what was the effect of these duties on the ability of officers to be relieved of duties on scheduled rest days; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Current information is not available. The most recent estimate of which the Government are aware is that contained in the report by the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland entitled "Police Waiting Time at Court". A copy of the report, which was published in November 1992, is in the Library.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the police service and the procurators fiscal service to discuss initiatives to reduce the amount of time police officers spend waiting to give evidence in courts; what was the outcome of these discussions; and what new initiatives he intends to introduce.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's White Paper—"Firm and Fair—Improving the Delivery of Justice in Scotland" published, following consultation with a wide range of interests, on 27 June contains proposals which should contribute positively to reducing the time all witnesses have to spend in court.

  Low Moss Prison
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to extending Low Moss prison ; and if he will make a statement.
  720
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no plans to extend Low Moss prison, but the Scottish Prison Service's estates strategy does anticipate that a feasibility study will be carried out at a future date to examine the possibility of replacing the existing hutted prisoner accommodation by the construction of new houseblocks, adjacent to the present site. The study has not yet been commissioned and if, in the light of it, a project were to proceed, planning consent would be necessary and decisions on financing, which have not yet been taken, would be required.

  Obscene Publications Branch
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to future national co-ordination between police forces in Scotland, England and Wales on matters relating to pornography and obscenity following the proposed disbanding of the obscene publications branch at Scotland Yard.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: Each chief constable in Scotland is responsible for the investigation of crime in his force area. Where cross-force crime occurs, collaborative arrangements can be established to deal with it. These arrangements work satisfactorily, and there are no proposals to change existing procedures.

  Metropolitan police headquarters functions and specialist units fall within the scope of a restructuring exercise, which aims to make the best possible use of resources and to place functions where they are most appropriate. I understand that no proposals about the future of the Metropolitan police's obscene publications branch have yet been made.

  Sandeel Fishing
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what measures he intends to take to protect the livelihoods of East Neuk of Fife fishermen affected by the sandeel fishing of Danish vessels over traditional Fife fishing grounds;

  (2) what representations he has made on behalf of East Neuk of Fife fishermen to the Danish Government about the extent of sandeel fishing over traditional Fife fishing grounds.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: Sandeels are normally caught with only minimal by-catches of other species. By-catches of whitefish species will typically comprise around 1 per cent. of total catch. The European Union also sets maximum levels for by-catches of protected species, such as cod and haddock.

  Inspectors from the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency regularly board sandeel vessels to ensure that these by-catch limits are observed. In 1993, there were over 150 such boardings and no cases were found of a breach of the EC by-catch regulations. This year, up to 24 June, 38 boardings had been made of 36 vessels, again without any evident breach of by-catch limits.

  All the available evidence indicates that sandeel vessels are operating within the terms of EC regulations. Even so, I recognise the concern in the industry at the possible impact which current levels of sandeel fishing may be having on other fish stocks and on the marine eco-system in general. At last December's Fisheries Council, the United Kingdom persuaded the Council to call for an investigation of the broader effects of industrial fishing. A

  721
  working group consisting of fisheries biologists and marine ecologists from all relevant member states is expected to report later this year.

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to date of implementing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 24 June 1994]: Information on the costs to the police, local authorities, the prosecution and courts of operating the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is not held centrally.

  Type of grant

  Travel to work area

  Standard Industrial Classification (1980)

  Grant offered £

  Period in which offer accepted: 1 April 1988 to 30 September 1988

  Investment

  Dundee

  Pulp, paper and board

  3,900

  Period in which offer accepted: 1 October 1990 to 31 March 1991

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Textile finishing

  14,700

  Period in which offer accepted: 1 April 1991 to 30 September 1991

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Construction and earth moving equipment

  10,050

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Retail distribution of household goods, etc.

  3,263

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Soft furnishings

  1,652

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Bacon curing and meat processing

  3,008

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Professional and technical services not elsewhere specified

  4,200

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Household textiles

  8,519

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Metal doors, windows, etc.

  1,238

  Innovation

  Dunfermline

  Computer services

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Computer services

  22,981

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Machinery for working wood, rubber, etc.

  25,000

  Period in which offer accepted: 1 October 1991 to 31 March 1992

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Other printing and publishing

  5,325

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Wholesale distribution of household goods

  4,050

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Electric instruments and control systems

  11,182

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Bread and flour confectionery

  15,000

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Steel tubes

  12,939

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Metal storage vessels (non industrial)

  4,500

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Engineers' small tools

  13,900

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Female light outer-ware, lingerie, etc.

  6,300

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Computer services

  13,448

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Hosiery and other weft knitted goods

  9,000

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Working of stone and non-metal minerals not elsewhere specified

  6,600

  Innovation

  Dunfermline

  Optical precision instruments

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Production and distribution of other forms of energy

  17,500

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Electronic data processing equipment

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Radio and electronic capital goods

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Business services not elsewhere specified

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Shop and office fitting

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Plastics products not elsewhere specified

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Caravans

  25,000

  Period in which offer accepted: 1 April 1992 to 30 September 1992

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Ceramic goods

  3,990

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Hiring out other moveables

  13,503

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Other printing and publishing

  15,000

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Other printing and publishing

  12,561

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Production and distribution of electricity

  15,000

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Plastics packaging products

  14,546

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Engineers' small tools

  8,600

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Other printing and publishing

  1,000

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Electronic data processing equipment

  15,000

  Innovation

  Dunfermline

  Computer services

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Mechanical lifting and handling equipment

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Electronic equipment not elsewhere specified

  11,250

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Radio and electronic capital goods

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Alarms and signalling equipment

  24,971

  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the REG awards in Fife on a six-monthly basis from start-up of the scheme specifying the company location, industrial sector, level of award and whether the award was REG (Investment) or REG (Innovation).

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: The information requested is given in the table.
  723

  Type of grant

  Travel to work area

  Standard Industrial Classification (1980)

  Grant offered £

  Period in which offer accepted: 1 October 1992 to 31 March 1993

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Medical and surgical equipment

  11,250

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Bread and flour confectionery

  10,050

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Other wholesale distribution

  15,000

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Production and distribution of electricity

  15,000

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Finished metal products not elsewhere specified

  15,000

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Compressors and fluid power equipment

  15,000

  Innovation

  Dunfermline

  Medical and surgical equipment

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Alarms and signalling equipment

  22,659

  Period in which offer accepted: 1 April 1993 to 30 September 1993

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Retail distribution of books, stationery, etc.

  6,409

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Finished metal products not elsewhere specified

  9,677

  Innovation

  Dunfermline

  Electronic data processing equipment

  25,000

  Innovation

  Dunfermline

  Telegraph, telephone apparatus

  25,000

  Innovation

  Dunfermline

  Refrigerating and ventilating equipment

  25,000

  Innovation

  Dunfermline

  Wholesale distribution of machinery, etc.

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Other industrial and commercial machinery

  25,000

  Period in which offer accepted: 1 October 1993 to 31 March 1994

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Computer services

  15,000

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  General construction/demolition work

  15,000

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Finished metal products not elsewhere specified

  1,733

  Investment

  Dunfermline

  Installation of fixtures and fittings

  3,747

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Professional and technical services not elsewhere specified

  11,250

  Innovation

  Dundee

  Measuring and checking instruments

  25,000

  Innovation

  Dunfermline

  Alarms and signalling equipment

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Computer services

  22,800

  Period in which offer accepted: 1 April 1993 to 23 June 1994

  Investment

  Kirkcaldy

  Wooden containers

  12,559

  Innovation

  Dunfermline

  Optical precision instruments

  25,000

  Innovation

  Kirkcaldy

  Sports goods

  25,000

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

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 June 1994]: The information is given in the table:

  Deaths from skin cancer, Scotland 1979 to 1993

  Cause:

  Malignant melanoma of skin

  Other malignant neoplasm of skin

  ICD Code:

  172

  173

  Year

  1979

  91

  49

  1980

  67

  46

  1981

  74

  56

  1982

  87

  47

  1983

  90

  43

  1984

  95

  27

  1985

  95

  27

  1986

  104

  43

  1987

  114

  44

  1988

  89

  47

  1989

  109

  52

  1990

  84

  49

  1991

  98

  43

  1992

  102

  46

  19931

  112

  49

  1Provisional.

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

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply 15 June 1994, c. 610]: The chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, has mind further to the hon. Member.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 30 June 1994:
  I wrote to you on 15 June in response to your question about alcohol abuse and misuse programmes within Scottish penal establishments and undertook to write again when the figures for Barlinnie prison were available.
  These are now included in the table attached which, for ease of reference, also repeats the information given in my earlier letter.
  725

  Establishment

  Alcohol programme run by

  1991 1Number completed

  1992 1Number completed

  1993 1Number completed

  1994 To date number completed

  Aberdeen

  Aberdeen Alcohol Advisory and Counselling Service Prison Social Work Unit

  2—

  2—

  24

  46

  Barlinnie

  Glasgow Council on Alcohol Alcoholics Anonymous Trained Prison Staff

  221

  130

  81

  31

  Barlinnie Unit

  Glasgow Council on Alcohol

  1

  2

  Nil

  Nil

  Castle Huntly

  Prison Social Worker Prison Education Officer

  27

  15

  30

  19

  Cornton Vale

  Scottish Council on Alcohol Alcoholics Anonymous Trained Prison Staff Prison Social Workers

  2—

  2—

  2—

  9

  Dumfries

  Nil (contact is maintained with Alcoholics Anonymous)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Dungavel

  Prison Social Work Unit Alcoholics Anonymous

  18

  40

  43

  15

  Edinburgh

  Prison Education Unit Alcoholics Anonymous

  28

  32

  27

  18

  Friarton

  Alcoholics Anonymous Prison Education Unit

  10

  10

  10

  4

  Glenochil

  Alcoholics Anonymous Scottish Council on Alcohol

  80

  80

  80

  80

  Greenock

  Inverclyde Alcohol Project Prison Social Work Unit Alcoholics Anonymous

  2—

  5

  15

  17

  Inverness

  Scottish Council on Alcohol

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Longriggend

  Alcoholics Anonymous Prison Social Work Unit Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Addiction and Advisory Centre

  259

  312

  476

  113

  Low Moss

  Prison Addictions Unit Alcoholics Anonymous

  2—

  2—

  2—

  34

  Noranside

  Alcoholics Anonymous Tayside Council on Alcohol Prison Education Unit

  4

  14

  19

  21

  Penninghame

  Prison Education Unit Prison Social Work Alcoholics Anonymous Al-teen

  2—

  2—

  54

  12

  Perth

  Tayside Council on Alcohol Alcoholics Anonymous Prison Social Work Unit

  13

  21

  12

  32

  Peterhead

  Prison Education Unit Alcoholics Anonymous

  26

  46

  80

  40

  Polmont

  Prison Social Work Unit Scottish Council on Alcohol

  65

  63

  42

  16

  Shotts

  Alcoholics Anonymous

  30 prisoners attend per week

  30 prisoners attend per week

  30 prisoners attend per week

  30 prisoners attend per week

  Shotts Unit

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  TOTAL

  792

  810

  1,033

  547

  726 727
  1The numbers quoted show the total number of prisoners who completed alcohol programmes. The number of prisoners who commenced but did not complete the programmes is not available.

  2No figures available.

  Note:

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

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Middle East
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will define the Government's commitment to the reconstruction of Gaza and Jericho following the middle east peace award(a) in terms of financial assistance and (b) in terms of technical assistance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Both financial and technical assistance are needed to support the establishment of a Palestinian administration in Gaza and Jericho. We intend to spend £70 million on aid to the Palestinians, over the three financial years from 1994–95, through our contributions to EC aid programmes and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, as well as bilaterally. The EC assistance includes 10 mecu in 1994 for the start-up costs of the Palestinian police force. Our bilateral aid takes the form of technical assistance, concentrating on providing know-how and institution building.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the public and private financial flows to each country in sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Available information is contained in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication "Geographical Distribution of Financial Flows to Developing Countries—1989 to 1992," a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the extent of the emerging famine in southern Sudan;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the degree of access that Operation Lifeline Sudan is being given to famine areas in southern Sudan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The World Food Programme estimates that 2.2 million people in the south and the transition zone will need emergency food aid in 1994. Information on access to populations at risk is contained in "The Delivery of Humanitarian Assistance: Issues Facing UN Agencies and NGOs in 1994" a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the causes of the famine in Sudan; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which the causes were man-made.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Failed harvests, primarily due to lack of rain and inappropriate economic and agricultural policies, have resulted in serious food shortages in many areas of both north and south Sudan. The situation has been exacerbated in the south by fighting between the Government and rebel forces, which has displaced hundreds of thousands of people.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the extent of the famine in Ethiopia;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the response of (a) the British Government and (b) the European Union to the famine in Ethiopia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 10 May,Official Report, column 79 and on 23 June, Official Report, column 270. Information on EU member states' pledges is not available.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to undertake official engagements in Edinburgh related to the state visit of the King and Queen of Norway between Tuesday 5th and Thursday 7th July 1994. Accordingly I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence between Tuesday 5th and Thursday 7th July.

Investments: Advertising Standards
3.01p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that recent advertisements for fixed income investments by Norwich Union, General Accident and others are likely to mislead some unsophisticated investors, and in particular the elderly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley):My Lords, the regulators have offered guidance to investment firms about advertisements for certain kinds of products, notably high income yielding investments. However, I will ensure that my noble friend's concerns about these advertisements are passed on to the appropriate regulators.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that investments which offer 9 per cent. income fixed for six years, accompanied by such phrases as "a brilliantly simple way to keep up your spending power", are likely to mislead unsophisticated investors, particularly the elderly, into putting their capital at risk when they do not wish to do so? Is he also aware that the investment ombudsman and a large number of other commentators have noted that many such investors have been so misled? When he passes on my concerns to the regulators, will he add that the Government share them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that it would be wrong for me to comment on any particular advertisement. As I said, LAUTRO, which is the principal regulating authority in this area, imposes a fundamental responsibility on all its members to avoid issuing advertisements which are either misleading or likely to be misunderstood. Certainly, if advertisements are found to be so misleading, then the members will be asked to undertake the appropriate remedial action. I can
858
give the assurance to my noble friend that, where necessary, that would include providing compensation to investors.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the elderly are not necessarily unsophisticated investors?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as one of the younger Members of this House, I confirm and thoroughly endorse what my noble friend says.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the investment ombudsman has criticised those advertisements? Is that not yet another example of the lamentable free-for-all in the personal investments industry, particularly as it affects pensions and pensioners? Will the Government now commit themselves to establishing an all-party commission to agree a proper statutory framework of regulation, building on the Goode proposal for a pensions regulator? Only if the Government agree to do that will pensioners have any confidence that the Government are on their side and not on the side of those who are intent on separating them from their hard-earned savings.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in his first statement about the ombudsman. As regards what has been done, the noble Lord will be aware that in December last year LAUTRO issued a further enforcement bulletin providing its members with additional guidance on how high income and similar products should be marketed. That is what I was making clear in my original Answer. I am afraid that I simply do not go down the line that the noble Lord would wish; that is, of bringing in a system of statutory regulation. I believe that self-regulation works and that radical changes to the current system would mean massive costs and prolonged uncertainty. Undoubtedly, too, investor protection would suffer.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if self-regulation works and the ombudsman has criticised the advertisements, the logical follow-on is that the advertisements should be withdrawn? Can the noble Lord tell the House, with confidence, that that is exactly what will happen?
Lord Henley: My Lords, what has happened is that the appropriate regulatory authorities have issued guidance on advertisements. They have said that appropriate remedial action should be taken if those advertisements are misleading. As I made clear, I myself am not prepared to comment as to whether or not any particular advertisement is misleading. I also made clear that LAUTRO has the power, where it is necessary and where people have lost out, to insist that those who have caused the loss should provide appropriate compensa-tion to investors.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the institution of statutory regulation would cause massive costs. Massive costs to whom? Is it not clear that the current voluntary system is causing massive costs to this country's savers, particularly our pensioners?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, it is not. What I said was that radical changes would mean massive costs and would bring prolonged uncertainty. I said that undoubtedly investor protection would suffer. We believe that self-regulation works, and we will continue with self-regulation. That is why LAUTRO, in this case, dealing with fixed income investments, issued the advice that it did and made it clear that appropriate action had to be taken where some people had suffered.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, surely it is not simply a matter of self-regulation? The Government are loath, I see, to interfere. But they interfere with tobacco advertising. Agreement was obtained with the Government as to what constitutes good advertising practice in relation to tobacco. Will the noble Lord confirm that there is no reason why the Government should not intervene in the area we are discussing? Undoubtedly, people are being misled by advertisements which say in large print, "9 per cent. interest every year", and in small print, "This may involve the loss of your original capital". That is the kind of advertisement we are worried about. We believe that the Government should take action.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I honestly fail to see how tobacco advertising comes into this. As regards the substantive part of the noble Lord's question, I have made clear that LAUTRO issued further guidance on advertising. It said that advertising should not be misleading. It should, however, be made clear to the noble Lord that merely responding to the advertisement on the coupon does not itself represent a commitment to invest. The product literature sent out as a result of that kind of advertising is also subject to fairly firm rules laid down by the regulators. In addition, new product disclosure rules for life insurance-based products, which become mandatory in January next year, will include the requirement to include both risk warnings and cooling off periods.

Environmental Education
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to co-ordinate and disseminate the facets of environmental education necessary to underpin commitments on sustainable development and biodiversity made at the Rio summit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the two publications: The UK Strategy on-Sustainable Development and Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan both recognise the importance of environmental education, which is one of the issues being examined by the Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group and the Scottish Advisory Group on Sustainable Development.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Will he accept that I welcome the positive statements made in both those documents? However,
860
can he explain to me how the teaching of environmental education is to achieve sufficient emphasis, since it is a cross-curricular theme and, as such, requires a great deal of effort on the part of those who wish to teach it to pull together the various strands? Will the Government issue guidelines to make sure that the proper emphasis is given?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness that following the Dealing Review, of which she is probably aware, the consultation questionnaire on the revised national curriculum asked for opinions on the issuing of guidance in order to supplement the statutory content of the revised national curriculum. Indeed, the noble Baroness may wish to take advantage of that to make her views known to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority as the consultation process does not end until the end of July.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what sums of money are being made available by the Government to enable environmental education in teacher training colleges to be ensured, and what sums of money are being made available by the Government to local education authorities to enable in-service teacher training to go ahead on this subject?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can certainly tell the noble Lord that the Council for Environmental Education has been funded to the extent of some £400,000 over the past three years. I would have thought that that was proof in itself of how seriously we take education on the environment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, the European Commission has set aside 1 million ecus for teacher training in environmental education. The closing date for applications under that fund is today. Can the Minister tell us how many applications have been made for funding under that particular European fund?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness that information at this time. The closing date is today; I do not think that she would expect me to give that answer without prior notice.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, will the noble Earl discuss with his colleagues in the Welsh Office the issue of environmental education in Wales to ensure that both the voluntary bodies and the curriculum council are spending the required sums on the development of environmental education and the concept of sustainable development within the Welsh context?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, not only in the Welsh context, but in the Scottish context and the English context as well; environmental education is very important throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government believe very firmly in it and are doing their best to promote it.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, the Prime Minister launched the United Kingdom strategy for sustainable

861
development as a cross-government initiative. Will my noble friend the Minister say what positive steps have been taken to ensure co-operation among departments?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I draw my noble friend's attention to two particular aspects. First, the Government's Panel on Sustainable Development, which is chaired by Sir Crispin Tickell, is a panel of individuals with wide knowledge and practical experience which will give the Government very authoritative and independent advice on strategic issues. Secondly, there is the Round Table on Sustainable Development. Here, the proposed round table will bring together representatives of business, local government, industry and other sectors to discuss major issues of sustainable development with Ministers.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we debated this matter on 2nd March when we had our debate on sustainable development and that at the time the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, emphasised the importance of education, as I did in my wind-up speech? Will the noble Earl tell us precisely how the Department for Education plans to take this forward, as it is the lead department in this matter?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Department for Education is the formal department in this matter. We believe that environmental education is best dealt with and best promoted through individual subjects such as geography, science and technology. As the noble Lord will know well, environmental education is a compulsory element of the geography curriculum.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Minister mentioned two advisory bodies which will help the Government in reaching their targets. I believe that there are two or three others in the offing. Can he say which of those bodies, if any, has the task of focusing on environmental education as such and offering advice as such?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, both those bodies will look at the possibility of discussing and observing carefully environmental education. As the noble Baroness pointed out, there are several other initiatives. One is called Going for Green; another is the Green Brigade, which is an excellent initiative to get young people interested in environmental issues.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, how does my noble friend define "environmental education"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I would say to my noble friend that, very simply, it is the Government's duty and responsibility to promote the education of everybody in this country in the importance of the conservation of nature and on biodiversity and sustainable development from the cradle to the grave in order to protect this planet and all that we love upon it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, following on the noble Earl's question, can the Minister say what he means—I believe I heard him correctly—when he says that there are government bodies looking at the possibility of discussing initiatives?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I made clear to the noble Lord (perhaps he does not think that I did make it clear) that we consider—and I do not think that he particularly agrees with this, because I suspect he may want the subject to be part of the national curriculum —that it is best promoted on a sectoral basis.

Iraq: Release of Kuwaiti Detainees
3.16 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the United Nations to secure the release of civilians taken prisoner by Iraq during the Gulf war.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, we raise the plight of Kuwaiti and other detainees at the United Nations at every suitable opportunity, including in the Security Council on 17th May. We will continue to do so until Iraq complies with its Security Council obligations to co-operate with the International Committee of the Red Cross in its attempts to gather information on Kuwaiti and other nationals missing in Iraq.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very encouraging reply, which will also encourage so very many Kuwaiti people. I know that she is aware that after United: Kingdom forces and our allies, the United States, drove out Saddam Hussein's forces, those Iraqi forces took with them many hundreds of men, women and children, about whom nothing has since been heard. I acknowledge what the British Government have tried to do, and they are well in the fore in their endeavours. Will the Minister agree that other countries must help this country to secure the release of those prisoners—children, women and men —who are now held in Iraq so that they are returned to their home country and that the endeavours of the British Government should now receive the full support of all members of the United Nations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the International Committee of the Red Cross is the key organisation in dealing with Iraq over detainees. We fully support its efforts, as we have done all through, and we keep in close touch. A British representative attends the meetings of the tripartite commission—that is, the ICRC, the coalition countries and Iraq—and went to both meetings in July and November last year. Iraq failed to send a representative. But there is to be a further meeting tomorrow; we shall have to see whether Iraq will attend this time, and then decide what next must be done.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does not the failure of Iraq to comply with United Nations resolutions perhaps cast some doubt on the safety and indeed continued life of some of these persons?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Indeed, my Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. There is considerable doubt as to whether some of these persons are still alive and, if they are alive, in what condition of health they may be. But we can only work through the ICRC in this matter. We have urged the ICRC, not only through our regular meetings but also through correspondence with us, to tell us if there is anything that we, as an interested nation, can do to help the ICRC to find these poor people.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, given that the Gulf War ended in 1991, is it not now a matter of the utmost urgency that this issue is pursued? I ask the Minister: is it right to leave this matter to the International Committee of the Red Cross? While recognising the enormously valuable work that that organisation does on these matters, surely it is now a matter for governments to put pressure on the Government of Iraq.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I sympathise greatly with the noble Baroness when she speaks of the urgency of the matter. But there is some difficulty here. This is not a job for the UN. It is part of the ICRC Charter. It is a task which has been undertaken throughout by the International Committee of the Red Cross. That is really the key organisation and it has had some considerable success.
The difficulty in dealing with someone like Saddam Hussein is that if he decides not to co-operate, it makes it very difficult even for the in-country teams who have done such good work to obtain that kind of information. But we shall make sure that the Red Cross gets every support, as we have done in the past. I believe that we can only pursue this matter in such a way. There is no room for the United Nations to follow it. The ICRC has an excellent track record in finding people, if they are to be found.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, further to the question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, can the Minister say how many of these people there are, where they are and in what conditions they are being kept?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords. I regret to say that we do not know. Various estimates have been given to us about the numbers of missing people which vary between a few hundred and over 1,000.I believe that there is nothing accurate in the way of the information asked for by the noble Lord.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister look again at the question put by my noble friend? She rightly said that the Red Cross has a very good record. At the same time, she said that some of those people may be dead or living in ill health. Does she agree that that means on this occasion that the Red Cross has been unsuccessful? Will she accept the point made by my noble friend that the Government should now step in, do what they can and use their diplomacy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Red Cross under its charter has the responsibility for tracking down detainees and finding missing persons. I believe that there is no single government or
864
combination of governments that would have better skills than the Red Cross. The very people to whom governments turn and who have the best expertise in this matter are indeed the Red Cross. In all the international meetings of the Red Cross that I have attended, it is clear that its expertise is the best available.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, for all the splendid skills of the Red Cross, this is not at all a question of skill but of political pressure of the strongest kind? Will she accept that it is plain, since no one knows who these people are, how many of them there are and Iraq declines to come to meetings, that this is a political matter and should be dealt with in a political way?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a political matter. But, like all similar matters such as Iranian prisoners of war in Iraq or Iraqi prisoners of war in Iran, it has been put to the Red Cross, whose responsibility it is to find them. I shall note what your Lordships have said. There is a genuine concern among us all that these people should be released and repatriated. But there is no way in which a government can positively do that when the people cannot be found: we do not know ourselves where they are, and the real tracking procedure, which has worked successfully in allowing some people to get out of Iraq, is that of the ICRC.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness prepared to consider also the submission, which I believe was made first by Mr. Norman Hogg in the other place, to the effect that part of the agony is that those who are in Kuwait have seen their men, women and children taken away forcibly by Saddam Hussein? They must be living a life of sheer agony. Will she accept that that too should be taken into consideration by the world's international organisations? Will she submit that point as she continues the excellent work that she has been doing up to now?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord said. Of course that point is one that is uppermost in the consideration of those in the Red Cross who are trying to pursue this work. But this is no simple matter. We give as much help as we can—and help has been given by the Americans, the French and everybody else who was involved in releasing Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's clutches. We shall go on doing that. We cannot do more.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, further to the question put by my noble friend Lord Ashley, is the Minister saying that despite the failure so far of the International Committee of the Red Cross there is absolutely nothing that Western governments can do about these prisoners? If so, I find it quite astounding. Are we washing our hands of these people?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Baroness must be realistic. We are not washing our hands of these people. I should like to know where the noble Baroness thinks they are to be found.

865
Obviously she has some information that she has not yet given to the Government. Perhaps she will give it to us and we shall pass it to the Red Cross.

Genetically Modified Viruses: Control and Liability
3.25 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who in law is responsible and therefore liable for damages if the genetically modified virus containing a scorpion gene escapes from the field at Wytham near Oxford into the general environment and affects organisms other than those intended.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides the basis for legislation controlling the release of genetically modified organisms. If an organism were released in such a manner that a criminal offence was committed under the Act, the Secretary of State has powers to take reasonable steps towards remedying any harm caused, where possible, and to recover the cost incurred from the person convicted of the offence. Liability and damages would depend on the circumstances of any escape and the nature of the damage caused.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his most informative and rather complicated answer. Will he confirm that we are dealing with the release into a field of a virus, which is a native of California and tends to kill moth caterpillars, and that this virus has been genetically engineered in this country so as to make it more likely to kill the caterpillar of the cabbage looper, having been laced for good measure with a section of genetic material which produces scorpion venom when it is at home,? That being the case, if anything were to go wrong, would not it be a singularly conspicuous matter? If the Secretary of State has the power to recover the cost, what will he do with it when he has recovered it? Will he pay it out again to those who have suffered? If so, does that mean that it will come to rest with the taxpayer, or is there an alternative route in this era of private enterprise?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot say precisely what the Secretary of State will do in particular circumstances because such circumstances have not yet arisen. We very much hope that they will not arise. Certainly, the noble Lord was right. This particular virus in the Oxford institute naturally infects caterpillars; but it has been modified with the scorpion toxin gene, which means that the target insect is killed faster and before it can damage crops. Similar GMOs have been released —I believe there have been approximately six in the past seven years. Every possible precaution has been taken on releases to the environment by the advisory committee, which in turn informs the Secretary of State.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend make sure that those who have
866
released this scorpion gene into a field are aware of the decision in Rylands v. Fletcher, and their possible liability under that doctrine?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend has a very good point. I shall make sure that it is carried out.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does an employer who disseminates this or any other substance over a field have a general obligation under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to take all steps which are reasonably practicable to protect the health and safety of the public? Would such an employer be liable for proceedings if harm came to the public and it was found that he had not taken every step reasonably practicable to prevent that harm?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, every possible precaution is taken. Certainly the HSC is very much aware of these particular circumstances. It is bounden to take into very serious consideration any such possible harm should any particular release go wrong. As I said, every possible precaution has been taken that nothing should go wrong.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend and other contributors to the debate are talking of grave and dangerous effects. Can my noble friend tell those of his noble friends and others who are baffled by what was said what the real danger is, and whether it is cabbages or caterpillars or the whole of Oxford that we should now avoid?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is no specific danger in relation to this release because it was extremely carefully controlled. The press coverage on this matter over the past few weeks grossly over-exaggerated the situation. The real worry is that there are some rather rare butterflies several hundred yards from where the experiment is being carried out.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, raised an important point Are those responsible for releasing this and any other virus described by noble Lords aware of their responsibilities which may well be both criminal—as I understand it from the noble Lord's Answer—and also civil? Are they aware, and who are they?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course they are aware. All the 19 stations across the country are aware of the sensitivity of such releases, particularly this well-renowned institute in Oxfordshire. It is well aware of the precautions it must take and how it must deal with the Department of the Environment and the Secretary of State in order to obtain his agreement, through advice from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment for specific releases to take place.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that the criticism reported in the press, which has been extensive, came largely from what scientists call the "peers" of those who are doing the work? They are other experts in the field who reacted with extraordinary

867
alarm despite the approval given by the committee called ACRE; and, indeed, it is an alarm I cannot remember seeing in any similar case.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, some experts contended that this release perhaps should not take place. But ACRE was consulted a second time and agreed that it was perfectly in order for the release to proceed.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, before the House agrees the Motion I wish to raise a matter of importance in relation to the Bill and upon which we believe the House is entitled to a full explanation from the Government. I informed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate yesterday of my intention to raise the matter today.
We want to know why the Welsh Office failed to issue before 16th June—a critical date because that is the date when the Bill was given its Third Reading in another place—the document entitled Consultation Paper on Proposed Arrangements for Costs of Local Government Reorganisation in Wales. The Government repeatedly enunciated one of the main objects of Welsh local government reform as being to ensure improved value for money in the provision of services. The consultation document is therefore very relevant. It contains information which could be relevant to whether or not new amendments should have been tabled in another place or whether relevant undertakings should have been sought from Welsh Office Ministers there.
The document contains indications that the Welsh local authorities' share of the costs of the transitional arrangements is likely to be much higher than the authorities were led to believe would be the case. It also contains other relevant material such as the suggestion that the cost of financing pensions may have to be borne by increasing the contributions of employers and employees in Wales.
The contents of the consultation paper were not known to the Members of another place on 16th June when the Bill was given its Third Reading. All that gives grave cause for suspicion that the publication of the document was delayed in order to deny Members of another place relevant information before the Third Reading debate. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to tell the House how the Welsh Office justifies or explains the delay in publication of a document of that kind. Further, can the noble and learned Lord allay the fears of local authorities that their share of the transitional costs of reorganisation may well be greater than they were led to believe was the case?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I support my noble friend; we should be grateful to him for raising this important point. A document of such importance deserves careful scrutiny in advance of the final passage of a Bill of this kind. The other place was given an inadequate opportunity to study it. I cannot understand why the Welsh Office or the Government generally failed to give Parliament that opportunity. We must be told why the matter was dealt with so inadequately.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, from these Benches our view is that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raises a point of substance. As the Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House, the Welsh Office must have known that there would be no chance of discussing in this Chamber matters contained in the document published on 16th June. The point raised is therefore one of real substance in regard to procedures to be followed when a Bill of this kind is introduced into your Lordships' House. The other place, which carries the prime responsibility, had no opportunity of considering the impingement of the contents of the document on the Bill and deciding its reaction. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, apprised of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was to raise this matter, has an important duty to discharge in explaining the situation.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised this matter with me yesterday. The consultation paper to which he refers is dated 15th June and concerns arrangements for the cost of local government reorganisation in Wales. It is a consultation paper, and to be a proper consultation paper it had to put forward adequate information in relation to the matters upon which consultation was to take place. Up until 14th June the proposals for compensation for redundancy in connection with this matter had not been determined. That was for the Department of the Environment. On 14th June the Department of the Environment issued a letter setting out the proposals in relation to compensation for redundancy on which representations are to be made by 13th July. Once those proposals were available it was then possible for the first time to complete the consultation paper.
Noble Lords will have seen, for example, in paragraph 5.4 of the Welsh Office consultation paper reference made to the fact that on 14th June the Government announced their proposals for the severance scheme upon reorganisation. Until those proposals were made available it would not have been possible to issue any meaningful document for consultation. There would have been, in effect, a large hole in the middle of any consultation document on the costs of the reorganisation. For that reason, therefore, as soon as the compensation proposals were available the document was issued on the following day. That is what determined the date upon which it was actually issued.
Of course, it is only a consultation paper. Noble Lords will have seen that there is now to be a period of consultation with comments submitted to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by 16th August. The final form of the package will be determined by my right honourable friend in the light of the representations made.

869
As to the question of the share of the costs, at no time previously had any firm indication been given to local authorities as to who should take responsibility for exactly what. Quite deliberately, no undertakings had been given. Therefore, if the local authorities had an impression that the arrangements would be somewhat different, it was not one based on any representations made by the Welsh Office—because, for the very reasons I have given, it was not possible for that to be done earlier. Those are the reasons why the document was issued when it was.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised this issue it was not entirely clear to me what its import was. It now appears from the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that this is a very important issue for the internal workings of government and in particular for the statutory responsibility and position of the Welsh Office. Do I understand from the noble and learned Lord who speaks for the Welsh Office on these matters that, because of a delay on the part of the Department of the Environment in preparing the relevant information, it was not possible for another place to be aware of the redundancy implications of a Bill presented to this House by the Government—presented by the Welsh Office? Is that not an indication of the failure of government departments to collaborate? Is it not time therefore that the Welsh Office led the Department of the Environment by the nose in these matters? Where there is legislation relevant to Wales which has an effect on the livelihood of our people involved in local government and information is not available in a timely way so that it can be debated by another place, the Welsh Office should tell the Department of the Environment where to get off.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord says that the consultation will be completed in mid-August. What action will the Government take following that? Parliament will, it is to be hoped, be in recess at that time. Will a document be published and will a statement be made to both Houses in order to enable Members in another place and in this House to pursue the matter, to question the Government, and to satisfy themselves that the result is a satisfactory one?
Baroness White: My Lords, can the Lord Advocate explain why it has taken so long to make these proposed arrangements? We were discussing the Bill in this House in the last week of February and the first week in March. Why were the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment not getting on and making sure that at least those in another place representing Welsh constituencies had an opportunity of knowing in reasonable time the Government's intentions? This kind of situation causes a great deal of indignation.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wish to approach the question in a slightly different way. We have two major Bills going through Parliament at the moment: the Local Government (Wales) Bill and the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. The Local Government (Wales) Bill is further along the road than the Local Government etc.
870
(Scotland) Bill. In the process of deliberating on those Bills the cost of the reorganisation of local government is a significant item of information which Parliament needs to take into account.
From what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said today it appears that the determination of a major element of cost has been made by the Government only after the major stages in this House and in another place of the Local Government (Wales) Bill have been completed. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that we had a debate only the other day about the cost of the reorganisation of local government in Scotland. The Government refused to accept an amendment that called for the Treasury to identify costs and report them to Parliament. During that debate a range of cost estimates were made. Are we to understand that the situation that we now see with the Local Government (Wales) Bill is likely to occur with the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill and that after deliberation by Parliament the Government will come up with firm costs and then go through a consultation process as to how those costs are to be allocated between central and local government? We are talking about a totality of costs that will have to be borne by the public purse. It is only sensible that Parliament, in determining its view on these Bills, should have before it the costs that will have to be borne by the public purse either centrally or locally prior to making very significant decisions.
I have a question which the noble and learned Lord may not be able to answer at this stage. What constitutional mechanism does Parliament have to reconsider the Local Government (Wales) Bill in the light of this cost determination and what steps will the Government take to ensure that Parliament's deliberations on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill are arranged in such a way that the costs of local government reorganisation in Scotland are in front of Parliament prior to significant deliberations on that Bill?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, in general terms, as your Lordships know, it has been the position of the Government throughout the Bill's progress that it was not possible and never would be possible to predict precisely what the cost of the local government reorganisation would be as it would depend to a great extent on the decisions taken ultimately by the new authorities, for example, as to whether they require or desire new accommodation and so on. We have said that all along. Although there were estimates in the Touche Ross. report, referred to on several occasions in your Lordships' House, we have said that we are not in a position to say exactly what the cost will be. So in general terms the matter has been debated.
As regards this particular issue the question of compensation for redundancy was a matter on which the Department of the Environment was, so to speak, in the lead. It was the department dealing with the matter. Since local government was being reorganised not only in Wales, but also in England and Scotland, it was necessary that the proposals should be ones applying not only in the Principality but also in England and Scotland

871
so as to achieve equality throughout Great Britain among all those affected. It is for that reason that the proposals have taken some time to work out.
We have debated these issues on a number of occasions. They are matters of great importance to the people concerned. For that reason they have been the subject of representation and consideration over a considerable period of time. Had they been rushed out earlier I have no doubt that there would have been criticism to the effect that not enough time had been taken to consider them. As it happens, it did take a considerable amount of time. But the proposals are now published. They are for consideration first by the local authorities and in due course by the Secretary of State in the light of representations which will be made to him.
Eventually, the Secretary of State's determination of these matters will form part of the 1995–96 expenditure settlements for local government in the normal way. That will be reflected in the figures. There will be the usual kind of scrutiny applying to proposals in relation to local government expenditure. Therefore, in that respect the position will be exactly the same as that for other local government expenditure proposals, subject to the control which Parliament has in respect of them. I believe that the matter has been dealt with appropriately, and that your Lordships should accept that.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for replying to the two specific questions I addressed to him. As to the first question, his answer merely illustrates once again that the Welsh Office, in relationship to a London-based department, stands as a very junior partner. We have been told by Ministers that this is a Bill designed to meet Welsh circumstances: it would be "a Welsh Bill". We fail to see why it is necessary for the Welsh Office to be so dependent on guidance, steering, initiative and leadership from the Department of the Environment.
As regards the noble and learned Lords's reply to my second question, I never alleged that there had been an undertaking given by the Government that the costs of reorganisation would be at a certain figure. I never made that allegation: we would not expect the Government to give such an undertaking. However, the local authorities will say that in discussions with Ministers and officials they were led to believe that their share of the costs would be at a certain ratio but that they now understand from the document that it is likely to be very much higher. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has not denied that.
If it transpires that the costs are higher than anticipated, can the noble and learned Lord say whether at the end of the day those additional costs will be borne by the Welsh authorities or by central government?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, one can see from the document which parts will be borne by whom. The question as regards what the final figures will be. as I say, depends on decisions taken by the local authorities. Therefore, to some extent the final figures depend on their actions. In those circumstances I cannot say other than that the amount they will have to bear can
872
be calculated by reference to the document in relation to what, at the end of the day, the final figures turn out to be. The proportion they will bear is seen from the document.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 68 as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 2, page 2, line 45, after 'Council'" insert 'or the word "Council"'.
2 Page 2, line 45, leave out 'Anglesey' and insert 'Cardiganshire'.
3 Page 2, line 46, after 'Council'" insert 'or "Cardiganshire Council'".
4 Page 3, line 6, after 'Council'" insert 'or the word "Council"'.
5 Page 3, line 7, after 'Council'" insert 'or "Caerphilly Council'".
6 Page 3, line 9, after 'Sirol'" insert "or the word "Cyngor"'.
7 Page 3, line 10, after 'Caerffili'" insert 'or "Cyngor Caerffili'".
8 Page 3, line 11, leave out 'Caerdydd, Powys and Abertawe' and insert 'Abertawe, Caerdydd and Powys'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 8 en bloc. At the same time, and with your Lordships' leave, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64 to 71 and 132.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 8 fulfil an undertaking given in the other place to allow the new authorities greater flexibility in determining their titles. All of the unitary authorities will be either counties or county boroughs, but they will have the option of describing themselves as, for example, "Monmouthshire Council" instead of "Monmouthshire County Council". We believe that this is a suitable matter for local determination.
Amendments Nos. 64 to 71 create two new authorities, Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent, in place of the proposed Heads of the Valleys authority and include all of the Rhymney Valley district in the Caerphilly authority. These changes recognise the historic status of Merthyr as a county borough and the lack of common interest with Blaenau Gwent. Those are matters on which I think many of your Lordships spoke with a great deal of feeling during the Committee stage of the Bill. We are also proposing to place the Llanelly community in Monmouthshire rather than in Powys. This reflects the results of a locally organised referendum.
Finally, in keeping with a commitment I gave to your Lordships in the spring, we are proposing, through Amendment No. 132, to reduce the period during which the new authorities will have to seek the Secretary of State's agreement to any change of name. As noble Lords will see, they will now be free to change their names from 1st October 1996.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 8.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8A not moved.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 10, page 8, line 3, at end insert:
'( ) An order under this section shall make such provision as appears to the council making it to be necessary for the application to the communities included in the group of all or any of the provisions of section 79 of the Charities Act 1993 (parochial charities) and of any of the provisions of this Act with respect to the custody of community documents, so as to preserve the separate rights of each community.'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. This is a technical amendment to correct an oversight when translating the provisions of the existing Section 29 of the Local Government Act 1972—which deals with the orders for grouping of communities and their dissolution—when that was translated into the new Section 29 to be inserted by Clause 10. The existing Section 29(3) (c) ensures that in making an order grouping communities under a common council, necessary provision is made to preserve the rights of each community to be included in the group with regard to parochial charities or to documents relating to the individual community.
This amendment ensures that future grouping orders under Clause 10 will preserve those separate rights.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 Clause 17, page 13, line 20, leave out 'to the contrary'.
11 Page 13, line 22, leave out 'express'.
12 Page 13, line 27, leave out 'the appropriate' and insert 'a'.
13 Page 13, line 32, leave out 'the appropriate' and insert 'a'.
14 Page 13, line 34, leave out from 'Where' to 'that', in line 36, and insert 'in relation to any relevant legislative provision, any question arises as to which new principal area is the appropriate new principal area for the purposes of that provision'.
4 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 14 en bloc.
These are purely technical amendments, designed to improve the operation of this clause, providing for the transfer of local government functions from the old to the new authorities.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 14. —(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
15 Clause 20, page 15, line 39, leave out 'one or more National Parks' and insert 'an area prescribed under section 23B(2) in relation to a National Park'.
16 Page 15, line 44, leave out 'as the case may be,' and insert 'if there is more than one,'.
17 Page 16, line 2, after 'in' insert 'any of the following sections of'.
18 Page 16, line 5, leave out from 'to' to 'Park' in line 6 and insert 'any'.
19 Page 16, line 9, leave out 'the remaining' and insert 'that'.
20 Page 16, line 13, leave out 'National Park' and insert 'area prescribed under section 23B(2) in relation to that Park'.
21 Page 16, line 16, after 'within' insert 'the area so prescribed in relation to'.
22 Page 16, line 41, after 'alteration' insert 'or replacement'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 22 en bloc. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 77 to 106 and 202 to 204.
Clause 20 and Schedule 5 provide for the operation of unitary development plans in Wales. There will be separate UDPs for each national park, as well as for the non-park land within each unitary authority.
The amendments are designed to clarify and simplify the provisions both in terms of their interpretation and their implementation. In brief, they provide for development plans covering national parks to include portions of non-park land, for example, in areas such as Snowdonia. They also have the effect of making "replacement" plans continue in the same way as alterations are allowed to continue under the unamended clause. They also ensure that different provision is to be made between UDPs for the metropolitan counties in England and for the system as it is to be applied in Wales. They also carry forward, with the Secretary of State's approval, any revision work to local plans and structure plans which is in progress at the time of reorganisation. Finally, they safeguard the position of landowners who may be served with blight notices in respect of draft structure and local plan proposals which may exist in the transitional period before UDPs are prepared.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1.5 to 22.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I should like briefly to welcome the provisions, particularly as they relate to unitary development plans for the national parks and will ensure that the system that has been developed in areas such as Snowdonia, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, will be continued. This is an opportunity also to ask the Minister for an assurance that these provisions in the Bill will be fully implemented, with independent authorities being established for the Welsh parks, regardless of the regrettable incident in another place when the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, fell.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to give the House the assurance for which the noble Lord asks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
23 Clause 23, page 17, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 18 and insert:

875
'(4) Where the Secretary of State proposes to make such a combination scheme—

(a) subsection (2) of section 6 of the Act of 1947 shall until 1st April 1996 be taken to require him to give notice to—

(i) any existing fire authority whose area lies wholly or partly within the proposed combined area; and

(ii) each of the new principal councils concerned; and

(b) the requirement in that subsection with respect to public local inquiries shall not apply if—

(i) the proposed scheme relates only to new principal areas; and

(ii) the notice is given before 1st April 1996'.

24 Page 18, line 6, leave out from 'him' to end of line 7 and insert 'before the end of the specified period by any body to whom notice was given.'.
25 Clause 24, page 18, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert:
'(5) Where the Secretary of State proposes to make such an amalgamation scheme—

(a)paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1964 shall until 1st April 1996 be taken to require him to give notice—

(i) to any existing police authority whose area lies wholly or partly within the area of the proposed combined police authority;

(ii) where that police authority is a combined authority, to the councils of each of the counties comprised in the combined area; and

(iii) to each of the new principal councils concerned; and

(b) the requirement in paragraph 3 of that Schedule with respect to public local inquiries shall not apply if—

(i) the proposed scheme relates only to new principal areas; and

(ii) the notice is given before 1st April 1996.'.

26 Page 18, line 35, leave out from 'him' to end of line 36 and insert 'by any body to whom notice was given.'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 to 26 en bloc.
These amendments fulfil undertakings given to your Lordships, as well as in another place, that we would consider further the scope of the requirement for the Home Secretary to consult local authorities before making any new fire combination schemes or police amalgamation schemes.
Having considered the matter further, we believe it is desirable for the existing fire and police authorities, as well as the new principal councils, to be expressly given an opportunity to comment on the arrangements for their own locality.
Accordingly, the amendments would require the Home Secretary to give notice of his proposals for fire service combination schemes or police amalgamation schemes in Wales not only to the shadow unitary authorities (whose area lies wholly or partly within the area of the proposed combined fire or police authority), but also to the existing fire or police authorities. The giving of the notice would carry with it a duty on the Home Secretary to consider the representations which result.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 to 26.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I merely wish to support the amendments. Obviously, they do not go as far as we would wish but nevertheless they place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider representations received from anybody who has received notice of a proposed scheme. We welcome the amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
27 Clause 27, page 26, line 33, leave out 'one or more committees' and insert 'a committee'.
28 Clause 28, page 21, line 28, leave out ' one year" and insert 'six moons'.
29 Page 21, line 33, at end insert:
'( ) Where he proposes not to approve the scheme as submitted, the Secretary of State shall notify the council concerned, before the end of that six month period, of the modifications which he proposes to make to the scheme, or (as the case may be) that he proposes to reject the scheme.
( ) Before he approves a scheme subject to modifications, or rejects a scheme, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representation which have been made to him by the council concerned.'.
30 Page 22, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.
31 After Clause 28, insert the following clause:
Area committees: safeguards: '.—
'. — (1) Where an area committee has been established by a council in accordance with an approved decentralisation scheme—

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

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

(2) Every decentralisation scheme shall include provision, to be given effect to by the standing orders of the council concerned, for the majority required in order for any suspending resolution to be passed to be such majority greater man a simple majority as may be specified by the scheme.
(3) In subsection (2) "suspending resolution", in relation to a decentralisation scheme, means a resolution to suspend any of the arrangements to force with respect to an area committee established in accordance with the scheme.'.
32 After Clause 28, insert the following clause:
Area committees: membership etc '.
'. — (1) This section applies where an area committee has been established by a council in accordance with an approved decentralisation scheme.
(2) The provisions of the 1972 Act with respect to arrangements for the discharge of functions by committees of local authorities and sub-committees, and the appointment of such committees and sub-committees, shall be subject to this section and section (Sub-committees of area committees).
(3) Every person who is a member of the council for an electoral division which falls within the area for which the committee is established shall be entitled to be appointed to the committee at his request.
(4) The committee may appoint additional persons, including members of the council who are not entitled to membership of the committee under subsection (3), as members of the committee.
(5) No other persons shall be eligible for appointment to the committee.
(6) In this section, in relation to an area committee, "co-opted member" means any member appointed by the committee under subsection (4).
(7) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction under section 297 of the Education Act 1993 (power to direct appointment of members of certain committees) which applies to the committee and can only be complied with by the appointment of one or more additional members to the committee, it shall be the duty of the committee to exercise its powers of appointment to secure compliance with the direction.
(8) A co-opted member of an area committee shall not be entitled to vote at any meeting of the committee on any question which falls to be decided at that meeting.
(9) Nothing in subsection (8) shall prevent the appointment of a person, in compliance with a direction under section 297 of the Act of 1993, as a voting member of an area committee.
(10) In the application of section 101 of the 1972 Act (arrangement for discharge of functions by local authorities) in relation to the committee—

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

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

(11) Sections 102(3) of the 1972 Act (power to include persons who are not members of the local authority concerned) and 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political balance on committees) shall not apply in relation to membership of the committee.
(12) The term of office of each of the co-opted members of an area committee shall be fixed by the committee.
(13) Section 102(2) of the 1972 Act (number of members of committee and terms of office) shall not apply in relation to the committee.
(14) In the case of an appointment made in order to comply with a direction under section 297 of the Act of 1993, the committee shall exercise its powers under subsection (12) subject to any provision of the direction relating to terms of office.'.
33 After Clause 28, insert the following clause:
Sub-committees of area committees
'. — (1) In this section "sub-committee" means a sub-committee of an area committee.
(2) The members of a sub-committee shall be appointed by the area committee from among persons who are—

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

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

(3) Subject to subsection (10), a sub-committee may appoint additional persons, including persons who are not members of the area committee concerned, as members of the sub-committee.
(4) No other persons shall be eligible for appointment to a sub-committee.
(5) In this section, in relation to a sub-committee, "co-opted member" means any member of the sub-committee appointed under subsection (3).
(6) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction under section 297 of the Education Act 1993 (power to direct appointment of members of certain committees) which applies to a sub-committee, it shall be the duty of the area committee concerned and the sub-committee to secure compliance with the direction.
(7) A co-opted member of a sub-committee shall not be entitled to vote at any meeting of the sub-committee on any question which falls to be decided at that meeting.
(8) Nothing in subsection (7) shall prevent the appointment of a person in compliance with a direction under section 297 of the Act of 1993 as a voting member of a subcommittee.
(9) Sections 102(3) of the 1972 Act (power to include persons who are not members of the local authority concerned) and 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political balance on committees) shall not apply in relation to membership of a sub-committee.
(10) The number of members of a sub-committee and their terms of office shall be fixed by the area committee concerned.
(11) Section 102(2) of the 1972 Act (number of members of committee and terms of office) shall not apply in relation to the sub-committee.
(12) In the case of an appointment made in order to comply with a direction under section 297 of the Act of 1993, the area committee shall exercise its powers under subsection (10) subject to any provision of the direction relating to terms of office.'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 33 en bloc
The decentralisation provisions in the Bill provide for the setting up of area committees in areas where there is a strong sense of local community wedded to a tradition of local government at a principal authority level. These amendments are technical and take account of concerns expressed in both Houses. In particular, they simplify and curtail the process by which the Secretary of State considers a decentralisation scheme application. They also provide separate clauses to highlight the provisions relating to safeguards, membership of committees and the setting-up of sub-committees.
Your Lordships will have noticed that the new clauses also provide for co-option of additional persons to serve as members of committees and sub-committees, a matter which was mentioned previously by your Lordships. Those co-opted will generally be non-voting members.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 33.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I welcome the amendments which, as the noble and learned Lord said, relate to some of the issues that were raised previously by those of us concerned particularly about the Mid Wales decentralisation measures. The concept of the sub-committee of the area committees and the co-option is new. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could give us some indication of what is in his department's mind as regards the kind of people who might be co-opted. Are we in the process of creating new nominated bodies—albeit nominated by local councils in this context? What kind of persons would the department expect to fulfil the role of an appointed member of a sub-committee of an area committee in Mid Wales, for example?
Baroness White: My Lords, can the Minister also explain whether the provisions will include people representing community councils? We discussed that when the Bill was before the House previously.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, perhaps I too may ask a number of questions for clarification. I suggest that Amendment No. 29 may require clarification—not amendment, but clarification. Could the noble and learned Lord confirm whether the six-month period could be extended to enable the council to comment on any material issue which the Secretary of State may raise or whether the entire exercise has to be completed within the period of six months from the date of the submission of the scheme?
If there is no discretion to extend the six-month period—I assume that there is not—does the noble and learned Lord agree that the Secretary of State and his advisers should not be seeking representation from a principal council at the fag end of the period, particularly if the fag end of the period fell in the months of December or July?
Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 31. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate be good enough to clarify the connection between subsections (1) (a) and (3)? Both subsections have one thing in common. They both refer to:
"arrangements in force with respect to the committee".
Subsection (1) (a) provides that the arrangements in force cannot be altered except with the agreement of the area committee. However, that seems to be modified by subsection (3) which provides that the arrangements in force can be altered by the principal council after the passing of a suspending resolution.
That being so, it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could give an indication of what percentage of the membership of the principal council voting for the suspending resolution will constitute a majority for that purpose. Will that percentage be the same for all principal councils in Wales where there is a delegation scheme or will it vary from council to council depending upon the Secretary of State's discretion?
I turn to the last point which relates to Amendment No. 32. We welcome subsection (4) which was included in response to a valid point made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. Can we have a further explanation of subsections (8) and (9)? As I understand it, a co-opted member will have no voting rights unless he is a member appointed under Section 297 of the Education Act 1993. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that if he is an appointed member under the 1993 Act, he will have a voting power but only in connection with the functions contained in the Education Act 1993? I shall be grateful to have clarification of those points of detail.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I suppose the safeguards proposed in the amendments are, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, to be preferred to the original proposals, but I am still concerned that these proposals for area committees will be the source of great mischief in Wales. I am sorry to say this, but I should have preferred the voluntary system which is proposed for Scotland rather than the area committee set-up proposed in these amendments for Wales.
It seems to me, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will deal with this point, to be
880
a source of confusion regarding accountability and legal responsibility as between the unitary authority itself and the area committees under this rather rigid system. It would be much better, for example, in the area of Powys, which unfortunately is now inflicted upon us, if the people of Powys themselves could have worked out a voluntary system between Powys and the three areas of Montgomery, Radnorshire and Breconshire. It should have been left to the local people to work it out.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I shall start with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, since it is the most general one. We touched upon it on a number of occasions at earlier stages of the Bill. The position is, as I emphasised previously, that in some senses the powers given in Clause 28 and the other clauses that follow it are supplementary to the powers for local councils to appoint committees, which already exist under the Local Government Act 1972.
If the people of Powys wish to enter into their own kinds of arrangements—nothing to do with the provisions enshrined in these clauses—and have their own area committees, but area committees without the particular characteristics—I used the word on a previous occasion—of rigidity (the statutory locks on these committees which mean that they cannot be abolished easily), and do not wish to go down that route, but agree among themselves to set up area committees, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. As we discussed on a previous occasion, in one sense the critical point in the Scottish clause is not that it gives a new power but that it imposes a positive duty upon all councils to examine decentralisation schemes. But the actual powers are powers which already exist in the legislation both in Scotland and in England and Wales.
Here we are dealing with something rather different —where people in Powys, or in other parts of Wales, wish to set up these particular area committees which will then be in position unless the area committees themselves agree to their abolition. That gives them a certain status within the council because they cannot be abolished by a decision of the council. If they wish to go down that route, they will use the mechanism of this scheme, which has the advantage of giving the powers to the local committee, which means that they cannot be abolished, for example. If enough people come forward they will put forward such a proposal, and the Secretary of State will consider it. If in due course it goes through, then this particular form of area committee will come into existence. If they do not wish to do that, and they wish to have their own form of area committee, there is nothing to prevent them from having a form which does not attract these characteristics but just uses the normal committee provisions of local government legislation. There is a great measure of flexibility.
Within the clauses one sees that there is plenty of room for the schemes to be tailored to the requirements of the areas to which they relate. There is no question of this matter being imposed undesirably upon Wales. It is a mechanism which exists for those areas in Wales which wish to take advantage of it.

881
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, rightly drew attention to the matter of co-opted members, which is new. It arose from some of the things said in your Lordships' House and in another place about it being desirable for the area committees to have co-opted members. I remember the telling point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, about it being desirable, if one had a local area committee dealing with a planning matter, for that committee to be able to co-opt the chairman of the main council's planning committee, thereby getting his advice, views and so on about the matter. That is an example of the kind of person who might be co-opted. But, as your Lordships will see, the terms of subsection (4) are wide. It just says, "additional persons". If it were desired to appoint a member of a community council to bring a particular point of view to the debates of the area committee, it would be possible to do so.
Under subsection (8), a co-opted member of an area committee is not entitled to vote at any meeting of the committee. I am sure that your Lordships will see why that should be the case. However, that provision is subject to subsection (9), which is limited in scope. It refers to the Secretary of State giving a direction under Section 297 of the Education Act 1993. That subsection relates to representations on an education sub-committee, for example, of persons who appoint foundation governors for voluntary schools in the area. That is what Section 297 of the Act refers to. The provision in subsection (8) is, in effect, without prejudice to the Secretary of State being able to appoint a person under the limited provision of Section 297 as a voting member in that connection. It is only a small issue but, that apart, the people co-opted will not have a vote.
I turn to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. He mentioned the relationship between subsections (1) and (3) of the new clause in Amendment No. 31. Subsection (1) (a) states that:
"the council shall not, except with the agreement of the committee, abolish the committee or alter any arrangements in force with respect to the committee which were made in accordance with the scheme as originally approved".
That is what gives stability and protection to the area committee. Where the scheme is approved under these arrangements the council shall not, except with the agreement of the committee, alter or abolish it. That provision embraces subsections (2) and (3). Subsection (2) states:
"Every decentralisation scheme shall include provision, to be given effect to by the standing orders of the council concerned, for the majority required in order for any suspending resolution to be passed".
It would be possible for a council to pass a suspending resolution, which would suspend the arrangements in force in respect of a particular matter. We have previously given as an example planning decisions that have been delegated. A particular planning issue might arise which, although prima facie is within the delegated range, raises a strategic issue which is thought to be more appropriate for decision by the whole council. In that situation, it would be possible in advance for a suspending resolution to be passed.
882
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about the majority required for such a suspending resolution. Your Lordships may know that draft guidance on decentralisation has been issued by the Welsh Office. It was circulated to local authorities in January this year. It states, among other things:
'The Secretary of State considers that the majority to be specified in the decentralisation scheme should be different for each committee and should be fixed at such a level that if all the members of the council were to vote on the resolution at least one member of the area committee should vote for it in order to secure the necessary majority".
If a full council had 60 members, for example, 20 of whom formed an area committee, the number of votes required to suspend any standing order in respect of the area would be 41. That figure would apply regardless of the number of members present or voting on the resolution. The point of that is to ensure that there is no suspension of the order unless at least one person on the area committee supports it. It would not be appropriate to go beyond that because it is desired to keep the flexibility for the various proposals, which will depend on the areas concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about the situation in which the Secretary of State proposes to modify a scheme. The amendments reduce the time which the Secretary of State may take to consider such a scheme. I believe that your Lordships will consider it desirable that the matter should be concluded as; quickly as possible. Nonetheless, I recognised that if it were left too late there might be a danger that no proper consultation could take place.
Certainly the Secretary of State would wish to take account of representation which an authority would make during the consultations. It is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would proceed with proposals for a modification without first having had a form of consultation on the proposals and without having given sufficient time for representations to be submitted. For that reason, it is unlikely that the Secretary of State will seek formal views on a proposal to modify before Christmas, say, and in that situation offer only one month in which views must be submitted. If time were short, it might be possible for him to reject an application but making it perfectly clear that he was inviting the authority to submit revised proposals, for which there is machinery in the Bill.
I hope that I have reassured your Lordships as regards the points that were raised.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, after listening to the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, I still believe that a two-tier system will operate in some of the counties in Wales, especially as regards planning. I am worried by what the Minister said about planning. It is a major problem in Wales. If both the local authority and the area committee discuss planning matters more problems may be created. I believe that the matter should be left entirely to one authority.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, we have discussed the matter on a number of occasions. The Government believe that the ability to set up area

883
committees may well be welcome, in particular as regards certain aspects of local planning in various parts of Wales.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
34 Clause 32, page 24, line 37, leave out Clause 32.
35 Clause 33, page 25, line 36, leave out Clause 33.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 en bloc. I shall speak also to Amendments No. 57 and 58. These clauses were intended to allow the new authorities in Wales the opportunity to experiment with alternative forms of political management within a framework provided by the existing system.
Nevertheless, we have noted the anxieties expressed by Members of the other place in Standing Committee and we have concluded that further consideration would be beneficial before any legislation on such changes. Accordingly, we decided that the introduction of a completely new unitary structure is not appropriate now and have decided to remove those clauses from the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 and 35.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I warmly welcome Amendment No. 34. The House will recall that in Committee and on Report we were extremely concerned that the social services statutory committee could have been dispensed with under Clause 34. Given the importance of the social services for the people of Wales for very many years to come, we regard the statutory social services committee as an essential committee if we are to ensure continuity of care.
The co-ordination of social and health services in the community and the improvement of services for children, the handicapped and the elderly are very important and I am extremely pleased that the future of the committee is now assured.
I feel sure that the late Lord Seebohm, whom we miss greatly and who first recommended the concept of statutory social service committees, would have been gratified that the concept has been retained within the Welsh local government structure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
36 Clause 38, page 30, line 42, leave out Clause 38.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36.
Again, this is a question of deleting a clause. It was decided to delete this clause because it duplicated what was available by virtue of the order-making power in Clause 53 which provides for transfer of property, rights and liabilities in subsection (2) (c).
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
37 Clause 44, page 34, line 1, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 11 and insert 'In determining the effect of any provision of—

(a) Part IV, V or VI of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, or

(b) Chapter II of Part IV of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992,

in relation to a person whose contract of employment is terminated as a result of this Act, it shall be assumed that he was dismissed by the old authority concerned by reason of redundancy immediately before 1st April 1996 and that his dismissal was proposed by the authority.

(1A) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person's contract of employment is terminated as a result of this Act if—

(i) immediately before 1st April 1996 he was in the service of an old authority under a contract of employment which would have continued in force if that authority had not been abolished; and

(ii) his contract of employment is not transferred to a new principal council or to the Residuary Body; and

(b) a contract of employment is transferred—

(i) to a new principal council, if it is treated by any provision made by this Act, or by or under any other enactment, as continued in force with that council on 1st April 1996; or

(ii) to the Residuary Body, if it is so treated as continued in force with the Residuary Body on that date.'.

38 Page 34, line 13, leave out 'such'.
39 Page 34, line 13, after 'payment' insert 'under Part VI of the Act of 1978'.
40 Clause 45, page 34, line 20, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 24 and insert 'This section applies where any contract of employment made before 1st December 1993 is terminated as a result of this Act.
(1A) Subsection (1A) of section 44 applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.'.
41 Page 34, line 47, at end insert:
'( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations exclude the operation of this section in prescribed circumstances (and, in particular, in cases of engagement by new principal councils).'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 en bloc.
The amendments give effect to the undertaking which the Secretary of State made in another place at Second Reading to reassure staff that they will have their full rights under employment protection legislation, including rights to consultation with representatives of staff and trade unions about prospective redundancies and notice of redundancy—matters which caused your Lordships considerable anxiety when the discussion took place both in Committee and on Report.
Amendment No. 41 closes a loophole in Clause 45 by giving the Secretary of State power to stop the unnecessary payment of compensation to individuals on a fixed term contract with an old authority who, but for the amendment, would have been able to secure a job by competition in one of the new authorities but, although

885
they would be paid a full salary for that, would be able to claim compensation for loss of office under the existing contract.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 41.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are comforted in the thought mat the new Clause 44 is a great improvement upon the original clause. The new clause no longer deems a contract of employment as having been frustrated by reorganisation.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is quite right to remind the House that we were extremely concerned about the original Clause 44, and we welcome this amendment. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that local government employees who are made redundant or suffer loss or detriment as a result of the reorganisation on 1st April 1996 are entitled to the benefit of all existing employment rights, including those in respect of consultation and notice?
Secondly, perhaps I may refer to the words:
"or by or under any other enactment".
They are inserted in the penultimate paragraph of Clause 44. Do those words mean that the provisions of the Bill, in the words of the Minister of State at the Welsh Office,
"cannot override the requirements of European legislation, such at. the TUPE regulations, which implement the acquired rights directive"?—(Official Report, Commons, 1676/94; col. 789.]
Having listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, it seems to me mat there may remain one area of concern for the staff; and I agree that in practice it affects only a small number of senior and middle management staff. They are anxious because as yet the Welsh Office has not formally stated in clear terms mat it agrees with the proposal of the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Council of Welsh Districts and the Local Government Management Board (Welsh Region) that an employee who has not voluntarily agreed the terms of redundancy with his existing authority but wishes to be included in the staff transfer order to a new authority will be so transferred. Is that question still being considered by the Government or have they made up their minds about it?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as your Lordships will see, the position under Clause 34 is mat, if the contract of employment of a person who is in service immediately before 1st April 1996 with one of the old authorities is not transferred to a new principal council or the residuary body on that date, it is treated as terminated-In mat situation, by virtue of Clause 44(1), he becomes entitled to all the rights under Parts IV, V and VI of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and under Chapter II, Part IV of me Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Those include the right to consultation and notice to which the noble Lord referred.
As has been indicated on previous occasions, the Government do not intend that all employees will transfer. We believe that the vast majority of employees, in practice, will transfer because most of the services will be carried on. If teachers were required before
886
reorganisation, they will be required after reorganisaion. Therefore, we believe that most, but not all, will transfer. As we have indicated on a previous occasion, at the end of the day we do not believe that it would be sensible or kind to the officials concerned to provide for some kind of notional transfer on 1st April 1996 which would mean only the postponement of the decision as to whether employment with the new authority would be continued. We believe that it is better that the matter should be considered as soon as possible so that everyone knows what will be the position.
By virtue of the fact that large numbers of people will transfer, coupled with those who will transfer by virtue of TUPE—though we hope that among those who will not transfer there may be people who will opt for taking voluntary redundancy—we hope, in that way, that the numbers of people who will be affected will be small. However, the Government do not intend mat all will do so.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 en bloc.—(Lord Rodger of Earisferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
42 Clause 47, page 35, line 33, leave out' 1,' and insert' 1(1).
Lord lodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42,. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 60 to 62.
At present, the whole of Clause 1 is due to come into force on Royal Assent On examination, that has proved to be unnecessary. The amendments would ensure that only subsections (1), (2) and (7) come into force on that date. They introduce the new Section 20 and Parts I and II of Schedule 4 to the Local Government Act 1972; that is to say, the new county and county borough areas which will exist from 1st April, 1996.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Common in their Amendment No. 42.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
43 Clause SO, page 36, line 43, after 'councils' insert 'in relation to such areas in Wales'.
44 Page 37, line 6, after 'whose' insert 'designated'.
45 Page 37, line 8, after 'whose' insert 'designated'.
46 Page 37, leave out line 24 and insert "designated" means'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 en bloc. Clause SO provides the mechanism for the transfer of property held by the existing county councils in Wales and is required to be applied in accordance with the scheme under Section 19 of the Welsh Church Act 1914. As we debated on previous occasions, in order to avoid a division of the property into 22 funds—that: is, one for each council—the property is to be invested instead in

887
eight lead authorities. These are minor technical changes which are being made in order to clarify the provisions for apportionment of the funds.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 en bloc'.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
47 After Clause 51, insert the following clause:
Application of Part I of the Local Government Act 1988 during transitional period
''.— (1) Sections 9 to 16 of the Local Government Act 1988 (accounts, reports and other information in relation to defined activities) shall apply in relation to work—

(a) carried out by a Welsh authority in the transitional period (whether or not before the passing of this Act), and

(b) falling within an exempt activity, even though (as a result of its falling within that activity) sections 4 to 8 of that Act (restrictions in relation to works contracts and functional work) do not apply.

(2) An activity is an exempt activity if—

(a) on 31st March 1994, it was a defined activity for the purposes of the Act of 1988 and not the subject of an order under section 2(9) of the Act of 1988; and

(b) it is treated, by an exempting order having effect in relation to a period beginning after that date, as not being a defined activity.

(3) In this section—
"exempting order" means an order under section 2(9) of the Act of 1988 which specifies, as the period during which an activity is to be treated as not being a defined activity, a period ending on a date earlier than 1st April 1997;
"transitional period", in relation to an exempt activity, means the period specified in the exempting order; and
"Welsh authority" means a county or district council, a new principal council or a combined fire authority for an area in Wales.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order (an "extension order") provide that, in relation to a particular order under section 2(9) of the Act of 1988, subsection (3) is to have effect as if the date mentioned in the definition of "exempting order" were such date later than 1st April 1997 as may be specified in the extension order.
(5) Where sections 9 to 16 of the Act of 1988 apply by virtue of this section they shall be read with the following omissions—

(a) in section 9 (keeping of accounts), subsection (4), and the references to subsection (4) in subsections (5) and (6);

(b) in section 11 (reporting for financial year), subsections (2) (c) and (e);

(c) in section 12 (providing information), subsections (1) and (2); and

(d) in section 13 (serving of notices for purpose of getting information), paragraphs (a), (b) and (ba) of subsection (1).

(6) In the application of section 9,10 or 11 of the Act of 1988 by virtue of this section, any condition which is required to have been fulfilled for that section to apply shall be taken to have been fulfilled.'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47.
The Government have taken account of the anxieties expressed by local government about the practicability of applying the requirements of compulsory competitive
888
tendering (CCT) during the period of transition from the existing local government structure to the one provided for in the Bill. Accordingly, using powers conferred upon the Secretary of State by existing legislation, we have made provision for an extensive suspension of the CCT requirements for a three-year period from 1st April 1994.
Nonetheless, it is thought to be desirable to maintain during that period the requirement for the accounting regime which is already in place in relation to compulsory competitive tendering, so that when the requirement for CCT comes into place again after the suspension, the figures, and so on, will be available. Therefore, the amendment provides for the maintenance of accounting during that period.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
48 Clause 53, page 40, line 21, leave out from 'council' to end of line 22 and insert 'or other public body or to the Residuary Body;'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48. At the same time, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 125 to 131. The amendments concern provisions relating to the residuary body and the, transfer of property to it. Amendment No. 48 clarifies Clause 53(2) (c) so that property transfer orders can be made only to the new principal councils, the residuary body or to other public bodies such as National Parks.
The original drafting included provision for transfers to,
"such other persons as may be prescribed".
I believe that questions were raised on the matter in debates in this House. Accordingly, that provision has now been deleted and made more specific. Amendments Nos. 125 to 131 correct minor technical numbering errors to Schedule 13 which deals with the powers and administrative arrangements of the residuary body.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
49 Clause 53, page 40, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 41.
50 After Clause 53, insert the following clause:
Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc
''.— (1) The Lord Chancellor may ' by order make, with respect to any matters mentioned in subsection (2), such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in consequence of any of the provisions of this Act.
(2) The matters are—

889

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(5) Subsections (7) and (9) of section 53 apply in relation to this section as they apply in relation to that section.'.
51 Clause 55, page 42, line 19, after ' 53' insert 'or (Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc.)'.
52 Clause 56, page 43, line 11, after ' 53' insert 'or (Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc.) (a "modifying order")'.
53 Page 43, line 12, leave out 'section 53' and insert 'modifying'.
54 Page 43, line 33, after ' 53,' insert '(Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc.)'.
55 Page 43, line 44, leave out 'an order under section 53' and insert 'a modifying order'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 49 to 55 en bloc. At the same time, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 59.
The amendments clarify provisions in respect of the Lord Chancellor and functions in connection with magistrates' courts, justices of the peace, and so on, in order to take account of the provisions of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill currently being considered in Committee in another place.
The current provisions in relation to the Lord Chancellor and related functions are found in Clause 53(4) and (5) together with paragraph 10 to Schedule 2. The effect of the amendments is to take subsections (4) and (5) out of Clause 53 and to provide a separate clause in respect of the Lord Chancellor. Noble Lords will also have noted that Schedule 2 will also be expanded. The new Clause 13 provides the Lord Chancellor with the equivalent powers that the Secretary of State has in Clause 53—subsection (3) of the new clause will provide the Lord Chancellor with the ability to make future orders with respect to commission areas, petty sessions areas, and magistrates courts' committees as a consequence of any alterations made in local government areas by the Bill. I must stress the fact that it is only in consequence of those alterations in local government areas.
The need for the provision was identified by parliamentary counsel who felt that specific provision was necessary because of the provision which is now
890
made clear in Schedule 2; namely, that the status quo is, by and large, to be preserved. In order to make clear that, despite the general policy of maintaining the status quo, there could, where necessary, be alterations by order, it was thought desirable to separate it in that way.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 49 to 55 en bloc.—(Lord Rodgers of Earlsferry.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have a few words to say about Amendment No. 50 and one question to put to the Minister. The noble and learned Lord will know mat the amendment, especially subsection (2) (a), caused a great deal of anxiety on Report in another place. I believe that the noble and learned Lord has explained how it is that that power is to be found in this Bill rather than in the Criminal Justice Bill. However, perhaps he will be good enough to give the House about half a dozen examples of the functions that can be effected by the exercise of the power in Amendment No. 53. That would be most helpful.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to raise the matter with me yesterday when he indicated that he would like half a dozen examples. However, I am not sure mat I shall be able to oblige him in quite that way. The reason why the provision is in its present form is to some extent, one might say, a belt-and-braces operation. As noble Lords will see—and, indeed, as I have already stressed—the power is one which is concerned with the making of incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision by the Lord Chancellor in relation to the purposes of the legislation.
As noble Lords will see, the matters in question are the functions or areas of jurisdiction of any justice of the peace, stipendiary magistrate, and so on. It is stated that the Lord Chancellor may "by order" alter such matters. It is not intended that the Lord Chancellor should, so to speak, change the functions of the magistrates' courts in a wide sense. It is designed to ensure that the Lord Chancellor has all the necessary powers to adjust-purely as a result of the change in local boundary areas —the functions and areas of jurisdiction of the justices of the peace.
Your Lordships can see, for example, that it may be required to redraw the boundary so that one area which was formerly in one area of jurisdiction of a justice of the peace is now in the area of another justice of the peace. All that is desired by that is to make sure—it is not known exactly how this will work out—that when the area of jurisdiction is changed, at the same time the order will transfer the functions of these magistrates, justices of the peace, and so on, in respect of that area. It is not a case of changing functions but simply altering them in the sense of transferring them from one magistrate to another. That is all that is desired. This is in some respects simply part of the same question of jurisdiction; it is not intended to go further than that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
56 Before Clause 58, insert the following clause:
Records
'.— (1) Bach new principal council shall make and maintain a scheme setting out their arrangements for (he proper care, preservation and management of their records.
(2) Each scheme shall include details of any relevant shared arrangements which the council concerned have made.
(3) The council by whom a scheme has been made shall keep the scheme under review and, where they consider that it should be modified, make such adjustments to it as they consider appropriate.
(4) Before making, or modifying, their scheme a new principal council shall consult the Secretary of State and have regard to any advice that be may give.
(5) Where the records of a new principal council relate to the area, or pan of the area, of another such council, that other council shall have the right—

(a) to inspect those records at all reasonable times (without payment of any fee); and

(b) to take copies of any of them, in such manner as carries no risk of damage.

(6) The right conferred by subsection (3) is subject to any shared arrangements which affect the records concerned.
(7) In this section—
"documents" includes records, of whatever form and in whatever medium, which convey or are capable of conveying information;
"records", in relation to a council, means any documents which—

(a) belong to the council or of which they have custody; and

(b) have been retained for reference and research purposes or because of their likely historical interest; and

"shared arrangements", in relation to a council, means any arrangements which the council have made with any other authority under section 25 of this Act or section 101 of the 1972 Act (arrangements for the discharge of functions by other local authorities).'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move mat the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56.
A similar amendment was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, at Third Reading in this House. I think at mat time I was able to indicate to the House that the Government welcomed that proposal in principle but wished to take it away to consider the drafting with a view to returning with their own proposal.
The clause which is before your Lordships is the product of that consideration. In drawing it up, the Government consulted with the Public Record Office. I hope that it meets the anxieties of those who expressed a great deal of interest in the matter when it came before your Lordships. As your Lordships will see, the new clause requires authorities to draw up schemes setting out their arrangements for the care, preservation and management of their records. The schemes are required to describe any shared arrangements which an authority may have entered into regarding custody of its records, and the schemes must make provision for the authorities holding custody of the records to allow the owning authority to inspect its own records and to take copies of them.
Before making—or indeed before modifying—a scheme, an authority will be required to consult the Secretary of State and he will wish to consider whether the arrangements described in the scheme are
892
satisfactory and comply with any statutory requirements. As your Lordships will see, the authorities will be required to have regard to any advice which he may give.
Moved, That the House do agree with the commons in their Amendment No. 56.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhes: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his constructive and helpful remarks.
Throughout every stage of the Bill in this House we have had a great deal of discussion about the need to safeguard the records which are now in the care of the county repositories. I remember that your Lordships were very patient with me when I spoke in support of the three different amendments which I tabled at the different stages. Your Lordships were also supportive of the general case which I sought to make.
The amendment to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, and which I moved at Third Reading, had been carefully drafted in the light of the best advice which was available to me at that time. It was based on the precedent in the Scottish local authority Bill which is now in Committee. It had the support of Lords Lieutenant in Wales —who have a responsibility for some of the public records —historians and the professional bodies with a special interest in archives. The Secretary of State for Wales confirmed to me mat the amendment was acceptable, subject to advice from the draftsman. So the matter was left on the basis tint the Government would table their own amendment which would reflect the principles of the amendment which was before the House at Third Reading.
The Government have now produced that amendment, as they promised they would do—I appreciate that very much—and it has of course been passed in another place. I must confess one dung; namely, mat I and those who have been advising me would have preferred the more precise text of the amendment which was tabled at Third Reading. But I believe that this achieves the same end. I would nevertheless ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether he can confirm that Amendment No. 56 achieves the same end as the amendment tabled at Third Reading.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that. I think to some extent the difference between the two texts is accounted for by the fact—I believe I referred to this on the previous occasion—that, for example, whereas the Scottish Bill requires local authorities to make proper arrangements for the; preservation and management of their records, that provision is inserted because there is no equivalent, provision elsewhere in the legislation for Scotland, whereas, even now, there is, in Section 224 of the local government Act applying to Wales, a provision that authorities should indeed make proper arrangements with respect to documents. Therefore, although there are slight differences between the two texts, the amendment has the effect which the noble Lord's amendment had.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I welcome this amendment. It at least inserts into the Bill a clause on archives. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has given my noble friend Lord Cledwyn the assurance that he has asked for—that this amendment will achieve the same end as the amendment tabled at Third Reading. There is just one other point that I should like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to confirm. In practice will the Secretary of State, when exercising his powers under this amendment, be consulting with the Lord Chancellor or the Public Record Office before he issues advice under subsection (4) of the amendment? Finally, I am sure that I must place on the record the appreciation of Welsh historians and archivists for the tremendous effort which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has made on their behalf, and for what he has successfully achieved.
Baroness White: My Lords, I think we would all wish to echo—
Viscount Ullwater: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord and now the noble Baroness are out of order. This is consideration of Commons amendments and I think it is not considered proper to speak after the Minister has spoken.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
57 Clause 60, page 47, line 11, leave out '32(1) or 33(1)'.
58 Page 47, line 15, leave out ' 32(1), 33(1),'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 en bloc. These amendments have already been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 en bloc.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
59 Clause 60, page 47, line 21, after 'State' insert 'or (as the case may be) the Lord Chancellor'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59. Again this amendment has been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
60 Clause 63, page 48, line 26, leave out ' 1,' and insert ' 1(1), (2) and (7),'.
61 Page 48, line 26, after ' 53' insert '(Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc.),'.
62 Page 48, line 27, after second '1,' insert '3A,'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 62 en bloc. Again these amendments have been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 62 en bloc. — (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
63 Clause 63, page 49, leave out lines 1 to 4.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63, the effect of which is simply to remove the words which were inserted by this House in order to avoid questions of privilege with the other place.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
64 Schedule 1, page SO, line 38, column 2, after 'Monmouth' insert 'together with (from the district of Blaenau Gwent) the community of Llanelly'.
65 Page 51, line 3, column 2, leave out from 'with' to '(from' in line 5.
66 Page 51, line 21, at end insert:

'Blaenau Gwent

GwentBlaenau

The district of Blaenau Gwent (excluding the community of Llanelly).'.

67 Page 51, column 2, leave out lines 25 to 32 and insert:

"The districts of Islwyn and Rhymney Valley.'.

68 Page 51, leave out lines 33 to 39 and insert:
'Merthyr TydfilMerthyr Tudful The district of Merthyr Tydfil.'.
69 Page 52, line 10, leave out 'Castellnedd' and insert'Castell-nedd'.
70 Schedule 1, page 52, line 30, column 2, leave out 'but excluding the community of Llanelly'.
71 Page 52, line 41, column 2, leave out 'and the community of Llanelly from the county of Gwent'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 64 to 71 en bloc. These amendments have already been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 64 to 71 en bloc.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I want guidance on this matter. I am sorry that I broke one of the rules of the House when I spoke after the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, earlier. I wish very much to speak to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, and I hope that I am correct in my understanding that I can now speak to

895
them. First, I welcome Amendment No. 68 which largely reflects amendments moved by these Benches when the Bill was in Committee in this House. It is right that I should thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. We thought that he was very receptive to the thrust of the arguments in favour of Merthyr Tydfil that we advanced in Committee. We might not have been successful in re-establishing Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent as principal councils had it not been for the Lord Advocate's appraisal of the debate in your Lordships' House.
I turn to Amendment No. 69. I support this amendment because it corrects the slight mis-spelling of the Welsh place name Castell-nedd. I believe that this amendment enables me to return to an issue that I raised when the Bill left this House a few months ago. I then asked the Government to publish a Welsh text of this Bill. I pointed out that the first local government measure, the Local Government Act 1888, had been produced in Welsh. I happen to know that that was paid for by the Home Office. I believe that a Welsh text of this Bill for Wales is important for two reasons. I am very glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is in his place. I happen to know that he has expressed support for a Welsh version of this legislation.
After a gap of about 450 years the Welsh language is once again beginning to be used widely in the drafting of legal documents, the teaching of law subjects (in at least one of the law schools in Wales) and the drafting of delegated legislation. Much good work is being done. However, there are difficulties. Sometimes there is no direct match of meaning when translating. Indeed, this Bill is speckled with clauses that will not be easy to translate. Nevertheless, I believe that a Welsh version would be extremely valuable in developing acceptable Welsh language terminology in a field that has been relatively neglected for centuries. A Welsh language text will help the Government to carry out the policy that they enunciated during the passage of the Welsh Language Bill in 1993. That measure is now in force and the Welsh language is an official language in Wales. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could tell us whether the Government had made up their mind to produce a Welsh text of the Bill.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I rise briefly to support what my noble friend has said. Given the underlying policy of the Welsh Language Act 1993, in presenting the Welsh language as an official language in Wales on the basis of equality with English it would be helpful if the Government published a Welsh language version of this important Bill. I strongly urge the Government to think very carefully about their attitude to the publication of a Welsh language text. I believe that it is a mistake for them to maintain a negative attitude to what is in my view a very reasonable request. The Government have shown an important measure of sympathy towards the language in the course of this debate, and I urge them to be positive on this point as well.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has today excelled at his usual achieve-ment of being able to tie a major issue of principle onto the smallest possible piece of legislation, and I congratulate him. We are, I believe, discussing the insertion of a hyphen in the place name Castell-nedd.
The issue is a substantive one. As the noble Lord very kindly said, I raised this matter by letter with the Secretary of State for Wales and did not receive an entirely negative reply. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will not be too negative in his reply and will leave open the door for the department to produce an authorised translation. Although I am not able in this place to speak on behalf of the authority that I chair, I can certainly say that we will provide assistance in this matter.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am amazed by and admire the infinite resource of the three previous speakers who, in considering an amendment that concerns merely a hyphen, have been able to put forward an emotional and entirely justified appeal for a Welsh version of this Bill.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I hope that when my noble and learned friend replies he will say whether, if such a version of the Bill is produced when it becomes an Act it will have any status in a court of law, or whether it will be a work only for guidance.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe that the hyphen has proved to be a useful device on this occasion. Unfortunately,' I have to inform your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has decided that the Bill should not be published in Welsh as well as English, although it is a matter to which he has given the most careful consideration. Essentially the reasons are technical and are not to do with a lack of appreciation of the kinds of matters about which your Lordships have spoken. As your Lordships have realised throughout the debates on this Bill, this legislation is by no means free standing but in effect operates by amendment of the existing Local Government Act 1972. Therefore, no Welsh user of this legislation could proceed entirely on the basis of this Act. He would in effect have to use a Welsh translation of this Act and the Local Government Act 1972. This Bill amends the 1972 Act, and to understand what is going on one has to read the two together. For that reason, it does not seem to the Government that the user can rely on the Welsh text. Although this is a very wide issue, I believe that my noble friend has drawn attention to another important matter. The text which Parliament approves, and which at the end of the day the courts will consider, is the English text. That is the text that goes out from Parliament. Although that is a wider issue, that is also the case.
Nonetheless, having been negative, I can tell your Lordships that the Secretary of State is considering other ways in which the Bill may be rendered more accessible to the Welsh-speaking public, for example by the production of summaries of its provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised this matter with me in advance. I was struck by the point that he made

897
to me about the desirability of getting standardisation in relation to technical terms and so forth. That is an example of an area where it may be possible for the Welsh Office to assist. Although it does not go as far as noble Lords may wish, nonetheless it may prove of advantage to Welsh users of the legislation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
72 Schedule 2, page S3, line 18, at end insert:
'The Licensing Act 1964 (c. 26)
>— (1) In sections 85 (parties organised for gain) and 188 (closing of licensed premises in case of riot) of the Licensing Act 1964, in each case at the end add—
"(4) In subsection (1) above "county", in relation to Wales, means a preserved county (as defined by section 61 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994)."
(2) In section 193 of that Act (disqualification of justices), at the end add—
"(9) In subsections (1) and (2) above "county", in relation to Wales, means a preserved county (as defined by section 61 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994).".
The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (c. 83)
'. The provisions of section 10 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (jurisdiction in relation to fishery) shall be subsection (1) of that section and at the end add—
"(2) In the application of this section in relation to Wales, the reference to a county in subsection (1) of this section includes a reference to a preserved county (as defined by section 61 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994)."'.
73 Page 54, line 14, leave out "The provisions of and insert 'In'.
74 Page 54, line 15, leave out from 'areas)' to end of line 18 and insert ', in paragraph (a), after 'county' insert 'in England' and after that paragraph insert:
"(aa) every preserved county in Wales;".
(2) In section 4 of that Act (petty sessions areas), after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) In subsection (1) above, any reference to a non-metropolitan county is to be construed, in relation to Wales, as a reference to a preserved county."
(3) In section 19 of that Act (general provisions as to magistrates' courts committees), in subsection (2), in paragraph (a), after "county" insert "in England", and after paragraph (b) insert—
"(bb) every preserved county in Wales;".
(4) In section 70 of that Act (interpretation), after the definition of "prescribed" insert—
""preserved county" has the meaning given by section 61 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;".
The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)
'.— (1) In section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (issue of summons to accused or warrant for his arrest), in subsection (8) after "county" insert "in England, any preserved county in Wales".
(2) In section 2 of that Act (jurisdiction to deal with charges), in subsections (1) and (3) after first "county" insert "in England, a preserved county in Wales" and after second "county" insert ", the preserved county".
(3) In section 3 of that Act (offences committed on boundaries etc.), in subsection (4) after "county" insert "in England, any preserved county in Wales".
(4) In section 150(1) of that Act (interpretation), after the definition of "prescribed" insert—
""preserved county" has the meaning given by section 61 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;".'.
75 Page 54, line 18, at end insert:
The Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2)
'.—(1) The provisions of section 177 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (local election offence punishable summarily) shall be subsection (1) of that section and at the end add—
"(2) In subsection (1) above "county", in relation to Wales, means a preserved county (as defined by section 61 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994)."
(2) In Schedule 1 to that Act (parliamentary election rules), in the Appendix, in the entry relating to the form of the certificate to be endorsed on the writ, insert the following—
"Note: in relation to any constituency in Wales, "county" in this form refers to a preserved county (as defined by section 61 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994)."'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72 to 75 en bloc. The amendments insert additional provisions into Schedule 2 which provides for consequential changes to existing legislation so that particular provisions identified in that schedule apply to the preserved counties in Wales.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72 to 75.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
76 Schedule 3, page 56, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 and insert:
9>—(1) In this paragraph "council" means a county or district council which ceases to exist on 1st April 1996 by virtue of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
(1A) No election of councillors of a council shall be held after 31st December 1994, except—

(a) to fill a casual vacancy in the office of councilor of that council where before 31st December 1994—

(i) the office has been declared to be vacant; or

(ii) notice of the vacancy has been given under section 89(1) of this Act; or

(b) where the number of casual vacancies in the office of councillor of a council occurring after 31st December 1994 exceeds half of the total number of such offices.

(2) Any such councillor holding office immediately before 31 st December 1994, or elected after that date to fill a casual vacancy, shall, unless he resigns his office or it otherwise becomes vacant, continue to hold office until 1st April 1996.
(2A) It shall not be necessary—

(a) to fill any casual vacancy in the office of councillor of a council occurring after 31st December 1994; and accordingly section 89 of this Act shall have effect with the necessary modifications in relation to any such vacancy; or

(b) to fill any casual vacancy occurring during March 1996 in the office of chairman or vice-chairman of a council.'.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76. This amendment provides for the suspension of elections to the councils of existing district and county councils after 31st December 1994 except for the filling of casual vacancies in the circumstances described in the amendment.
The amendment also suspends the county council elections due in 1995 and prolongs to 1st April 1996 the mandates of county councillors serving at 31st December 1994.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
77 Schedule 5, page 59, line 38, at end insert:
''. In section 12 (preparation of unitary development plan), at the end add—
"(11) Any provision made by regulations under this section in its application by virtue of section 10 may differ from that made under this section in its application by virtue of section 10A.'".
78 Page 59, line 47, leave out from 'Wales' to end of line 6 on page 60 and insert:
'for their areas if—

(a) each of those areas adjoins each of the others; or

(b) the Secretary of State has given his approval.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a joint plan for any area which consists of or includes a National Park.'.
79 Page 60, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 61 and insert:
'National Parks in Wales Unitary development plans for National Parks in Wales.
23B'.—(1) A unitary development plan shall be prepared for each National Park in Wales.
(2) A Welsh National Park development plan shall relate to an area prescribed in relation to the National Park in question by order made by the Secretary of State.
(3)The prescribed area in relation to a National Park which falls wholly within, but does not comprise the whole of, the area of a single local planning authority shall be—

(a)where the local planning authority have so elected, the whole of the area of the local planning authority; and

(b)in any other case—

(i) the whole of the area of the National Park; or

(ii) a composite area.

(4) The prescribed area in relation to any other Welsh National Park shall be—

(a)the whole of the area of the National Park; or

(b)a composite area.

(5) For the purposes of this section and section23C, "composite area", in relation to a National Park, means an area which consists of the whole of the Park together with any one or more other areas in Wales.
(6) The Secretary of State shall not under subsection (2) prescribe an area which is a composite area except with the consent of every local planning authority in whose area the prescribed area or any part of it would fall.
(7)Any order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) may make such saving or transitional provision as he considers appropriate.
(8)Where, by an order under subsection (2), the Secretary of State prescribes a composite area which comprises or includes part only of the area of a local planning authority, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply in relation to—

(a) the Welsh National Park development plan in question, or

(b) any proposals for its alteration or replacement, subject to such modifications, if any, as may be prescribed by the order.

(9) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 10A do not apply for the purposes of—

(a)subsection (3) or (8) of this section, or

(b)section 23C(1), (2) or (4).

(10) For the purposes of this Act, "Welsh National Park development plan" means a unitary development plan prepared for a National Park in Wales.
Joint unitary development plans for National Parks in Wales.
23C'.—(1) A Welsh National Park development plan for a National Park which neither coincides with nor falls wholly within the area of a single local planning authority shall be a joint unitary development plan.
(2)A Welsh National Park development plan for any other National Park shall be a joint unitary development plan if it relates to a composite area unless the composite area coincides with or falls wholly within the area of a single local planning authority.
(3)Any Welsh National Park development plan which is required to be a joint plan shall be prepared by the authorities who will be the appropriate authorities in relation to the plan.
(4)For the purposes of this section, an authority are an appropriate authority in relation to a joint plan if—

(a)they are a local planning authority; and

(b)their area or any part of their area falls within the area to which the plan relates.

(5)Any proposals prepared under section 21 for the alteration or replacement of a joint plan of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) shall be joint proposals prepared by the appropriate authorities in relation to that plan, and any direction given by the Secretary of State under that section in relation to that plan shall be given jointly to those authorities.
(6)Subsections (3) to (6) and (8) of section 23A apply in relation to any joint plan or proposals of a kind mentioned in subsection (1), (2) or (5) as they apply in relation to any joint plan or proposals of a kind mentioned in section 23A(1).'".
80 Page 61, line 5, at end insert:
'In section 26 (regulations and directions), after subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) Any provision made by regulations under this section in its application by virtue of section 10 may differ from that made under this section in its application by virtue of section 10A."'.
81 Page 62, line 21, after 'to' insert 'or replacement of.
82 Page 63, line 39, leave out 'when'.
83 Page 63, line 40, after '(a)' insert 'when'.
84 Page 63, line 45, leave out 'one or more National Parks' and insert 'an area prescribed under section 23B(2) of the planning Act in relation to a National Park'.
85 Page 63, line 48, leave out 'as the case may be,' and insert 'if there is more than one,'.
86 Page 64, line 5, leave out 'the Park or, as the case may be, each' and insert 'any'.
87 Page 64, line 7, leave out from 'reference to' to 'area' in line 8 and insert 'that'.
88 Page 64, line 11, leave out 'National Park' and insert 'area prescribed under section 23B(2) of the planning Act in relation to that Park'.
89 Page 64, line 14, after 'within' insert 'an area so prescribed in relation to'.
90 Page 64, line 28, after second 'alteration' insert 'or replacement'.
91 Page 65, line 13, at end insert:
'and for this purpose a plan which was permitted to be prepared jointly is not to be treated on that ground alone as not being required to be prepared'.
92 Page 65, line 17, after second 'alteration' insert 'or replacement'.
93 Page 65, line 19, leave out '32(1) (a)' and insert '32(1)'.
94 Page 65, line 22, leave out '32(2) (a)' and insert '32(2)'.
95 Page 65, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 on page 69 and insert:
'Preparation of modified schemes
10'. —(1) Where any planning scheme war previously in course of preparation, any relevant authority may submit to the Secretary of State a request for approval to prepare a modified scheme for the affected area.
(2) The Secretary of State may approve any such request if he is satisfied that the planning scheme was previously in course of preparation in relation to the 'affected area, and that—

(a) it is expedient that preparation of the planning scheme fee continued in the preparation of the modified scheme;

(b) continued preparation of the planning scheme in relation to the affected area is likely to be of assistance to the new planning authority in preparing the unitary development plan for their area; or

(c) the adoption or approval of a modified scheme is otherwise expedient or desirable.

(3) Any approval under sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State drinks fit, including conditions as to the period within which the Modified scheme is to be prepared and a copy of it submitted to him;

(b) may be accompanied by a direction modifying in such manner, and for such period, as the Secretary of State thinks fit the duty of the new planning authority to prepare a unitary development plan under Chapter I of Part II of the planning Act

(4)Where the Secretary of State gives a direction under sub-paragraph (3) (b). Chapter I of Part II of the planning Act shall have effect in relation to the new planning authority subject to that direction.
(5)Where a planning scheme for any area in Wales had previously been prepared but not adopted or approved under Chapter II of Part II of the planning Act, the Secretary of State may, on an application made to him by a relevant authority, give permission to prepare a modified scheme for the affected area.
(6)The Secretary of State shall, whenever he gives any approval under sub-paragraph (2) or permission under sub-paragraph (5), direct that such of—

(a)the provisions of Chapter II of Part II of the planning Act, and

(b)any regulations made under any provision of that Chapter.

as may be specified in the direction shall apply for the purpose of the preparation, adoption or approval of the modified scheme in relation to the affected area.

(7) The provisions applied by a direction under sub-paragraph (6)—

(a) may include any requirement with respect to a modified scheme (or its preparation) corresponding to one already satisfied with respect to the planning scheme;

(b) may be applied subject to such modifications as may be specified in the direction; and

(c) may be applied for such limited period (if any) as may be specified in the direction.

(8) For the purposes of this paragraph—
"planning scheme" means a required plan, alteration proposals or structure plan alteration proposals; and
"modified scheme", in relation to a planning scheme—

(a) which is a required plan, means a modified plan,

(b) which consists of alteration proposals, means modified proposals,

(c) which consists of structure plan alteration proposals, means modified structure plan proposals.'.

96 Page 69, line 41, after 'approval' insert 'or permission'.
97 Page 69, line 41, at end insert' or (5)'.
98 Page 69, leave out line 42.
99 Page 69, line 44, after 'proposals' insert 'or modified structure plan proposals'.
100 Page 69, line 44, leave out from 'him' to 'or' in line 48.
101 Page 70, line 10, leave out '12(2) or 16(2)'
102 Page 70, line 11, leave out from 'proposals' to 'within' in line 12.
103 Page 72, line 48, leave out from 'if,' to end of line 52 and insert 'after paragraph (b). there were inserted— or
"or
(c) copies of the unitary development plan for the area in which the land is situated have been nude available under section 13(2).".'.
104 Page 73, line 20, after 'and' insert 'until copies of the unitary development plan for the area in which the land is situated have been made available under section 13(2),'.
105 Page 73, line 30, leave out from 'if to 'in' in line 36.
106 Page 74, line 12, after 'alteration' insert 'or replacement'.
Lord Rodger of Earlferry: My Lords, I beg to move that me House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 77 to 106 en bloc. I have already spoken to the amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 77 to 106. —(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
107 Schedule 6, page 74, line 31, leave out '3' and insert '2A'.
108 Page 74, line 31, at end insert:
'2A. In paragraph 2 (functions which may be conferred on joint board), after "National Park" insert "in England".'.
109 Page 74, line 44, at end insert:
''. In paragraph 19, after "Countryside Commission and" insert ", in the case of a National Park in England,".'.
110 Page 75, line 29, at end insert:
"The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c.65)
'.— (1) In section 148 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (planning control), in subsection (4) for "References" substitute "Except in relation to land in Wales, references".
(2) In Schedule 28 to that Act (powers of urban development corporations), in paragraph 11(2) (i), after "district planning authority" insert "or, in Wales, the local planning authority".'.
111 Page 76, line 44, at end insert:
'The Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29)
'.In Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989 (consents for generating stations and overhead lines), in paragraph 2(6), in paragraph (a) omit "and Wales" and after that paragraph insert—
"(aa) in relation to Wales, means a local planning authority;".'.
112 Page 77, line 36, leave out '188' and insert '188(1)'.
113 Page 77, leave out line 37 and insert '"planning authority" insert ", every local planning authority for an area in Wales".'.
114 Page 78, line 13, after '(1)' insert '—(a)"..
115 Page 78, line 15, leave out 'after that subsection insert-' and insert:
'(b) in the definition of "development plan", for "27" substitute "27, 27A"; and
(c) in the definition of "mineral planning authority", for "1(4)" substitute "1".
( ) After section 336(1) of that Act insert-'.
116 Page 78, line 35, at end insert:

903
'( ) In Part I of Schedule 16 to that Act (provisions referred to in sections 314 to 319 of that Act), for "Section 1(1), (2), (3) and (5)" substitute "Section 1(1) to (3), (5) and (6)".'.
117 Page 78, line SO, at end insert:
'( ) In section 3 of that Act (temporary listing: building preservation notices), in subsection (1), for ", other than" substitute "in Wales, or to a local planning authority in England who are not".'.
118 Page 79, line 29, leave out from beginning to 'local'.
119 Page 79, line 36, at end insert:
'The Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 (c. 11)
'. In Schedule 3 to the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 (transitional provisions and savings), in paragraph 8(1), after "district planning authority" insert "or, in Wales, the local planning authority".'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 107 to 119 en bloc. These amendments amend Part I of Schedule 6, which makes minor and consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 and to various planning enactments so that the provisions accommodate the changes in the structure of local government in Wales.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 107 to 119. —(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
120 Schedule 7, page 83, line 28, at end insert:
''. In section 232 of that Act (power to treat as a private street land designated by development plan), in subsection (9), for "27" substitute "27, 27A".'.
121 Schedule 10, page 96, line 44, at end insert:
'( ) In Schedule 7 to that Act (Community Health Councils), in paragraph 7, in the definition of "local authority", for "of a county or district mentioned in section 20(3) of that Act (which relates to Wales)" substitute "the council of a Welsh county or county borough".'.
122 Schedule 11, page 98, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 25.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 120 to 122 en bloc. These are minor amendments to the schedules transferring specific functions to the new authorities.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 120 to 122.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
123 Schedule 12, page 100, line 21, at end insert:
'( ) After subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) In the case of any billing authority in Wales, subsection (3) (a) above does not require the estimation of sums payable into their council fund in respect of council tax or non-domestic rates.'".
124 Page 101, line 12, at end insert:
'(5) Expenses of a billing authority are not to be treated as its special expenses for the purposes of subsection (1) above if they are expenses of meeting a levy issued to it by, or anticipated by it from—
904

(a) a Welsh joint planning board constituted under section 2(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a united district which comprises or includes the whole or part of the area of a National Park; or

(b) a special planning board constituted under paragraph 3A of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972.'".

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 en bloc. The amendments make technical changes to Schedule 12 which makes amendments with respect to funds as a result of the introduction of council funds under Clause 37.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 123 and 124.—(LordRodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
125 Schedule 13, page 105, line 36, leave out from '17.' to end of line 38 and insert 'The Residuary Body shall be included among the authorities to which the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 applies.'.
126 Page 106, line 48, leave out 'enactments to' and insert 'circumstances in'.
127 Page 107, line 28, leave out from '(1) (b))' to 'and' in line 30 and insert 'and 443 local authority contributions to mortgage costs);'.
128 Page 107, line 32, at end insert:
''. The Residuary Body shall be treated as a housing authority for the purposes of sections 444,452 and 453 of the Housing Act 1985 (provision in connection with local authority mortgages).'.
129 Page 107, line 43, leave out from '88)' to end of line 44 and insert '(retention or resumption of land required for public purposes)'.
130 Page 108, line 9, leave out 'Section 64A of and insert 'Paragraph 64A of Schedule 2 to'.
131 Page 108, line 9, after '1971' insert '(official pensions)'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 125 to 131 en bloc. I have already spoken to the amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 125 to 131. —(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
132 Schedule 15, page 115, line 9, leave out '1st April 2000' and insert '1st October 1996'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132.I have already spoken to the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
133 Schedule 15, page 116, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 2.
134 Page 117, line 33, leave out from 'for' to 'whom' and insert "council of the district" substitute "local authority to'.
135 Page 119, line 4, at end insert:
'. In section 255(1) (transfer of officers), for "27, 28 or 29" substitute "28, 29 or 29A".'.
136 Page 119, line 26, at end insert:
'.— (1) Schedule 26 (cemeteries and crematoria) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 4, in paragraph (a) omit "or communities" in both places, and after paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) where those authorities are the councils of communities or groups of communities situated in the same principal area, by the council of that principal area;".
(3) In paragraph 7, after "district council" insert "or Welsh principal council" and after second "district" insert "or Welsh principal area".
(4) In paragraph 8, after "district council" insert "or Welsh principal council" and after second "district" insert "or (as the case may be) principal area".
(5) In paragraph 11, in sub-paragraph (1) omit "or community" and after that sub-paragraph insert—
"(1A) Subject to the provisions of any order made under section 214(3) above, a Welsh principal council may make byelaws with respect to the management of any cemetery provided by them and a community council may adopt for any cemetery provided by them any byelaws made under this paragraph by the principal council and duly confirmed.'".
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 133 to 136 en bloc. These are minor technical amendments to the Local Government Act 1972. Amendment No. 133 is necessitated by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. Amendments Nos. 134 to 136 clarify the wording of the schedule.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 133 to 136.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
137 Schedule 16, page 120, line 12, at end insert:
'The Welsh Church Act 1914 (c. 91)
'. In section 19 of the Welsh Church Act 1914 (application of residue of property)—

(a) in subsection (1) (a), for the words from "The property" to "council either" substitute "Property vested in a Welsh county council or county borough council by virtue of a designation made under section 50 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 shall be applied, in accordance with one or more schemes made by a Welsh county council or county borough council either"; and

(b) in subsection (1) (b), after "county" insert "or county borough".'.

138 Page 120, line 43, at end insert:
The Shops Act 1950 (c. 28)
'. In section 73 of the Shops Act 1950 (local authorities), in subsection (1), after "the borough;" insert "as respects any county or county borough in Wales, the council of that area;".'.
139 Page 120, line 43, at end insert:
'The Registration Service Act 1953 (c. 37)
'. In section 21 of the Registration Service Act 1953 (interpretation), in subsection (2) (b), at the end add "and any reference to a non-metropolitan county includes a reference to a county borough".'.
140 Page 120, line 43, at end insert:
'The Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Act 1958 (c. 49)
'. In section 1(5) of the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Act 1958 (definition of "local authority" for purposes of registration of sellers of certain goods), after "means" insert ", in relation to England," and after "City of London," insert "in relation to Wales, the council of a county or county borough,".'.
141 Page 121, line 6, at end insert:
'The Weeds Act 1959 (c 54)
'. In section 5 of the Weeds Act 1959 (exercise of powers by local authority), after "county" insert ", county borough" (in both places).'.
142 Page 121, line 24, leave out from 'powers'" to end of line 25 and insert 'for "or county council" substitute ", county council or county borough council".'.
143 Page 121, line 25, at end insert:
'The Factories Act 1961 (c. 34)
'.In section 176 of the Factories Act 1961 (general interpretation), after subsection (8) insert—
"(8A) In the application of this Act in relation to Wales—

(a) any reference to a district council shall be construed as a reference to a county council or (as the case may be) county borough council; and

(b) any reference to the district of a district council shall be construed as a reference to a county or county borough."'.

144 Page 121, line 25, at end insert:
'The Trustee Investments Act 1961 (c. 62)
'.— (1) In section 11 of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 (local authority investment schemes), in subsection (4) (a), after "county," insert "a county borough,".
(2) In Part IV of Schedule 1 to that Act (manner of investment), in paragraph 4, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority", after "county," insert "a county borough,".'.
145 Page 121, line 30, at end insert:
'The Pipe-lines Act 1962 (c. 58)
'. In section 35 of the Pipe-lines Act 1962 (deposit of maps of pipe-lines with local authorities)., in subsection (6), omit "and Wales" and after "City of London," insert "for the purpose of the application of this section to Wales, that expression means the council of a county or county borough,".'.
146 Page 121, line 30, at end insert:
'The Licensing Act 1964 (c. 26)
'.— (1) In section 58(1) (a) of the Licensing Act 1964 (meaning of "local authority"), after "district," insert" or, in Wales, the council of the county or county borough,".
(2) In section 66 of that Act (Sunday closing in Wales)—

(a) in subsection (1), for "district" substitute "county or county borough";

(b) omit subsection (2);

(c) in subsection (3), for the first and third "district" substitute "county or county borough" (in each case), and for the second and fourth "district" substitute "county or, as the case may be, county borough" (in each case);

(d) in subsection (4)—

(i) for "district council" substitute "county council or, as the case may be, county borough council";

(ii) for "district", in every other case, substitute "county or county borough"; and

(iii) for "1975" substitute "1996";

(e) in subsection (5), for "districts" substitute "counties and county boroughs"; and

(f) in subsection (7), for "district council" substitute "county council or county borough council" and for second "district" substitute "county or county borough".

(3) In section 67 of that Act (Welsh Sunday polls)—

(a) in subsection (2) (a), for the first "district" substitute "county or county borough" and for "district councillors" substitute "councillors of the county or (as the case may be) county borough";

(b) in subsection (3), for the first "district" substitute "county or county borough", and for "district council" substitute (in both places) "county council or (as the case may be) county borough council";

(c)in subsection (4), for "district" substitute "county or county borough"; and

(d) in subsection (5), for "district councillors" substitute "councillors of the county or county borough".

(4) In section 98 of that Act (grounds for refusing applications for Part IV licences), in subsection (5) (a) after "district" insert "or, in Wales, the council of the county or county borough".
(5)In section 180 of that Act (consent to grant of occasional licence), in subsection (1) (a), for "a district or part thereof substitute "any area".
(6) In Schedule 2 to that Act (applications for justices' licences), in paragraph 5, in paragraph (a), after "licensed are" insert 'in England but" and, after paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) if the premises to be licensed are in Wales, to the proper officer of the county council or county borough council; and".
(7) In Schedule 8 to that Act (Sunday polls in Wales), in paragraph 6—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), omit the first "district", for the second "district" substitute "county or county borough" and for the third "district" substitute "county or (as the case may be) county borough";

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the first "district" substitute "county or county borough" and omit "district" in both other places;

(c)in sub-paragraph (3), omit the first "district" and for the second "district" substitute "county or county borough";

(d) in sub-paragraph (4), for the first "district" substitute "county or county borough", omit the second "district" and for "district council" substitute "county council or (as the case may be) county borough council".

(8)In paragraph 7 of Schedule 8 to that Act—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the first "district" substitute "county or county borough", for the second "district" substitute "county or (as the case may be) county borough", omit the third "district" and for "councillor for the district" substitute "councillor of the county or (as the case may be) county borough"; and

(b) in sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) omit "district".

(9) After paragraph 7 of Schedule 8 to that Act insert—
"(7A) In paragraphs 6 and 7 above "returning officer", in relation to a county or county borough, means the returning officer for elections of councillors of the county or county borough."
(10) In the Appendix to Schedule 8 to that Act—

(a) in form A, for "[district of]" substitute "[county/county borough of]";

(b)in form B, for "[district of]", substitute, in each place, "[county/county borough of]";

(c)in form D, for "[ward of the district of]" substitute, in each place, "[division of the county/county borough of]" and for "said district" substitute "said [county/county borough]"; and

(d)in form E, for "[district of]" substitute, in each place, "[county/county borough of]".'.

147 121, line 30, at end insert:
'The Harbours Act 1964 (c. 40)
'. In Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964 (procedure for making harbour orders), in paragraph 3(ba)—

(a)omit "and Wales" and "or community"; and

(b) after "parish council" insert", in Wales, a county council, a county borough council and a community council".'.

148 Page 121, line 37, at end insert:
'( ) in section 10 (default powers of Secretary of State), in subsection (2)—

(i) paragraph (a);

(ii) in paragraph (b), in sub-paragraph (i) the words "other than any council of a district in Wales" and sub-paragraph (ii);'.

149 Page 121, line 40, at end insert:
'( ) section 21 (expenses of county councils in Wales)'.
150 Page 121, line 47,. at end insert:
'( ) In Schedule 2 to that Act (management of funds for purchase of exhibits), in paragraphs 2 and 5 after "county fund" insert (in each place) "council fund".'.
151 Page 121, line 47, at end insert:
'The Gas Act 1965 (c. 36)
'. In section 28 of the Gas Act 196S (interpretation of Part II), in the definition of "local authority" in subsection (1), omit "and Wales" and after "City of London," insert "in Wales, the council of a county or county borough,".'.
152 Page 121, line 47, at end insert:
'The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 (c. 38)
'.— (1) In section 1 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 (sea fisheries districts and local fisheries committees), in subsection (1), for "county" substitute "county, county borough" (in both places).
(2) In section 2 of that Act (constitution of local fisheries committee), in subsection (1), for "county" substitute "county, county borough" (in both places).
(3) In section 3 of that Act (application by inhabitants in case of refusal by council), for "county" substitute "county, county borough" (in both places).
(4) In section 19 of that Act (contributions to river authority's expenses), for "county" substitute "county, county borough".'.
153 Page 122, line 3, at end insert:
'The Plant Health Act 1967 (c. 8)
'. In section 5 of the Plant Health Act 1967 (execution of Act by local authorities), in subsection (3), at the end add "but, in relation to Wales, shall be the councils of counties and county boroughs".'.
154 Page 122, line 9, at end insert:
'The Agriculture Act 1967 (c. 22)
'. In section 75(2) of the Agriculture Act 1967 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority", omit "and Wales" and, immediately before "and, in Scotland", insert "in Wales, the council of a county or county borough".
'The Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967 (c. 24)
'. In section 8 of the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority" in subsection (1), omit "and Wales" and, after "City of London" insert ", as respects Wales, the council of a county or county borough".'.
155 Page 122, leave out lines 10 to 47.
156 Page 122, line 47, at end insert:
'The Theatres Act 1968 (c. 54) '.
'. In section 18 of the Theatres Act 1968 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in paragraph (b) of the definition of "licensing authority" omit "and Wales" and at the end of that paragraph insert—
"(bb) as respects premises in a county or county borough in Wales, the council of that area;".
The Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67)
'. In section 108 of the Medicines Act 1968 (enforcement)—

(a)in subsection (8), after "county" insert "or county borough"; and

(b)in subsection (12) (a), after "district" insert ", county borough" (in both places).'.

157 Page 123, line 5, at end insert:
'The Post Office Act 1969 (c. 48)
'. In section 86(1) of the Post Office Act 1969 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority", in paragraph (a) omit "and Wales" and after that paragraph insert—
"(aa) in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough;".'.
158 Page 123, line 9, at end insert:
'The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (c. 57)
'. In section 3 of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (employers exempted from insurance), in subsection (2) (b), for "or Wales" substitute "the council of a county or county borough in Wales,".'.
159 Page 123, line 9, at end insert:
'The Agriculture Act 1970 (c. 40)
'.— (1) In section 38 of the Agriculture Act 1970 (smallholdings authorities), in paragraph (b) omit "and Wales" and after that paragraph insert—
"(bb) the council of every county or county borough in Wales;".
(2)In section 48 of that Act (acquisition of land for purpose of smallholdings), in subsection (1), after "county" insert "or county borough".
(3)In section 60 of that Act (cottage holdings), in subsection (1), after "county council" insert ", a county borough council".
(4)In section 62 of that Act (provisions as to Wales), in subsection (1) (a), after "county" insert "or county borough".
(5)In section 67 of that Act (enforcement authorities), in subsection (1) omit "and Wales" and after that subsection insert—
"(1A) In Wales it shall be the duty of each county council and each county borough council to enforce this Part of this Act within its area.'".
160 Page 123, line 9, at end insert:
'The Poisons Act 1972 (c. 66)
'. In section 11 of the Poisons Act 1972 (interpretation), in subsection (2) in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority" omit "and Wales" and after "City of London," insert—
"(aa) in relation to Wales, the council of a county or county borough,".'.
161 Page 123, line 13, at end insert:
'( ) In section 19 of that Act (interpretation of Part I), in the definition of "the appropriate highway authority" in subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "1985" insert "or the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), after "that Act" insert "either of those Acts".

( ) In section 52 of that Act (right to advance payment of compensation), in subsection (8), after "London borough" insert "or Welsh county or county borough".'.
162 Page 123, line 13, at end insert:
'The Employment Agencies Act 1973 (c. 35)
'. In section 13 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of "local authority", omit "and Wales" and after "London borough council" insert "and in relation to Wales, means a county council or a county borough council,".'.
163 Page 123, line 13, at end insert:
'The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 (c. 60)
'. In section 5(2) of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority", omit "and Wales", and after "City of London" insert "and in Wales the council of a county or county borough".
The Slaughterhouses Act 1974 (c. 3)
'.— (1) In section 27 of the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 (local authorities for purposes of licensing slaughter-houses), omit "and" immediately before paragraph (c) and, in that paragraph, after first "district" insert "in England" and after second "district" add— "and
(d) as respects any county or county borough in Wales, the council of the county or county borough."
(2)In section 34 of that Act (interpretation of Part I), in the definition of "district", at the end add—
"and, in relation to—

(a) a local authority who are the council of a welsh count}' or county borough, and

(b) the officers of such an authority, means that county or county borough;".

(3)In section 45 of that Act (interpretation of Part II)—

(a)after the definition of "contravention" insert—""district", in relation to a local authority who are the council of a Welsh county or county borough, means that county or county borough;"; and

(b) in the definition of "local authority", after first council" insert "of a Welsh county or county borough or".'.

164 Page 123, line 17, at end insert:
'The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39)
'. In section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority" omit "and Wales" and after "Scilly," insert "in relation to Wales means a county council or a county borough council,".'.
165 Page 123, line 17, at end insert:
The Guard Dogs Act 1975 (c. 50)
'. In section 7 of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority" omit "and Wales", and after "City of London," insert "in relation to Wales, a county council or county borough council,".'.
166 Page 123, line 17, at end insert:
'The Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 (c. 52)
'.— (1) In the following provisions of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, after "where the local authority is in" insert (in each place) "Wales,"—

(a) section 3(3) (applications for certificates);

(b) in section 4 (amendment etc of certificates), subsections (7) and (8);

(c)section 5(5) (d) (interested parties for purposes of appeals);

(d) section 10(8) (b) (copies of prohibition notices);

(e) section 10A(7) (d) (appeals against orders relating to prohibition notices); and

(f) section ll(c) (powers of entry and inspection).

(2) In section 17(1) of that Act (interpretation)—

(a)in the definition of "building authority", in paragraph (a) omit "or in Wales,"; and

(b)in the definition of "local authority", in paragraph (c) omit "or in Wales," and, after that paragraph insert—

"(cc) in Wales, the county council or county borough council;".'.

167 Page 123, line 26, at end insert:
'The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (c. 32)
'.— (1) In section 23(1) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (interpretation), in paragraph (b) of the definition of "local authority", for "district" substitute "county borough".
(2) In Schedule 1 to that Act (registration of societies), in paragraph 1(2) (b), for "district" substitute "county council or county borough".
(3) In paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 3 to that Act (permits for commercial provision of amusements with prizes: interpretation), in paragraph (b) of the definition of "local authority", for "district" substitute "county council or county borough".'.
168 Page 123, line 26, at end insert:
'The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (c. 38)
'. In section 7 of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (interpretation), in subsection (4), in the definition of "local authority", omit "and Wales" and after "City of London," insert "in relation to Wales, a county council or county borough council,".'.
169 Page 123, line 26, at end insert:
'The Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74)
'. In section 19A of the Race Relations Act 1976 (discrimination by planning authorities), in subsection (2) (a), after "county," insert "county borough,".'.
170 Page 124, line 2, at end insert:
'The European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 (c.10)
'.— (1) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 (returning officers etc.), in sub-paragraph (5) (a) omit "and Wales" and at the end insert—
"(aa) in Wales, a county or county borough;".
(2) In paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to that Act (local inquiries held by Boundary Commission), in sub-paragraph (4) (a) omit "and Wales" and after "district" insert—
"(aa) in Wales, the council of a county or county borough;".'.
171 Page 124, line 15, leave out 'first "district"' and insert '"district" in the first and last places where it occurs'.
172 Page 124, line 15, after 'borough",' insert '(in each place)'.
173 Page 124, line 21, at end insert:
'( ) In section 17 of that Act (interpretation), in the definition of "designated district" in subsection (1), after "any district" insert "or Welsh county or county borough".'.
174 Page 124, line 39, at end insert:
'The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65)
'.— (1) In section 2 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (duty of authorities to publish information), in subsection (1) after paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) a county borough council;".
(2) In section 4 of that Act (bodies which may be directed to publish information)—

(a)in subsection (4) (g), after "councils" insert "or Welsh county councils or county borough councils"; and

(b)in subsection (7), omit "district".

(3) In section 20(1) of that Act (interpretation of Part III), in the definition of "local authority", in paragraph (a) omit "and Wales" and after that paragraph insert—
"(aa) in relation to Wales, a county council or county borough council or a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964;".
(4) In section 98 of that Act (disposal of land at direction of Secretary of State), in subsection (8A) after paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) a county borough council;".
(5) In section 99 of that Act (provisions supplementing section 98), in subsection (4) after paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) a county borough council;".
(6) In section 100 of that Act (interpretation of Part X), in subsection (1) (a) after "county council," insert" county borough council,".
'.—(1) Section 103 of that Act (functions of the Land Authority for Wales), is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (c), for "county and district councils in whose area the land is situated" substitute: —

(i) the council of any county or county borough in which the land, or any part of the land, is situated, and

(ii) the joint planning board (if any) for the area in which the land, or any part of the land, is situated,".

(3) For subsection (6), substitute—
"(6) The council of a county or county borough in Wales which makes an assessment of land in its area which is, in its opinion, available and suitable for development may be assisted by the Authority in making that assessment.
(6A) A joint planning board in Wales which makes an assessment of land in its district which is, in its opinion, available and suitable for development may be assisted by the Authority in making that assessment."
(4) In subsection (7), for "or (6)" substitute "(6) or (6A)".
(5) In subsection (8), for "or district council" substitute "council, county borough council or joint planning board" and after "the council" insert "or board".
'.—(1)'. —In section 116 of that Act (assessment of development land), in subsection (4), in paragraph (a) omit "and Wales" and after that paragraph insert—
"(aa) (in the application of the section to Wales) the councils of counties and county boroughs;".
(2) In section 162 of that Act (inner urban areas)—

(a) in subsection (5)—

(i) in paragraph (a) after "district" insert "or Welsh county or county borough"; and

(ii) in paragraph (b) after "district" insert "or (as the case may be) Welsh county or county borough"; and

(b) in subsection (6) (b), after "(a)" insert "or (aa)".

(3) In section 165 of that Act (power to transfer undertaking), in subsection (9) in paragraph (a) omit "and Wales" and after that paragraph insert—
"(aa) (in the application of the sections to Wales) a county council or county borough council;".
(4) In section 185 of that Act (pleasure boat byelaws) in subsection (1) after "London" insert—
"(iv) the council of a Welsh county or county borough,".
(5) In Schedule 16 to that Act (bodies to whom Part X applies), after paragraph 1 insert—
"1A. A county borough council.".
(6) In Schedule 19 to that Act (public authorities who may seek advice from the Land Authority for Wales), in paragraph 1 after sub-paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) a county borough council,
(ab) a joint planning board in Wales,".
(7) In Schedule 20 to that Act (Land Authority for Wales: acquisition of land), after paragraph 4 insert—
"4A. Where the compulsory purchase order was made by the Authority and the land is situated in the district of a joint planning board in Wales—

(a) a notice under section 12 shall also be served on the board,

(b) the board shall have a right to object in accordance with the notice,

(c) the references in section 13 to objections made by an owner, lessee or occupier shall also include references to an objection made by the board."

(8) In Schedule 21 to that Act (further functions of the Land Authority for Wales)—

(a) in paragraph 9(1), after "local authority" insert "and joint planning board"; and

(b) in paragraph 9(2) for "district council" substitute "local planning authority" and for "the council" substitute "the local planning authority".

(9) In Schedule 32 to that Act (enterprise zones)—

(a) in paragraph 1(1) insert, after paragraph (a)—"(aa) the council of a Welsh county or county borough;"

(b)in sub-paragraph (3) after the first "district" insert "county, county borough"; and

(c)in paragraph 2(2) (a) (ii) omit "or Wales" and after "situated" insert—

913
"(iia) if the area for which the scheme is to be prepared is in Wales, adequate publicity is given to its provisions in the county or county borough in which the area is situated;".'.
175 Page 124, line 39, at end insert:
'The Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 (c. 18)
'. In the Schedule to the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 (disposal of human remains and tombstones, monuments or other memorials), in paragraph 10(1) (a), after "district," insert "or Welsh county or county borough,".
The Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22)
'. In section 50 of the Animal Health Act 1981 (local authorities), in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—
"(bb) as respects a county borough, the county borough council,".'.
176 Page 124, line 39, at end insert:
'The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (c. 37)
'.— (1) In section 1 of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (licensing of zoos by local authorities), in subsection (3), in paragraph (a) omit "and Wales" and after that paragraph insert—
"(aa) in Wales, the councils of counties and county boroughs;".
(2) In section 3(2) of that Act (persons whose representations are to be taken into account in consideration of applications for licences), in paragraph (e), after "the licence" insert"—(i)" and at the end of that paragraph insert—
"or
(ii) if the part is situated in Wales, the local planning authority for the area in which it is situated;".'.
177 Page 126, line 20, at end insert:
'The Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16)
'.—(1) In section 79 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (grants towards cost of sound-proofing buildings), in subsection (7), omit "and Wales".
(2) In section 105(1) of that Act (interpretation), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority" omit "and Wales" and, after that paragraph, insert—
"(aa) in relation to Wales, means a county council or a county borough council;".
The Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36)
'. In section 30 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (supplementary orders), in subsection (3) (c), after "a county" insert "in England".'.
178 Page 126, line 20, at end insert:
'The Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2)
'.— (1) In section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (registration officers), in subsection (2) omit "and Wales" and after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) In Wales, the council of every county or county borough shall appoint an officer of the council to be registration officer for any constituency or part of a constituency coterminous with or situated in the area of the council."
(2)In section 18(2) of that Act (polling districts), omit "and Wales" and after "borough" insert ", and in Wales it is the duty of the council of each county or county borough,".
(3)In section 24(1) of that Act (returning officers), in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) after "constituency" insert, in each case, "in England" and insert the following paragraphs in the appropriate places—
"(aa) in the case of a county constituency in Wales which is coterminous with or wholly contained in a preserved county as defined by section 61 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, the sheriff of the county;";
"(bb) in the case of a borough constituency in Wales which is coterminous with or wholly contained in a county or county borough, the chairman of the county or county borough council;";
914
"(cc) in the case of any other constituency in Wales, such sheriff or chairman of a county or county borough council as may be designated in an order by the Secretary of State so made;".
(4) In section 28(1) of that Act (discharge of returning officer's functions), in paragraph (a) after "constituency" insert "in England" and after that paragraph insert—
"(aa) in the case of a constituency in Wales for which the chairman of a county or county borough council is returning officer by virtue of that section, by the registration officer appointed by that council;".
(5) In section 28(5) of that Act (power of acting returning officer to appoint deputies), after "and a" insert "Welsh county council or county borough council or a".
(6) In section 31 of that Act (polling; districts and stations at local government elections), in subsection(1) after "county councillors" insert "in England" and after that subsection insert—
"(1A) For elections of county or county borough councillors in Wales, the county or county borough council may divide an electoral division into polling districts and may alter any polling district."
(7) In section 35 of that Act (returning officers for local elections), in subsection (1) omit "and Wales" and "or communities" and after that subsection insert—
"(1A) In Wales the council of every county or county borough shall appoint—

(a) an officer of the council to be the returning officer for elections of councillors of the county or county borough; and

(b) an officer of the council to be the returning officer for elections of councillors of communities within the county or county borough."

(8) In section 36 of that Act (local elections), in subsection (3) omit "or community" in both places in paragraph (b) and after that subsection insert—
"(3AB) Where the polls at—

(a) the ordinary election of councillors for any electoral division of a Welsh county or county borough or an election to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the office of such a councillor, and

(b) the ordinary election of community councilors for any community or an election to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the office of such a councillor,?

are to be taken on the same day and the elections are for related electoral areas, the polls at those elections shall be taken together."

(9) In section 36(4) of that Act (payment of expenses), after "county" insert "a county borough".
(10) In section 36 of that Act, in subsection (5) omit "or community", in both places, and "or the community" and after that subsection insert—
"(5A) All the expenditure properly incurred by a returning officer in relation to the holding of an election of a community councillor shall, in so far as it does not, in cases where there is a scale fixed for the purposes of this section by the council of the county or county borough in which the community is situated ("the principal council"), exceed that scale, be paid by the principal council; and if the principal council so require, any expenditure so incurred shall be repaid to them by the community council."
(11) In section 39 of that Act (void local elections) —

(a) in subsections (4) and (6) (a), after "district council" insert, in each case, "or Welsh county or county borough council"; and

(b) in subsection (6) (b), omit "district".

(12) In section 52(4) of that Act (discharge of registration duties), in paragraph (a) omit "and Wales" and for second "and" substitute—
"(aa) in Wales, of a county or county borough council, and"
(13) In section 69(2) of that Act (location of offices of election agents and sub-agents), in paragraphs (a) and (b), in each case for "or in a London borough or district" substitute "or in a Welsh county or county borough, or London borough or district,".
(14) In section 82(4) of that Act (persons before whom declaration as to expenses may be made), in paragraph (a), after "county council" insert ", a county borough council".
(15) In section 159 of that Act (candidate reported guilty of corrupt or illegal practice), in the definition of "corporate office" in subsection (3) after "county" insert ", county borough".
(16) In section 203(1) of that Act (interpretation)—

(a) in the definition of "local authority", after "county council," insert "a county borough council,"; and

(b) in the definition of "local government area ",after "county," insert "county borough,".

(17) In Schedule 1 to that Act (parliamentary election rules), in paragraph 10(2) (c) after "district" insert "or Welsh county or county borough".
(18) In Schedule 2 to that Act (provisions which may be contained in regulations as to registration etc.), in paragraph 1(1) after "district" insert", Welsh county or county borough".
(19) In Schedule 3 to that Act (form of return and declaration), in the first passage in brackets in each form (which provides for an alternative in relation to a local government election), after "county of insert "county borough of.
(20) In Schedule 5 to that Act (use of certain rooms for parliamentary election meetings), in paragraph 3(1) after "council" insert "and every Welsh county and county borough council".'.
179 Page 126, line 20, at end insert:
'The Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 (c. 24)
'. In section 1(5) of the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 (restriction on occasional permissions), for "district in Wales or Monmouthshire" substitute "locality".'.
180 Page 126, line 20, at end insert:
'The Value Added Tax Act 1983 (c. 55)
'. In section 20 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 (refunds of tax to local authorities and other bodies), in subsection (6) after "county," insert "county borough,".'.
181 Page 126, line 20, at end insert:
'The Pastoral Measure 1983 (No. 1)
'. In section 87 of the Pastoral Measure 1983 (general interpretation), in the definition of "local planning authority" in subsection (1), after "(a)" insert "in England".'.
182 Page 126, line 20, at end insert:
'The Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)
'. In section 97 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (contributions by local authorities towards provision of facilities), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a) omit "and Wales", after "City of London" insert "or" and omit "or a community council"; and

(b)after that paragraph insert—

"(aa) in relation to Wales, means a county council, a county borough council or a community council;".

The Cinemas Act 1985 (c. 13)
'. In section 21 of the Cinemas Act 1985 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of "local authority", in paragraph (a) omit "and Wales" and after that paragraph insert—
"(aa) in Wales, a county council or a county borough council;".
The Representation of the People Act 1985 (c. 50)
'.— (1) In the Representation of the People Act 1985, in sections 6(2A) (c) (absent vote at elections for an indefinite period) and 9(5) (c) (voting as proxy) after "county" insert, in each case, "or county borough".
(2) In section 21 of that Act (insufficient nominations at ordinary elections of community councils), in subsection (2) (b)—

(a) after "district council" insert "or, in the case of a community council, the county council or county borough council"; and

(b) omit "of district council".

The Weights and Measures Act 1985 (c. 72)
'. In section 69 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (local weights and measures authorities), in subsection (2), at the end add "and for each county borough shall be the county borough council".'.
183 Page 126, line 20, at end insert:
'The Health Service Joint Consultative Committees (Access to Information) Act 1986 (c. 24)
'. In section 1 of the Health Service Joint Consultative Committees (Access to Information) Act 1986 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of "local authority", after "county council," insert "a county borough council,".
The Airports Act 1986 (c. 31)
'. In section 12 of the Airports Act 1986 (interpretation of Part II), in the definition of "principal council" in subsection (1), in paragraph (a) omit "and Wales", and after that paragraph insert—
"(aa) in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or of a county borough;".'.
184 Page 126, line 20, at end insert:
'The Gas Act 1986 (c. 44)
'. In paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 to the Gas Act 1986 (modifications of the Pipe-lines Act 1962), in sub-paragraph (5), in the definition of "local authority", in paragraph (a) omit "and Wales" and after "City of London;" insert—
"(aa) in Wales, the council of a county or county borough;".'.
185 Page 126, line 20, at end insert:
'The Building Societies Act 1986 (c. 53)
'. In Schedule 8 to the Building Societies Act 1986 (powers to provide services) in paragraph 8 of Part IV, in the definition of "local authority in Great Britain", in paragraph (a) omit "and Wales" and "or community" and after that paragraph insert—
"(aa) in Wales, a county council, a county borough council and a community council;".'.
186 Page 126, line 23, at end insert:
'The Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 (c. 27)
'.— (1) In the following provisions of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987, after "where the local authority is in" insert (in each place) "Wales,"—

(a) section 28(10) (copies of applications for safety certificates);

(b) in section 29 (amendment, cancellation etc of certificates), subsections (7) and (8);

(c) section 30(8) (d) (interested parties for purposes of appeals); and

(d) section 35(c) (powers of entry and inspection).

(2) In section 41 of that Act (interpretation), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "building authority" and paragraph (c) of the definition of "local authority" omit "or in Wales," and after paragraph (c) of the definition of "local authority" insert—
"(cc) in Wales, the county council or county borough council;".'.
187 Page 126, line 23, at end insert:
'The Coroners Act 1988 (c. 13)
'.— (1) In section 1 of the Coroners Act 1988 (appointment of coroners)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for "county or Greater London" substitute "county, Greater London or Wales";

917

(ii) after first "non-metropolitan county" insert "in England"; and

(iii) in paragraph (c), after first "county" insert "in England"; and

(b) in subsection (2), after second "(b)" insert "or (bb)".

(2) In section 1 of that Act, after subsection (1) (b) insert—
"(ba) to the case of a coroner's district consisting of or included in a Welsh principal area, the council of that area;
(bb) in the case of a coroner's district lying partly in each of two or more Welsh principal areas, such one of the councils of those areas as may be designated by an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument;".
(3) In section 2 of that Act (qualifications for appointment as coroner), in subsection (3), after first "county" insert "in England", and after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) A person shall, se long as be is a councilor of a Welsh principal area, and for six months after be ceéses to be one, be disqualified for being a coroner far a coroner's district which, or any part of which, falls within that area."
(4) in section 4 of that Act (coroners' districts), in subsections (2) and (4), after first "county" in each case insert "in England", and to subsection (5) (a). after "administrative area" insert "in England".
(5) After section 4 of that Act insert—
"Coroners' districts: Wales.
4A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order divide, amalgamate or otherwise after—

(a) any coroner's district for the time being existing to Wales; or

(b) any such coroners' districts.

(2) Before making any order under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult the councils and coroners appearing to him to be affected by the order and such other persons as be thinks appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State may, in relation to any area in Wales (the "review area"), direct the council or councils for each Welsh principal area which, or any part of which, falls within the review area to consider any of me following questions—

(a) whether any alteration should be made in a boundary between coroners' districts which fails within the review area;

(b) whether a new coroner's district should be created for the whole or any part of the review area;

(c) whether a coroner's district which fails wholly within the review area should be abolished.

(4) The council or councils to whom such a direction is given shall submit their conclusions to the Secretary of State, together with a statement of" their reasons for reaching those conclusions.
(5) In making an order under subsection (1) above in a case where he has given a direction under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any proposals made to him under subsection (4) above.
(6) Where the Secretary of State intends to give effect to any such proposals without modification, subsection (2) above shall not require him to consult the council or councils who made nose proposals.
(7) An order made under subsection (1) above may make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
(8) Except as provided by this Act, a coroner: appointed for any coroner's district in Wales—

(a) shall for all purposes be regarded as a coroner for the whole of Wales; and

(b) shall have the same jurisdiction, rights, powers and authorities throughout Wales as if he had been appointed as coroner for the whole of Wales.

(9) The power to make orders under this section shall be execissble by statutory instrument.
(10) Any such statutory instrument shall be laid before each House of Parliament after being made."
(7) In section 27 of that Act (coroner's accounts), in subsection (3) (b), after "country council" insert "in England "and after "fund;" insert—
"(bb) in the case of the council of a Welsh principal area, out of the council fund;".
(8) In section 27(4) of that Act, far the words from "district consisting of' to "districts or boroughs" substitute—
"district—

(a) consisting of two or more metropolitan districts or London boroughs, or

(b) which lies partly in each of two or mare Welsh principal areas,

the expenses of the councils of those districts, boroughs or areas".

(9) In section 31 of mat Act (provision of accommodation), for "district or London borough" substitute "district, London borough or Welsh principal area".
(10) In section 35(1) of that Act (interpretation), in the definition of "administrative area", after "means" insert "Wales." and after "county" insert "in England", and after the definition of "relevant council" insert—
""Welsh principal area" means Welsh county or county borough"'.
188 Page 126, line 30, at end insert:
''.In section 88(2) of that Act (councils to whom transport giants may be paid), after paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) a county borough council,".'
189 Page 126, line 32, at end insert:
'The Football Spectators Act 1989 (c. 37)
In section 13 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 ' (licensing authority's powers to relation to safety at football grounds), in subsection (3) after "is in" insert "Wales,".'.
190 Page 126. line 37, at end insert:
'The Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)
In Part I of Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 (restrictions on the holding of licences), in paragraph 1(1), to me definition of "local authority", in paragraph (a) emit "and Wales" and after "Scilly;" insert—
"(aa) in relation to Wales, means a county council or county borough council;".'.
191 Page 157, line 9, at end insert:
'The Deer Act 1991 (c. 54)
In section 11 of the Deer Act 1991 (licensed game dealers to keep records), in the definition of "authorised officer" to subsection (9), after "council of a" insert "Welsh county or county borough,".'.
192 Page 127, line 29, leave out from 'subsection' to end of line 31 and insert '(2), after "subsection (3)" insert "or (3A)", in subsection (3), after "classes" insert ", in relation to England," and after subsection (3) insert:
"(3A) the classes, to relation to Wales, are—

(a) county councils and county borough councils; and

(b) police authorities established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964.'".

193 Page 127, line 31, at end insert:
'The Charities Act 1992 (c. 41)
In section 65 of the Charities Act 1992 (interpretation of Part III), in the definition of "local authority" to subsection (4), after "council of a" insert "Welsh county or county borough, of a".'.
194 Page 127, line 31, at end insert:
'The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (c. 8)
'. In section 21 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (pensions payable to judicial officers etc. by local authorities), in subsection (4), in the definition of "local authority", after "county council," insert "county borough council,".'.
195 Page 127, line 31, at end insert:
'The Charities Act 1993 (c. 10)
'.—(1) In section 76 of the Charities Act 1993 (local authority's index of local charities), in subsection (1), after "county" insert "or county borough".
(2) In section 77 of that Act (reviews of local charities by local authority), in subsection (1), after "county" insert "or county borough", and after subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) Subsection (4) above does not apply in relation to Wales."
(3) In section 78(1) of that Act (co-operation between charities and local authorities), in the definition of "local council"—

(a) after "means" insert", in relation to England,";

(b) for "parish or (in Wales) community" substitute "or parish"; and

(c) at the end add "and, in relation to Wales, the council of a county, county borough or community".

(4) In section 79 of that Act (parochial charities), in subsection (7), in paragraphs (b) and (c), for "district council" substitute "council of the county or (as the case may be) county borough" (in each place).
(5) In Schedule 3 to that Act (enlargement of areas of local charities), after paragraph 3, insert—

"3A. A Welsh county or county borough

Any area comprising that county or county borough."

(6) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to that Act, in paragraph (iv) in column 2, at the end add "or in any adjacent Welsh county or county borough" and after that paragraph insert—

"4A. Any area in a Welsh county or county borough

(i) Any area in the county or county borough;(ii) the county or county borough;(iii) any area comprising the county or county borough;(iv) any area partly in the county or county borough and partly in any adjacent Welsh county or county borough or in any adjacent district.'".

196 Page 127, line 38, at end insert:
'The Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (c. 25)
'. In section 1 (9) of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (definition of "local authority"), in paragraph (a), for "and" substitute ", the council of a county or county borough in".'.
197 Page 127, line 38, at end insert:
'The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (c. 28)
'. In section 161 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (vesting of land by order in Urban Regeneration Agency), in subsection (7), in the definition of "local authority", after "county council," insert "a county borough council,".'.
198 Page 128, line 13, at end insert:
'The Railways Act 1993 (c. 43)
'. In section 151 of the Railways Act 1993 (general interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of "local authority", after "county council," insert "county borough council,".
The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (c. 46)
'. In section 19 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (interpretation), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority" omit "and Wales" and after that paragraph insert—
920
"(aa) in relation to Wales, a county council or county borough council,".'.
199 Page 128, line 13, at end insert:
'The Probation Service Act 1993 (c. 47)
'.—(1) Section 29 of the Probation Service Act 1993 (responsible authorities) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (a), after second "probation area" insert—
"(aa) for any probation area in Wales, any county or county borough in whose area is situated the whole, or any part of, the probation area;".
(3) In subsection (2) after "county" insert "the council of a county borough".'.
200 Schedule 17, page 128, line 37, at end insert:
'Agricultural wages committees
3A. Subject to any provision made under section 53 which amends or modifies the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, "county" shall, in relation to Wales, have the same meaning for the purposes of that Act as it had for those purposes immediately before the passing of this Act.'.
201 Page 128, line 37, at end insert:
'Inner urban areas
'.—(1) The area of any district in Wales which, immediately before 1st April 1996, was a designated district for the purposes of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 by virtue of an order under section 1(1) of that Act shall, subject to any further provision made by or under that Act, continue to be a designated district for those purposes.
(2) The designated district authority in relation to any such designated district which comprises or falls wholly within a new principal area shall be the council of that area.
(3) Where any such designated district falls partly within the areas of two or more new principal councils, each of those councils shall be the designated district authority in relation to the part of the designated district that falls within their area.'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 137 to 201 en bloc. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 and 208 to 239.
These are extensive amendments which amend Schedule 16 (which makes consequential amendments to enactments other than the Local Government Act 1972) and Schedule 17 (which makes savings and transitional provisions). There are also a number of consequential repeals to various enactments in Schedule 18. Although there are a large number of amendments, they are technical. Their purpose is to facilitate the transfer of functions from the counties and the districts to the new authorities.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 137 to 201.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
202 Schedule 17, page 132, line 7, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 10 and insert 'Except as provided by section 287 of the planning Act (proceedings for questioning validity of development plans) as applied by this paragraph, the validity of—

(a) a modified plan, or

(b) any alteration made to or replacement of a local plan, a minerals local plan, a waste local plan or a structure plan under Part III of Schedule 5,

whether before or after the plan, alteration or replacement has been approved or adopted, shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings.'.

203 Page 132, line 11, leave out 'or alterations' and insert 'alteration or replacement'.
204 Page 132, line 14, leave out 'alterations made to' and insert 'any alteration made to or replacement of.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 202 to 204 en bloc. I have already spoken to the amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 202 to 204. —(LordRodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
205 Schedule 17, page 132, leave out line 24 and insert:
'(6) Terms used in this paragraph have the same meanings as they have in Part III of Schedule 5.
'.—(1) In section 306 of the planning Act (contributions by local authorities and statutory undertakers), subsection (2) (a) applies—

(a) in relation to the preparation of a modified plan as it applies in relation to the preparation of a local plan; and

(b) as if the reference to Part II of the planning Act included a reference to Part III of Schedule 5.

(2) In section 324 of the planning Act (rights of entry), subsection (1) (a) applies—

(a) in relation to a modified plan as it applies in relation to a local plan; and

(b) as if any reference to Part II of the planning Act included a reference to Part III of Schedule 5.

(3) In this paragraph "modified plan" has the meaning given by paragraph 9 of Schedule 5.'.
206 Page 133, line 5, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Act of 1980".
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 205 and 206. —(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
207 Schedule 17, page 133, line 25, at end insert:
' Limitation of council tax
'.—(1) The Secretary of State may, in a report made by him in relation to the financial year beginning in 1996 and any Welsh county council or county borough council, specify a notional amount for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2) Any such report—

(a) shall contain such explanation as the Secretary of State considers desirable of the calculation by him of the notional amount;

(b) shall be laid before the House of Commons;

(c) may relate to two or more authorities; and

(d) may be amended by a subsequent report under this paragraph.

(3) If any such report is approved by resolution of the House of Commons, the Secretary of State may designate any authority to whom the report relates if in his opinion, taking any excess in the amount calculated by the authority as their budget requirement for the financial year beginning in 1996 over the notional amount as representing an increase, that increase is excessive.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers appropriate for the purpose of supplementing this paragraph.
(5) Subject to any such order, the provisions of Chapter V of Part I of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (limitation of council tax and precepts) shall have effect in relation to a designation under this paragraph as they have effect in relation to a designation under section 54(1) (b) of that Act.'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 207. The amendment relates to the matter of controlling the costs of local government reorganisation. The purpose is to make sure that advantage is not taken of reorganisation to make unjustified increases in local government expenditure.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 207.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
208 Schedule 17, page 133, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 44 and insert:
'19.—(1) Any person who, immediately before 1st April 1996, is a coroner assigned to a particular coroner's district in Wales ("an existing coroner") shall, on and after that date, be deemed to have been duly appointed for that district.
(2) Nothing in this: Act affects the validity of anything done before 1st April 1996 by an existing coroner.
(3) Anything done before 1st April 1996 by or in relation to an existing coroner shall, on and after that date, be deemed to have been done by or in relation to the coroner appointed for the coroner's district in question.
(4) Any person who, immediately before 1st April 1996 is a deputy coroner or assistant deputy coroner in relation to a particular coroner's district shall, on that date, be deemed to have been duly appointed as the deputy or assistant deputy of the coroner for that district.
(5) No order may be made under section 4A of the Coroners Act 1988 so as to have effect before 1st April 1996.
(6) Any person who, on or after 1st October 1995, ceases to be a councillor for a county in Wales which ceases to exist on 1st April 1996 ("the old county") shall, for six months after he ceases to be such a councillor, be disqualified for being a coroner for any district which, or any part of which, falls within the area of the old county.'.
209 Schedule 18, page 134, line 32, at end insert:
'1962 c. 58. Pipe-lines Act 1962. In section 35(6), the words "and Wales".'.
210 Page 134, line 32, at end insert:
'1964 c. 26. Licensing Act 1964. Section 66(2).In paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 8, in the expression "district returning officer", the word "district" in each place.
1964 c. 40. Harbours Act 1964. In paragraph 3(ba) of Schedule 3, the words "and Wales" and "or community".'.
211 Page 134, line 38, column 3, at end insert:
'In section 10(2), paragraphs (a) and (b) (ii) and in paragraph (b) (i) the words "other than any council of a district in Wales".'.
212 Page 134, line 41, column 3, at end insert:
'Section 21.'.
213 Page 134, line 41, at end insert:
'1965 c. 36. Gas Act 1965. In section 28(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".'.
214 Page 134, line 41, at end insert:

923
'1967 c. 22. Agriculture Act 1967. In section 75(2), in the definition of "local authority". the words "and Wales".
1967 c. 24. Slaughter of Poultry Apt 1967. In section 8(1), in (he definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".'.
215 Page 134, line 41, at end insert:
'1968 c. 54. Theatres Act 1968. In section 18(1), in paragraph (b) of the definition of "licensing authority", the words "and Wales".'.
216 Page 134, line 43, at end insert:
1969 c. 48. Post Office Act 1969. In section S6(l), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".'.
217 Page 134, line 43, at end insert:
'1970 c. 40. Agriculture Act 1970. In section 38(b). the words "and Wales".
In section. 67(1), the words "and Wales".'.
218 Page 134, line 50, at end insert:
'1972 c. 66. Poisons Act 1972. In section 11(2), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".'.
219 Page 136, line 10, column 3, at end insert:
'In Schedule 26, in paragraph 4(a), the words "or Communities" in both places, and in paragraph 11(1), the words "or community".':
220 Page 136. line 10, at end insert:
'1973 c. 35. Employment Agencies Act 1973. In section 13(1). in the definition of "local authority". the words "and Wales".'.
221 Page 136, line 10, at end insert:
'1973 c. 60. Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. In section 5(2), in the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".'.
222 Page 136, line 10, at end insert:
'1974 c. 3. Slaughterhouses Act 1974 In section 27, the word "and" immediately before paragraph (c).'.
223 Page 136, line 14, at end insert:
'1974 c. 39. Consumer Credit Act 1974. In section 189(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".'.
224 Page 136, line 24, at end insert:
'1975 c. 50. Guard Dogs Act 1975. In section 7, in the definition of 'local authority", the words "and Wales".
1975 c. 52. Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. In section 17(1), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "building authority", and in paragraph (c) of the definition of "local authority", the words "or in Wales,".
1976 c. 38. Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. In section 7(4), in the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".'.
225 Page 13, line 26, at end insert:
'1978 c. 19. Election Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. In Schedule 1, in paragraph 4(5) (a) the words "and Wales".
In Schedule 2, in paragraph 5A(4) (a) the words "and Wales".'.
226 Page 136, line 32, at end insert:
'1980 c. 65. Local Government, Planning and, Land Act 1980. In section 4(7). the word "district".
In section 20(1). in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".
In section 116(4) (a), the words "and Wales".
In section 165(9) (a), the words "and Wales".
In Schedule 32, in paragraph 2(2) (a) (ii), the words "or Wales".'.
227 Page 136. line 32, at end insert:
'1981 c. 37. Zoo Licensing Act 1981. In section 1(3) (a), the words "and Wales".'.
228 Page 136, line 46, at end insert:
'1982 c. 16. Civil Aviation Act 1982. In section 74(7), the words "and Wales".
In section 105(1), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".'.
229 Page 136, line 46, at end insert:
'1983 c. 2. Representation of the People Apt 1983. to section 8(2), the words "and Wales".
In section 18(2), the words "and Wales".
In section 35(1), the words "and Wales" and communities".
In section 36(3) (b). the words "or community' (in both places).
In section 36(5), the words "or community" (in both places) and the words "or the community".
In section 39(6) (b), the word "district".
In section 52(4) (a), the words "and Wales".
230 Page 136, line 50, at end insert:
'1984 c. 12. Telecommunications Act 1984. In section 97(3) (a), the words "and Wales" and the words "or a community council".'.
231 Page 137. line 18. at end insert:
'1985 c. 13. Cinemas Act 1985. In section 271(1), in tip definition of "local authority", in paragraph (a) the words "and Wales".'.
232 Page 137, line 18, at end insert:
' 1985 c. 50. Representation of the People Act 1985. fat section 21(2) (b). the words "of district council".'.
233 Page 137. line 22, at end insert:
'1986 c. 31. Airports Act 1986. In section 12(1). to the definition of "principal council" in paragraph (a) the words "and Wales".'.
234 Page 137, line 22, at end insert:
'1986 c. 44. Gas Act 1986. In paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 7, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".'.
235 Page 137, line 22, at end insert:
'1986 c. 53. Building Societies Act 1986. In paragraph 8 of Part IV of Schedule 8, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority in Great Britain", the words "and Wales" and "or community".'.
236 Page 137, line 22, at end insert:
'1987 c. 27. Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987. In section 41, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "building authority'', and in paragraph (c) of the definition of "local authority", the words "or in Wales,".'.
237 Page 137, line 28, at end insert:
1989 c. 29. Electricity Act 1989. In Schedule 8, in paragraph 2(6) (a) the words "and Wales".'.
238 Page 137, line 46. at end insert:
'1990 c. 42. Broadcasting Act 1990. In paragraph 1(1) of Part I of Schedule 2, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".'.
239 Page 138, line 41, at end insert:
'1993 c. 46. Health Service Commissioners Act i993. In section 19. in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".'.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 208 to 239 en bloc. I have already spoken to the amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 208 to 239. —(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill
5.17 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 20, line 52, at end insert:
("; and
( ) in subsection (3), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. The amendment corrects a small omission from Schedule 3 to the Bill. As the House is aware, Schedule 3 extends the regime of strict liability for oil pollution damage to all ships. The accidental omission of the phrase "or 1A" would in one respect have had the effect of providing a different regime for oil tankers than for other ships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 22, line 17, column 3, at end insert:

("in paragraph 6(1)(a), the words from "section 544" to "waters)".".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No. 3 at the same time. The amendments make minor corrections to the table of repeals. Both amendments concern the removal of obsolete references from the Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Act 1993. Amendment No. 2 would remove a redundant reference. Amendment No. 3 would correct the extent of one of the repeals. As currently drafted, that repeal would have removed a reference which should be retained. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 22, line 20, column 3, leave out ("422") and insert ("6").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mustill: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Sunday Trading Bill
5.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason and amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason and amendment be now considered.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON AND AMENDMENT
[ The page and line refer to Bill 28 as first printed by the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
9 Page 4, line 46, at end insert:
("(bb ) any shop which is a nursery, garden centre or do-it-yourself home improvement shop, or a combination of these, and where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of any one or more of the following—

(i) plants,

(ii) garden supplies and accessories, and

(iii) materials and tools suitable for use in the construction, maintenance, repair or decoration of buildings,")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
9A Because the Commons do not consider it desirable to exempt shops of the kind described in the amendment from restrictions on Sunday opening.
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
9B The Lord Hacking to move, That this House do not insist on their amendment 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 9A, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:
9C ("(bb) any shop where the trade or business aimed on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of—

(i) trees, shrubs, plants, bulbs or seeds;

(ii) garden supplies or equipment;")

Lord Hacking: My Lords, I beg to move Motion 9B standing in my name.
The purpose of my Motion is to enable the other place for the first time to consider as a separate issue the status of nurseries and garden centres under the provisions of the Bill. The other Motion, Motion 12B, is purely consequential and deals with cross-referencing to other clauses.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the history of the matter. At no time, until the Bill reached us, did either Chamber consider the status of garden centres and DIY stores. As noble Lords will recall, the debate was on the choice of options to be taken as the fundamental issue on the Bill. On 14th April we went into Committee and at that stage there were three amendments before the Committee relating to garden centres and DIY stores. The first of those sought exemption for garden centres and nurseries; the second sought exemption for DIY stores; and the third was a combined seeking of exemption for both DIY stores and garden centres.
During our debate, a clear preference was shown for the combined amendment. For that reason and because a number of entities combine the functions of a garden centre and a DIY store, I invited the Committee to agree the combined amendment. As noble Lords may also recall, on a Division it was agreed.
On 21st June, the other place considered our amendments and, while accepting all the other amendments, rejected the combined amendment concerning garden centres and DIY stores. However, in the debate in the other place, Members from all sides of the House complained that they had not been given an opportunity to consider separately garden centres and if

927
they had been given that opportunity, they would have looked favourably at a garden centres only amendment. Indeed, one Member in another place who was generally opposed to the relaxation of Sunday trading laws, urged the Commons to consider a separate garden centre amendment.
Therefore, my Motion is in response to the favourable view expressed in another place concerning garden centres and is in response to the invitation that the Commons should have an opportunity separately now to consider the position of garden centres.
I ask noble Lords to look at the terms of the amendment which, in my submission, have been precisely and carefully drafted. Your Lordships will see in subparagraph (i) that certain specific products of garden centres are identified: trees, shrubs, plants, bulbs or seeds. I do not think that noble Lords or anyone else reading the schedule would have any difficulty in understanding these definitions.
In the second part of my amendment there are identified in the schedule garden supplies or garden equipment. "Garden supplies" refers to such products as peat or fertilisers and other products that enhance the gardening process. "Garden equipment" refers to garden tools, lawn mowers and the like.
Under the schedule, the garden centre would not be prevented from offering for sale garden furniture or garden ornaments or the like, but should that garden centre attempt to sell any substantial quantity of items falling under the exempt products identified in the schedule, they would face the risk of prosecution and a fine of £50,000 under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1. Contrary to the advice of Mr. Charles Flint, of Counsel, the burden of proof under Section 101 of the Magistrates' Act 1980 would remain upon the defendant, the garden centre concerned.
We have already debated—perhaps too much—the words "wholly or mainly". I just remind noble Lords that the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hailsham and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, advised your Lordships that those words are fully justiciable. I also remind the House that in a case taken over 80 years ago in the Chancery Division by Mr. Justice Parker, the Hatschek patent case, the court firmly held that those two words "wholly or mainly"—the word used in this case was "exclusively" rather than "wholly", but nothing turns on that—should be construed in "close connection" one with the other, and that "disparity" between the contents of the goods in question had to be "substantial". The judge in that case, Mr. Justice Parker, specifically rejected the argument that a difference of 51 per cent. against 49 per cent. did not satisfy that test.
It is also important to take into account the current state of the law under which garden centres have been and are lawfully trading in their primary products of shrubs and plants under the proviso of Section 58 of the Shops Act 1950. That proviso permits the produce that has been produced at the garden centre to be sold lawfully under that Act. This applies to trees and shrubs that are dug from the land and it also applies to other products that have been cultivated: for example, in pots at the garden centre.
928
I therefore believe that it is a serious step in the Bill designed to clarify and relax Sunday trading law to take away existing rights relating to hours of trading and to trading on Easter Sunday. I remind noble Lords that the special position of garden centres was recognised by a number of organisations, including the Keep Sunday Special Campaign, who, in their option, gave specific exemption to the garden centres in a broader form, I have to tell your Lordships, than in the form in my amendment.
In summary, in moving the Motion, I do not seek any confrontation with the other place. On the contrary, I seek to provide a means for the other place to consider separately and favourably garden centres.
The other important point is that I must emphasise that it would be a retrograde step in my submission to take away existing rights. Therefore, I look with friendship towards the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Elton and others who participated in the debate and hope that that friendship will take the amendment through without discord.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 9A, but propose Amendment No. 9C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Hacking.)
Lord Norrie: My Lords, at Committee stage I spoke about the real practicalities of the garden centre industry, having had 19 years' experience in the trade. At that time, this House accepted the principle that garden centres should be allowed to continue their existing trading pattern on Sundays. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, there is a great deal of sympathy for the position of nurseries and garden centres in relation to the Bill, as was shown in both debates in this House and the Commons. Again as my noble friend has just indicated, it was implied by Members of Parliament from all sides that they wished us to provide them with an amendment relating solely to garden centres.
Traditionally it has been accepted that nurseries and garden centres should trade on Sundays, even under the provisions of the Shops Act 1950. Without this amendment, garden centres will be worse off when the Bill becomes law. First, they will have restricted opening hours on Sundays; secondly, they will be forced to close altogether on Easter Sunday, probably the busiest day of their year. In practice neither of those restrictions exists at present.
Of the 2,000 garden centres in England and Wales the vast majority are family owned and run. Those are exactly the types of small businesses that we should be encouraging rather than hindering. Sunday is their busiest day, accounting for up to 40 per cent. of their weekly turnover. They have always opened early and closed late to allow supplies to be bought by gardeners when they need them most.
As garden centres have opened on Sunday for many years, I think that the public will be baffled and angry if we vote to restrict these well-established and accepted trading practices. The gardeners will not like it, the staff will not like it and the owners will not like it. If we do not pass this amendment tonight I believe that the

929
pressure from the public and the nursery trade when they realise what we have done will be so great that we shall soon have to return to this issue again.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I want to add very little to what has been said already, but there are one or two points that I believe need to be covered. I support what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Norrie, about the institution that the opening of garden centres on a Sunday has become. I feel that, above all other trading activities, it provides a family outing of the kind that we should not seek to curtail.
Sunday, as we have heard, is the busiest day for garden centres. The workers who are in them have become used to that and have established their working patterns over many years. Fewer hours for them (as indeed it would mean for others) would mean less pay. In some cases there will be actual job losses—and not only on Sunday. As most of the trading profits of the garden centres are made on Sundays the knock-on effect of lower takings on Sundays could affect jobs on other days as businesses seek to cut costs.
Some anxieties were expressed in another place about problems of policing if garden shops or centres were deregulated. I find it very difficult to understand that particular argument. I cannot really see why policing under the terms of this amendment should be any more difficult than they will be in any case. I have not had a single objection or representation from any local authority that suggests that they would find it difficult to work with this amendment. The only objections that I have received have been from other traders who foresee the increased competition that they do not wish to have. This has become almost a British institution. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment and let it go forward.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope, too, that your Lordships will accept this amendment, first of all because it makes general good sense to separate it from the other part of the clause which another place understandably removed. But the practical point is surely this. It is not, as I understand it, the purpose of the present legislation to extend the scope of control of sales. It has only been a matter of argument as to the extent of the increase in permission to sell which should be enacted.
This particular subject matter has always been free. It was free even under the famous 1950 Act. It could only be a great error, at a time when we are rightly reducing the area of control and restriction, if suddenly we were to impose—I suggest, largely by accident—this control on garden centres. Therefore it seems to me that we have an admirable opportunity on this Motion to tidy up the whole matter, to secure that garden centres continue to have the freedom to operate that they have enjoyed for many years and to keep the pattern of the Bill logical and tidy. Therefore, I hope very much that noble Lords will support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Hacking.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I should also like briefly to support this Motion. Garden centres are one of our few
930
remaining expanding industries. Surely we do not want to kill anything of that species. Not merely are they expanding but they are expanding to the pleasure and benefit of almost everyone in the neighbourhood— certainly of the gardeners and the employees of the centres, and, judging by my experience, to the general welcome of those in the neighbourhood.
Their main selling days are Saturday and Sunday, and in particular Sunday. For Parliament to forbid centres to operate on Sundays is rather like forbidding footballers to play on Saturday, or indeed ministers of religion to carry out their services on Sunday. It would be absurd.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I should also like to support the Motion, and I shall do so extremely briefly. Anyone who has studied the effect in another place, which rejected the amendment that had been passed in this House, will recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said in his very compelling speech, that a very clear distinction was drawn by the other place between the DIY centres and the problems of distinguishing between those and other shops that sell identical goods. There was mention, on the one hand, of the problems of deliveries on Sunday and disturbance to neighbourhoods, and, on the other hand, the garden centres. I believe that the other place would very much welcome an opportunity to reach a decision on garden centres alone.
None of the arguments that has applied to DIY centres really applies to garden centres. It is perfectly clear what a garden centre is. The drafting of the Motion is quite simple on that matter. Therefore we should accept the Commons amendment to the extent that is indicated and accept the six-hour restriction on DIY centres, but we should give the other place an opportunity to think again about garden centres.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and his supporters have shown an enormous, almost excessive, enthusiasm for this issue. I myself have always been a complete deregulator. I took some active part in that direction when the previous Bill was before your Lordships. I was also formerly a very keen gardener and user of garden centres. Therefore I should have every predilection in favour of this amendment if it stood alone and had no history. If it were a matter of a garden centre attached to the Garden of Eden with no history, no geography and nobody outside to complain of unfair competition, it would be very hard to resist. But that is not so.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, went back into history, but very recent history. One needs to go back to the former Bill. Your Lordships showed every inclination after a hard struggle to vindicate the principle of total deregulation. But the other place would not have that and the Bill was lost. We went back to the notorious 1950 Act. The result was, as everybody had prophesied, widespread and flagrant flouting of the law.
Nearly 50 years ago, the Gowers Committee said that the 1950 Act was bringing the law into disrepute; and a decade or so ago the Auld Committee repeated that in slightly different words: it was bringing the law into

931
contempt. So it was no surprise to find that immediately the big stores in London and elsewhere openly flouted the law and opened on Sunday whenever it was convenient.
If we lose this Bill, we shall be in danger of returning to that situation. It is far too late to go on pursuing this issue. At any rate, that is where one should start: with the 1950 Act and the loss of the Bill last time when it came before your Lordships.
But more recently, after that failure the Home Office did its best to reconcile the diverse interests. With every activity, every assistance and with vast experience, it failed entirely. In the end it was left to the group for which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, speaks—the Shopping Hours Reform Council—with very great difficulty and careful balance, to find a compromise. We shall be in great danger if we go back on that compromise. We owe an immense amount to the noble Baroness and her colleagues. I hope that she will address your Lordships on this matter. No doubt your Lordships will pay great attention to what she says.
But there is more recent history to consider. It is very recent history—in fact it happened last night. With the deregulation Bill, last night your Lordships removed Section 1 of the 1950 Act. That means that a garden centre can open all day on Friday and all night as well if it so chooses; and it can open all day on Saturday and all night as well on Saturday.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned small businesses. But we are not concerned at all with small businesses. We are concerned with large garden centres. The small garden centres are not limited to six hours of opening. They can serve the public throughout the day and now throughout the night as well.
There is another point to raise on that issue. There are many large garden centres and adjacent small garden centres. The Shopping Hours Reform Council had to strike a compromise in two directions. In the first place it managed to reconcile the views of the Keep Sunday Special group with those who wanted complete deregulation. In the second place, it carefully balanced the interests of the small shopkeeper—and in this case the small garden centre—against the big stores. That was again a very careful compromise.
As to the other place, it was presented with a number of amendments proposed by your Lordships. It accepted all of them except one, which is this one. It was rejected by a massive majority. The voting was 160 to 293. It would be idle to speak of asking the other place to think again.
How it was presented to the other place was entirely up to those who moved the amendment in this House. Understandably, do-it-yourself stores and garden centres were lumped together—quite rightly and quite understandably, because they very largely overlap in their retail outlets. The other place did not consider the two establishments separately at all. It considered them as subject to the same arguments.
Those arguments were threefold. The first was that the provision was a derogation from a compact which had been agreed to over a wide field. The second was that garden centres, like do-it-yourself shops, could sell
932
a whole host of articles in competition, say, with departmental stores, hardware shops and so on. Garden centres do not deal only in plants, shrubs and so on. They also sell cement, brickwork and garden furniture. All those items are sold in competition with departmental stores and other retail outlets. As I read the debate, it was strongly felt in the other place that it was quite unfair to allow that competition. That was the point made in your Lordships' House by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when we last considered the matter. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also raised that point. The third argument was an adjunct of the second; namely, that the words "wholly or mainly" opened the road further to unfair competition.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, after great research and with much care, found a Revenue case decided in the Chancery Division at the beginning of this century —or perhaps it was at the end of the last one.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, it was not a Revenue case. It was a patent case and there is some significance in that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: At any rate, it was a long time ago and has nothing whatever to do with the issue before your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was kind enough to refer to my concurrence with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham as to how the courts would approach the phrase "wholly or mainly". They would approach it in the way suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers: that in the end it was a question of fact for the jury or other tribunal of fact in which it would weigh a number of considerations such as the value of the stock, the rate of turnover of the stock, the price of individual items, the amount of showroom space that was taken up and the amount of warehouse space available—all those kinds of things. I say categorically that no sensible judge would bemuse the jury with the case found by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.
So that is the position. The other place by a decisive majority on this amendment alone rejected the amendment as it was submitted by your Lordships' House, which obviously they considered raised the same point as regards do-it-yourself stores and garden centres.
There is another matter that weighed greatly with the other place and will no doubt weigh greatly with your Lordships. We are being invited to renege on a compromise, a compromise of which we as deregulators have taken advantage. It was argued earlier that individually we were not parties to the compromise. Of course we were not. It would be impossible to have over 1,500 parliamentarians of both Houses milling round trying to achieve the very difficult compromise that was achieved by the noble Baroness and her colleagues. But the important point is that we took advantage of that compromise.
At the moment Parliament is not held in high repute. It will be very much a matter for your Lordships to maintain the reputation of Parliament and this House particularly. It would be deplorable if it were thought

933
that your Lordships' House was behaving shabbily by taking advantage of a compromise and then going back on it. I hope that, in spite of the admirable arguments advanced with cogent thought, your Lordships will not accede to the proposal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to make only three points and I shall make them quickly. First, in case there is any doubt on the matter, I repeat that this is a free vote on this side of the House and therefore in anything I say I speak purely for myself. Secondly, when the original amendment was moved, I voted for it and have not been convinced by any arguments that the original amendment was wrong or that the proponents of this amendment are wrong in matters of fact or judgment. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I am a deregulator and I see this as a valuable extension of deregulation.
Thirdly, in our view—here I can say in "our" view rather than "my" view—there would need to be wholly exceptional circumstances for us to reject the considered view of another place on a second occasion. There would need to be some defect in the way that it considered the matter or some other constitutional reason which at present I cannot envisage. Therefore I cannot vote for the amendment.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I did not think it would be necessary to speak in this short debate though I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. However, I find myself disagreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on almost every point and for that reason I feel compelled to say something.
The arguments we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, were clearly and firmly put, as always, on virtually all the amendments proposed both in Committee and on Report. The argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord —supported on both sides of the House—was mat a compromise had been reached by two bodies external to this House which, in so far as it had been supported in a vote on Second Reading, was not capable of further amendment.
I do not want to pursue that at greater length and have no wish to attract into the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. We can now put those matters behind us and I mention them only because they were mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. But we went through that argument and considered whether it was appropriate, in view of the compromise, were there such, and in light of the view the House of Commons took, mat we should introduce any amendments at all. I hope that I do not misrepresent the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when I say mat he was against all the amendments which this House passed on the grounds that they either breached the compromise or would be offensive—I use that word only in a broad sense—to the House of Commons. But we have seen that for the most part they were not offensive to the House of Commons. Indeed, despite the commitment of the House of Commons to the compromise; despite the fact that it considered the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report;
934
despite the warnings that we were falling out of line and were in danger of losing the Bill, when it came to a discussion in the House of Commons, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, all our amendments which we were warned against making were accepted in the other place. One of them was accepted on a Division; some were accepted even without a Division.
I do not believe therefore that it is right for this House to take into account the fact that the matter has been thoroughly discussed in another place as well as here and that at the last discussion in another place exception was taken to the amendment from this House. As the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Hacking, said, when the House of Commons considered the amendments your Lordships had made this was one that the Members felt they could not support because it was bifocal—if I may use a term from another language. It dealt with two different matters—DIY centres and garden centres. Anyone reading the debate—here again I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—and knowing the commitment of some of the speakers in it, cannot but see, unless the Members were telling less than the truth, that they would have supported garden centres where they do not support DIY stores.
I ask any Member of this House to refer to any part of that debate where anyone committed against the whole idea of deregulation did not concede that this was a special case. That was the view taken in the Commons.
I shall not discuss the merits of the case except for one final sentence. I say only this. Does this House imagine that at this late hour, considering all the trauma that there has been, considering the huge commitment to the principle of the Bill, the large measure of agreement, the wish by the Government to put'the matter behind them, that to pass this Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, would put the Bill in danger? That is nonsense. It cannot conceivably put the Bill in danger.
My second point is also a simple one. We know that this is not the last word. It is the penultimate word. We are seeking to respond—and it is good that your Lordships' House should occasionally seek to respond —to the perceived wishes of another place. Of course, our perception may be wrong. Perhaps Members in another place do not want to support garden centres. It will be within the power of another place to say no to garden centres. So we get into no difficulty of any kind by doing other than judging the Motion on its merits and within the context referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.
On its merits I say only this. We all believe that gardens are a special part of England. I do not mean only the gardens attached to the broad acres that some noble Lords may be fortunate enough to possess, but also the small gardens in our towns, villages and suburbs. The Motion is our ultimate chance to help in a small way —I do not pretend any more than that—the gardeners of England. I can see no conceivable reason within the constitution or within our relationship with another place, that to help the gardeners of England in this simple way should be beyond the capacity of this House. I hope that your Lordships will support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what I want to say has been said already so I shall be extremely brief. It is clear to me that the House of Commons disagreed on an exemption for DIY shops but did not come to a conclusion about garden centres. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, when they do I shall rest content.
One point has not yet been made. An argument produced by the Minister of State in another place and repeated by the Shopping Hours Reform Council brief, which many noble Lords received, is that it is not possible to separate garden centres and do-it-yourself stores. It is clear from the debate in another place and from many of the speeches we heard in this Chamber this afternoon, that one can indeed make such a distinction. As my noble friend Lord Norrie said on the last occasion, everyone knows a garden centre and home improvement store when they see one. I certainly agree with that. A garden centre has plants as its raison d'être, and DIY shops have products for improving buildings as their main business. Of course, some products are common to both. Yes, we all know that, but I suggest that there will be much more unfair competition, if that is what is worrying the House, between a garden centre with a shop of 250 square metres and an acre of outside display area which is allowed to trade all the hours it wants to on any Sunday and one of 300 square metres with a smaller outside area which, if we disagree with the Motion of my noble friend Lord Hacking, will be restricted to six hours of trading. That is an extra reason why the amendment should be supported.
6 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thought at the time that it was a tactical mistake to link garden centres and DIY stores; and so it has proved. Luckily, it is not too late to put things right. What no one has so far mentioned are the wishes of the general public. There is no doubt whatever that the overwhelming majority of the general public want garden centres to be open all day Sunday. In fact, I would guess that there is more support for garden centres being open for 12 hours on Sunday than there is for supermarkets being open for six hours on Sunday. By agreeing to this Motion we will give honourable Members in another place another chance to respond to the deeply felt wishes of their constituents. So in that respect we shall be doing them a great favour if we agree to the Motion.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, like many who have spoken, I have every sympathy with my noble friend Lord Hacking, but my concern is one of tactics. I question whether my noble friend Lord Jenkin is right when he said that the House of Commons is all agog and desperate to have a debate about garden centres. Would that it were so, but I very much doubt it. I rather support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he implied that it would be dangerous at this stage to play ping-pong with a measure on which we have expended a huge amount of time and which is so near its conclusion. Therefore, with much regret, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, may well be right when he says that if we do not agree we shall have to come back
936
to it at a later stage. That may well be the case. I am sure that the Bill, when it is passed, will be further amended in the years to come—and that may be the time to do it —but I feel that now is not the time. Therefore, rather like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I feel that we must get on with it now while we can, and as soon as we can.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, in urging your Lordships to reject this Motion I want to take up one point which was made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. He said that it is always clear what a garden centre is. I do not agree with that statement and I think it is important that we realise that before we decide which way to vote on this Motion.
We are talking about only large garden centres which wholly or mainly sell garden produce. One Midlands town has three large garden centres. I am informed that one of them sells 52 per cent. non-garden produce; another 75 per cent; and a third 47 per cent. They are selling goods which are neither garden furniture nor garden produce. We are into big business. It is not clear and simple garden centres that we are talking about.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but what on earth has that to do with our amendment?
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, it is a very good reason for rejecting the Motion that we should permit large garden centres to be open all the time. We are providing problems for local authorities which will have to vet them. I encourage noble Lords to vote against the Motion.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, challenged the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, on what his speech had to do with the amendment. His speech had everything to do with the amendment. He was seeking to show that large garden centres in a large part of their shopping area sell goods which are clearly nothing to do with garden centres. What he was saying was entirely relevant. Indeed, John Lewis examined the position outside Nottingham and found that non-garden centre goods were being sold in large amounts and accounted for a very good percentage of the total sales of the garden centres in question. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, had a very good point and I am glad that he put it.
We are in this position because, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, says, this House is attempting to override a consensus which had been reached not merely in the House of Commons and Parliament itself but also outside as to which way we should proceed. The consensus was that we should not have complete deregulation; we should have partial deregulation. That is the way it went. We made relevant amendments. There is nothing to stop the House of Lords making relevant amendments. But it must understand that that consensus did exist. If the House insists on undermining that consensus the Bill may very well be delayed. One cannot get away from that. We should remember that there are people outside who want to run their shops and run their businesses and other people who want to shop in them. In those

937
circumstances, and in the interests of good government, the sooner we get the Bill through in the agreed form the better it will be.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as one who still aches from spending a day and a half cutting his hedges last week, relieved only by those too frequent occasions when he cut the flex, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that we are not talking about shutting large garden centres altogether on Sunday; we are talking about whether they should open for six hours or for more than six hours.
As has already been said by the noble Lord opposite, there is a question of size and operation. I should like to make the point—because I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will revert to it—that although my noble friend Lord Brentford was referring to cases in which the proportion was nearly or indeed over 50 per cent., there are many other cases where the figure is around 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. and the size of the operation means that it is a real and actual form of competition to people who are selling in the same market as that minority product. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, says that this is a fully justiciable issue gives me no confidence. It merely means that the court will decide whether we are talking about 49 per cent. or 38 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, shakes his head, but "justiciable" means that it is decided by the court. We have been told by a senior Law Lord that the court will consist of a jury in this respect — common-sense people applying common-sense rules of thumb. Your Lordships and I cannot decide in advance what that is. The fact is that it may well be, and probably will be, a substantial proportion.
I joined this argument somewhat reluctantly on the grounds of keeping Sunday special. That battle was lost long ago. I stayed in it because I believe that there is another aspect of English life that is also at risk. I refer to the survival of small units of retail trade. They will be at risk from this minority proportion of the trade—the very big garden centres—that the amendment would open up.
For those reasons, as well as those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and those of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment. I have to say that the pleasure of voting with people on the other side with whom I agree is only outweighed by the regret that I have to disagree with so many of my noble friends on this side of the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, before coming to the substance of the debate, perhaps I may make clear one or two procedural points. The substance of what we are debating is in Amendment No. 9B. The amendment of another place, Amendment No. 12A, to Amendment No. 12 is purely technical and is consequential upon their rejection of Amendment No. 9. If my noble friend's Amendment No. 9C is not approved, and if your Lordships do not insist on Amendment No. 9, Amendment No. 12A should be approved. If either my noble friend's Amendment No. 9C were to be approved, or the House were to insist on Amendment No. 9, then my noble friend's Amendment No. 12B should be agreed to.
938
The original Amendment No. 9 which your Lordships added to the Bill at Committee stage sought to exempt garden centres and do-it-yourself shops from the six-hour limit which the Bill places on trading by large shops. Another place did not agree with the suggestion and it has asked your Lordships not to insist on the amendment.
However, my noble friend Lord Hacking now proposes to amend the amendment by in effect seeking to exempt garden centres and nurseries alone from the six-hour limit. I remind the House—as noble Lords will have become only too well aware with the passage of this Bill—that it is entirely a matter for your Lordships whether or not to agree with my noble friend in his amendment or indeed whether or not to insist on the original amendment. As I have frequently said, these are entirely matters for your Lordships.
Having said that, there are one or two points which I believe may assist in coming to a conclusion on these tricky matters. The reason which was given by another place for not agreeing with your Lordships in Amendment No. 9, is in Amendment No. 9A. Perhaps I may quote the words. Another place,
"do not consider it desirable to exempt shops of the kind described"
—that is, garden centres, nurseries and do-it-yourself shops—from the six-hour limit which the Bill places on trading by large shops.
Another place concluded this on a free vote by a majority of no fewer than 133. They did not seem to have too much doubt about that. I fancy that your Lordships might translate a majority of 133 on a free vote in another place as a pretty clear message that another place does not want to have Amendment No. 9 at any price, either. I thought that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was a little curious. He said that all the amendments which your Lordships sent down to another place were accepted there other than this one, which was not wanted. Therefore, this amendment should go back again. That seemed to me to be the argument.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Earl giving way. He misunderstood me, so I could not have been clear. I was not pursuing that line at all. I was seeking to argue with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that during our early debates it had been argued that all the amendments before your Lordships' House should not be passed because that would upset the compromise and make our relationship with another place more difficult—in other words, we were advised against them precisely on the same grounds as those advocated by the noble and learned Lord today. Yet we found out in practice that the Commons were willing to accept and were grateful for all your Lordships' amendments with this one exception. That was the argument. I am sorry that I did not make it clear. The noble Earl's remarks are therefore irrelevant in the context of my own.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if I misunderstood him. For all that, I do not believe that my remarks are irrelevant. The fact is that

939
the other place did accept all the amendments other than this one. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, among some of his friends, wishes to give the other place another opportunity to consider it. As some of your Lordships foresaw, another place saw this amendment as one departure too many from the six-hour compromise which, after blood, sweat and tears, it had finally reached and in which your Lordships—thank heavens —also concurred.
Another place considered that the amendment would make the Bill less enforceable because do-it-yourself shops and garden centres are not easily distinguished from other types of shop. They considered that the amendment would be unfair to retailers—like electrical and furniture shops and department stores—who sell many of the same products as do-it-yourself shops and garden centres but which would not enjoy the same exemption.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Hacking has accepted the fate which another place has decreed for do-it-yourself stores. But, with relentless ingenuity, he now says "All right, we will accept that do-it-yourself stores cannot be exempted; but let's have another shot at garden centres and nurseries". I am bound to say that I fancy that course will prove no more successful in another place than did the original amendment.
I say this for three reasons. First, while it is certainly the case that some of those who spoke in the debate in another place said that they would have agreed with an amendment if it had been restricted to garden centres, that was by no means the case in respect of all those who spoke in that debate. I fancy that a majority of 133 will not be easily overturned by the conversion of what one might call a few green-fingered, repentant souls.
Secondly, another place, in setting out their reason for objecting to your Lordships' amendment, drew no distinction between do-it-yourself stores on the one hand, and garden centres and nurseries on the other. Another place has said that they do not consider it desirable to exempt any of these shops from the six-hour rule. It would have been perfectly possible for a Member of another place to have moved an amendment there to distinguish between garden centres and do-it-yourself stores, but not one did.
Thirdly, and most importantly, it would in fact be neither workable nor sensible to try to distinguish between do-it-yourself stores and garden centres.
I would remind your Lordships that we are not talking about ordinary nurseries, where people like to browse on a Sunday. These can be open all day under the Bill. Even the big stores will be open on Sundays, but restricted to six hours. We are talking about these huge great garden centres whose covered area alone is greater than 3,000 square feet. These garden centres sell plants, but so do do-it-yourself stores. They sell other things, too. I have been advised that garden centres and do-it-yourself stores can have as much as 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of their product lines entirely in common.
I do not want to irritate the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, again. He did not irritate me. He said
940
that he wants to support this measure for the good gardens of England. He likes the gardens of England. I understand that.
When I was told that 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the product lines were entirely in common, I found that very surprising and I daresay that some of your Lordships do, too. Therefore, I made it my business to investigate a little as to what these large garden centres do commonly sell other than plants, shrubs and flowers. They sell books —not just gardening books but cookery books, travel books and story books, too. So much for the gardens of England! They sell garden furniture—but not just garden furniture, but book cases and dining room furniture too. So much for the gardens of England! They sell, barbecues, paving slabs and bricks. They sell lawnmowers and strimmers, creosote and paint; and sand and cement. They sell pictures, paintings and prints. So much for the gardens of England! They sell T-shirts; shoes and boots; anoraks and body warmers; trilbies and caps; toys, balloons and jigsaw puzzles; glassware and crockery; vases and earthenware jugs; china dogs and china cats; Christmas lights; even bean bags for dogs to sleep on. So much for the gardens of England! That is a funny kind of garden equipment. Even the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, would find it difficult to believe that all that has to do with the gardens of England.
A garden centre of that size really cannot be considered to be on a par with a nursery just selling flowers or plants for the home gardening enthusiast. Indeed, that sort of nursery would not be affected by the six-hour restriction because it probably would not have a building of greater than 3,000 square feet.
My noble friend Lord Hacking said that garden centres are allowed to trade under Section 58 of the 1950 Act anyhow because they grow their own produce. That is perfectly true. Nurseries often do grow trees and shrubs, but some of them buy them in. By and large, garden centres do not and they hardly ever, so far as I know, grow their own lawnmowers, paving slabs and insecticides.
These large garden centres have become more like general stores which sell plants as well. I suggest to your Lordships that the reason why the sponsors of the original amendment linked garden centres and do-it-yourself stores together in the first place was because they knew that it would be impossible to draw any workable distinction between the two. Indeed, no less a person than the chairman of the Conservative parliamentary horticulture committee, the person who is the parliamentary consultant to the Horticultural Trades Association, the honourable Member for Broxbourne, Mrs. Marion Roe, agrees with this. She said in the debate on Amendment No. 9 in another place that she had been asked why DIY stores and garden centres were linked in the amendment. Her reply was that the answer was simple. It was her view that, in practice, there were inextricable links between the two types of store. Many garden centres sell DIY items and most DIY stores have garden centres. And that is it in a nutshell.
As I have said, this is entirely a matter for your Lordships and I would not seek to persuade you either way—
Noble Lords: No!
Earl Ferrers: I am merely trying to help your Lordships in coming to such conclusions as you may choose. But it does seem to me that my noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 9C to Amendment No. 9, would in practice be no different from the original Amendment No. 9 itself. Both garden centres and DIY stores will seek to trade at any time on a Sunday by virtue of this exemption.
If the amendment were agreed to, local authorities may well decide not to go through the pain and anguish of trying to prove where a garden centre ends and where a do-it-yourself store begins. To do so would involve them seeking to show, for example, that a brick was a gardening supply when it was used for building a garden wall but it was a DIY product when it was used to build a bunker to contain coal.
I really think that Parliament has exhausted itself with this matter and with all the permutations and combinations in dealing with what was before an intractable problem. A decision has been arrived at; the Bill has been through both Houses of Parliament; your Lordships asked another place to think again; another place did think again, and another place rejected your Lordships' advice.
Now my noble friend Lord Hacking says, "Let's have another go". I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and my noble friend Lord Montgomery. I do not think that garden centres are what one might call "ping-pong" territory, and I fancy that my noble friend would be chancing his arm, as soldiers would say, both from the point of view of success and of good will, by bringing this matter back again and if he were to choose to press his case. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, this would be an attractive amendment if it stood on its own, but it does not. Others will be affected by it.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has again entertained us with a witty, amusing and persuasive speech. It was not exactly marked with impartiality, but none the less all of your Lordships enjoyed it.
I have a sudden wonderment about the comments that have been made about the debate in another place. I shall not take your Lordships through the Hansard of another place, but time and time again leading speakers in another place, including Front Bench spokesmen for the Opposition, said in terms that they were not being given an opportunity to consider garden centres separately. That was repeated time and time again. In my submission, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding presented the case correctly to your Lordships. The other place has given a clear indication of its interest in garden centres. Members there were not able to vote upon this—for whatever reason—and that is what I shall seek to invite your Lordships to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, this is not the ultimate; it is the penultimate. All that I am asking your Lordships to do is to send the provisions back to another place so that Members there can reach a conclusion.
I am afraid that I did not find the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, listed as one of those who
942
supported me in the Lobby on the last occasion that we debated this. His name was omitted from our Hansard, but if he was there, I am delighted to hear it The noble Lord spoke of exceptional circumstances. There are certainly exceptional circumstances. We are taking from our citizens rights that currently exist. That is an exceptional circumstance. It is also an exceptional circumstance to be invited by a Member of another place to place this issue before that place again. That is exactly what has happened and that is why I invite your Lordships to approve my Motion.
6.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 80.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Addington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Mersey, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monson, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Eden of Winton, L.

Norrie, L.

Erroll, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Rea, L.

Hacking, L.[Teller.]

Reay, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Selborne, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Jay, L.

Tebbit, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trefgarne, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Leigh, L.

Attlee, E.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lucas, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brentford, V. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Burnham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Meston, L.

Colwyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Courtown, E.

Northesk, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orkney, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Diamond, L.

Renton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Richard, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rochester, L.

Elton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Falkland, V.

Romney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Seear, B.

Flather, B.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Goschen, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hamwee, B.

Stallard, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hughes, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Strafford, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Sudeley, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Kenyon, L.

Torrington, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Trumpington, B.

943

Turner of Camden, B.

White, B.

Ullswater, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT
9 Schedule 1, page 4, line 46, at end insert:
("(bb) any shop which is a nursery, garden centre or do-it-yourself home improvement shop, or a combination of these, and where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of any one or more of the following—

(i) plants,

(ii) garden supplies and accessories, and

(iii) materials and tools suitable for use in the construction, maintenance, repair or decoration of buildings,")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
9A Because the Commons do not consider it desirable to exempt shops of the kind described in the amendment from restrictions on Sunday opening.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 9A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 9A.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.33 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
12 Page 5, line 13, leave out ("(1) (a)") and insert ("(1) (za), (a), (ba) or (bb)").
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment to it:
12A In line 1, to leave out the words '(ba) or (bb)' and insert the words 'or (ba)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12A to Lords Amendment No. 12.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12A to Lords Amendment No. 12.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1994
6.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved [21stReport from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to renew the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 by which means government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. Although this is the first occasion upon which I have stood before the House seeking to renew these provisions, I am aware
944
that it is the custom to give to your Lordships an account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the previous year.
The Government's first priority is to bring terrorism to a permanent end. They will continue to exercise their responsibility for ensuring that the law effectively protects its citizens' rights including the right to life.
Terrorists continue to demonstrate their utter contempt for human life with continued attacks on all sections of society, be they members of the security forces, civilians going about their every day lives, the very young or the old and frail. Your Lordships I know will wish to join me in condemning the actions of all those who perpetrate terrorist acts, whichever side of the community they claim to represent. Those who plan and carry out these attacks will be sought out and brought before the courts.
Last year 84 people were killed in Northern Ireland as a result of the security situation—some 70 civilians, 8 soldiers and 6 RUC officers. In the same year 372 people were charged with terrorist-related offences including 58 with murder or attempted murder. The security forces are also achieving very significant successes in pre-empting terrorist action and hence saving many lives and protecting property and businesses from devastation. There is also success in disrupting terrorist racketeering.
Fortunately, terrorism is not the whole story of Northern Ireland. The Government continue to tackle the economic problems which exist there. We aim to increase job opportunities and prosperity across the whole of the community. We are particularly aware of the needs of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. At the same time, we seek to achieve a widely acceptable political settlement. That co-ordinated approach of tackling terrorism, the economy and political settlement remains the basis of government policy. We do not believe that one aspect can be tackled in isolation. The Government's policy is founded upon the firm conviction that there is a need to promote a broad political settlement which will attract widespread support right across the community in Northern Ireland.
Your Lordships will know that talks began in 1991 and were constructed in three strands, according to their relevance to three key sets of relationships involved: those within Northern Ireland; those within the island of Ireland; and those between the two governments. It was agreed by all the parties that nothing would be agreed finally in any single strand until everything was agreed in the talks as a whole.
There are those who suggest that seeking an overall settlement in that way is too ambitious. It is suggested that we should take the process forward one strand at a time. However, our understanding is that the talks' participants themselves wish to achieve certain objectives and that those objectives do in fact involve all three sets of relationships.
The Government recognise that the talks process is not an easy one, but they are adamant that an internal solution, though it might have some short-term appeal, would not be sufficient to guarantee long-term peace and stability in Northern Ireland. Such a short cut would be sure to bring disappointments.
There are many doubts and anxieties on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland as to what the talks process might produce. I would like to repeat my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's reassurance that the future of Northern Ireland lies in the hands of its own citizens. There will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of people who live there. There is no question of imposing a solution upon the people of Northern Ireland. Any new arrangements will work only if there is agreement.
Relations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland continue to be close, strong and practical. Co-operation over a whole range of economic and social issues continues. Perhaps the most significant development in Anglo-Irish co-operation over the past year has been the Joint Declaration. This represents public commitment of the two Governments to a shared understanding of political realities in Ireland today and to a common approach to the problems of Northern Ireland based on the principles of democracy and consent. It has the overwhelming endorsement of the people of Ireland, north and south, and strong support from the British public and our friends overseas.
Perhaps I may stress that a joint authority—that is, British and Irish Governments jointly running the affairs of Northern Ireland over the heads of the people—is not on the agenda of either Government. Neither believes that: it would be acceptable; neither is seeking it.
I would next like to share with your Lordships the good economic news in Northern Ireland. The recession has been weathered well in the Province and we have now seen a steady decline in the number of people out of work. In May 1994 unemployment fell by 5.2 per cent. to 13.1 per cent. That is the lowest level for three years. We are not satisfied with this level and will continue to work to reduce it.
The Industrial Development Board has had a successful year and two major projects have been announced offering jobs in Londonderry and Belfast, two cities with great need. The Northern Ireland Electricity Company has been successfully floated and has performed well.
Turning now to the Government's social policies, I can report on a number of positive developments. For example, total spending on the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland in 1994–95 will be £1.4 billion. That represents an increase in real terms of almost 3 per cent. on the previous year's outturn, and almost a 40 per cent. increase in real terms since 1980–81. The new £47 million Antrim Hospital was opened for business in April. A £7 million facelift for Altnagelvin Hospital in Londonderry is under way and will be completed in early 1996. The construction of a new £6.5 million regional facility on the Belfast City Hospital site for the Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service will be completed this financial year.
I can also report progress in reducing hospital waiting lists. Between September 1991 and March 1994 the number of patients waiting more than two years across all specialties fell from over 5,000 to 600. That means that there are still 600 who we must ensure come off the list. The expansion in the number of cardiac surgeons at the Royal Victoria Hospital has also considerably
946
reduced the waiting lists for heart surgery. Between December 1992 and March 1994 the numbers waiting for more than two years fell from 279 to 38. Over 1,000 cardiac operations were carried out in Northern Ireland in 1993 compared with 830 in the previous year. We are improving our service to the patients.
The implementation of the Government's new community care arrangements in Northern Ireland is proceeding well. In the nine months to the end of December last year, around 5,000 people benefited from the new community care management arrangements. An additional £29 million was allocated to the health and social services boards for community care in 1993–94. A further £41.2 million will also be made available this financial year.
In Northern Ireland we have health and social services combined. I believe that that gives us a very strong safety net. We should be able to produce the best community care programme in the whole United Kingdom.
On the education front, the Government remain committed to maintaining and improving education services in Northern Ireland. To that end, my honourable friend Michael Ancram published this month a strategic document, The Education Service in Northern Ireland: A Strategic Analysis. This document sets out our understanding of the key issues to be addressed in the education sector, and we have invited from interested parties comment on our plans and targets for the entire education service until the end of the decade. The document spells out the need for even greater partnership within the education service so that we can develop and promote the key aims of raising education standards and helping all individuals to reach their potential.
The Government remain committed to encouraging and facilitating the development of integrated education in response to parental demand from those who believe that children learning together will help foster understanding and reconciliation within a divided society. Substantive progress has already been made. We now have 21 integrated schools in Northern Ireland, with further proposals for new schools coming forward this year and next.
The Government continue to see positive results from their community relations initiatives in Northern Ireland. There is growing support for the measures which have been put in place in recent years. The "Making Belfast Work" initiative, which began in response to serious deprivation in parts of Belfast, continues to provide employment and training opportunities. On Monday, it gave me great pleasure to open the Shankill Family Centre. It provides evidence in physical and emotional form of the working together of the trust, the community and the voluntary groups. Nowhere have I seen the commitment from voluntary groups that I witnessed in Northern Ireland.
I would suggest that despite the tragedies that we have suffered in Northern Ireland over the past 12 months and the difficulties that many people face, the news, I am pleased to say, is not all bad. The economic

947
situation continues to show promise and social development continues apace, often setting standards for the whole United Kingdom.
The political process continues. There are some grounds for hope in Northern Ireland. Until such time as these direct rule provisions are no longer necessary the Government will continue to seek to govern through consent and democracy. However, until that day Northern Ireland must remain under direct rule. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
6.47 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the comprehensive review of the past year in Northern Ireland. I am with the Minister in many of the good things that she reported. Progress has been made in a number of directions. However, I wish to concentrate on the political aspect—or perhaps the absence of it—and, in the order which follows, to mention some of the economic matters which the Minister mentioned.
This order is very important to us all in Northern Ireland as it is necessary in order to ensure the continuation of direct rule in its present form. But it is an interim period extension order which has been reviewed each year since 1974. It appears absurd that in the 20 years since 1974 something more permanent has not been developed and agreed. By far the greater number of people in Northern Ireland wish to be governed as an integral part of the United Kingdom, as set out in Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, to which the Northern Ireland Act 1974 is subordinate. But democracy in local matters must be restored. Unfortunately, today we seem as far away as ever from any form of devolution.
The Minister set out the Government's commitment to the three-strand process and the belief that that is the way forward. Unfortunately, very few people believe that it is practical to expect to reach agreement on all three strands at once. It is fairly obvious to the man on the street that agreement on that is as far away as ever. I am one who believes that we should move step by step with some local democracy and then move on to the other steps. I certainly do not suggest that we stop at the first step, but the hope of progress will be much greater if we move steadily from one step to the other.
Unfortunately, in the political field things are not well. In some respects the Province is in a sorry mess at present. Many are frightened of being caught up in a shooting or bombing and we have had more than enough such atrocities recently. More generally, people are worried. They are fearful of the future and even angry. As the only native of Northern Ireland who is to speak this evening, I must try to describe some of the thoughts and feelings of the people as a whole because, as the Minister will know, people in Northern Ireland communicate well, one to another, and feelings spread about. It is not difficult to gather what are their thoughts.
948
In that context, I wish to apologise to the Minister on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. He wanted to be here this evening to speak in the debate but, unfortunately, he has an engagement in France which he cannot break.
To many people in Northern Ireland it does not appear that there is any government—and I do not mean the various departments which are working well and normally and which have made much progress. But people ask what is the Northern Ireland Office doing. Towards the end of last year it was suggested that some progress would be made with devolution in the Province. Dublin protested that that was outside agreed policy, and nothing more was heard of that. We were just told that talks were proceeding.
On the other hand, statements from Dublin have been made on an almost daily basis since the beginning of the year. We are told that it is engaged with London in discussing a framework for a "balanced constitutional settlement". People ask what on earth that might be. Mr. Reynolds, the Taoiseach, has also said that he will insist that that framework includes statutory cross-border institutions with executive powers. Mr. Reynolds has told us that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 will be on the table. The effect of those statements is similar to throwing a can of petrol on a smouldering fire.
It has now been reported that recruitment for the so-called Loyalist paramilitaries is better than ever; that their capability is rapidly growing. What horrors are in store if things go on as they are? The Provisional IRA campaign continues unabated. The Downing Street Declaration was a praiseworthy attempt to persuade the IRA to forsake violence for good, but unfortunately and clearly it has not been successful. I am sorry to have to report that in Northern Ireland more and more people believe that violence pays.
Everywhere people are talking and asking what will happen next and what is going on. People are asking what sort of people are in government and whether they are all stupid. They ask whether they can see straight. They say, "A friend down the road says that they are just 'incompeetent'"—and I shall await with interest to see how the record spells "incompeetent". The people then remember that our Government are headed by Ministers, and even Cabinet Ministers. It is believed that they must have some ability; they cannot all be stupid. They ask what on earth they are up to.
The people then remember 1985 and the Anglo-Irish Agreement —not that it is ever forgotten—when the Unionist community was totally ignored and Dublin was given a right to interfere in the affairs of the Province. The people ask what the Northern Ireland Office is up to at present. They wonder whether the Northern Ireland Office believes that, if it allows things to get in a total mess, people will become so fed up with it that a majority will say that they would prefer to be governed by Dublin. I have heard many people discussing and debating those matters. As your Lordships can imagine, that merely indicates the absence of confidence generally, and it is not good for morale and is not good for a stable community.
Your Lordships will be shocked to hear that many sensible, law-abiding people are no longer blaming the

949
Loyalist gangs for their activities. They are blaming the Government for their inaction and for their inability to see what seems to be obvious to so many. Fresh steps are urgently needed to deal with all paramilitaries. Time is not on anybody's side. The paramilitaries have been at it for so long that they have become institutionalised. Racketeering, sheltered by the gun, is widespread and complex. The substantial cash-flows from those activities permit criminals to live in a life-style to which they have become accustomed and political motivation may no longer be paramount.
It is interesting to note that more people on this side of the water seem to be reaching an understanding of our problems. Recently relevant articles have appeared in the serious weeklies and daily press. The first leader in 77K? Times on 22nd June expressed the matter very well and ended by stating:
"Imaginative security measures and swift devolutionary reform would contribute far more than the spent rhetoric of the Downing Street declaration".
Another leader in The Times on 27th June ended by stating:
"The Government remains committed to the belief that the problems of Ulster can be resolved by Anglo-Irish diplomacy, and to a fatalistic acceptance that the IRA can never be beaten. The first assumption is manifestly mistaken; and the second, contrary to ministers' assertions, has yet truly to be tested".
Again, there are articles which suggest that a number of options to deal with terrorists, which have proved effective in other countries, are open to the Government. Those suggestions include changes, some of which may erode areas of civil liberties and may not receive support from the legal profession. But temporary infringement of civil rights seems a small price to pay if the steps taken would enable the courts to take the gunmen and bombers out of circulation. Proposals along those lines have been made repeatedly to the Northern Ireland Office but without effect.
On Saturday last, the Prime Minister, after meeting Mr. Reynolds in Corfu, said that there would be no joint sovereignty in Northern Ireland now or in the future. That statement has been welcomed strongly but confidence in the Northern Ireland Office is so low that we need more than statements; we need action. That action must include steps which would show a much greater determination and political will to make clear to terrorists that they have no future. The police and security forces are doing all that is possible within their present remit.
Our local councils are restricted to emptying "wheelabins" and managing library boards. Most councils are working together well and more work should be passed to them without delay.
The continuation of direct rule is essential for the time being. I support the order this evening and I can only hope that the Government will wake up and take action which will restore confidence and give hope to the people in Northern Ireland.
7 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence as my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham would normally be dealing with such an order. Indeed, this is only the second time that I have
950
spoken on Northern Ireland and, on the first occasion, I was also standing in as a substitute. We on these Benches take a position nearer to that of the noble Baroness than that of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, who has just spoken. The noble Lord made an interesting speech, but I must say that I was somewhat depressed by the pessimistic note that he sounded, although I can well understand the origins of such pessimism.
Nevertheless, we on these Benches as a body believe that a solution must be found. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland, to ourselves and to our descendants to solve the problem. It is not conceivable that we can hand on to future generations the kind of situation which has maintained, and continues, in Northern Ireland. We believe that the future of Northern Ireland must be determined by the people of the Province That is a view shared by Her Majesty's Government. The order to extend direct rule is, by its very nature, unfortunate but necessary. We support it reluctantly, with the hope that, as an interim measure, it will indeed be interim; although, as such, it has been continuing for a long time.
Political progress, and productive political progress, must be sought with all the energies at the disposal of the Government and all those who are involved in the process. We would support any alternatives to direct rule that had the support of the majority of Nationalists and Unionists. From these Benches, we have offered our contribution by way of solutions which we thought would constitute steps towards fulfilling those criteria. We know that the Government strive in the same direction. We wish them every success.
Obviously, the Joint Declaration was clearly the most important part of the Government's aims as set out in the Queen's Speech. It put the Northern Ireland peace process at the top of the political agenda. We congratulated the Government at that time and kept any reservations that we may have had quiet in an attempt to keep a united front which might help to persuade those who advocate violence. There again, the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, has told us that, unfortunately, those who support violence on both sides are increasing in number. That is most disturbing. Nevertheless, we must do all that we can to persuade the advocates of violence to adopt the democratic process in the way that the Government are moving.
The increased frequency of violence is both disturbing and upsetting as it represents a terrible and continuing blight on the lives of people in Northern Ireland. All of us who now watch television, listen to the radio or read newspapers, and know that there is violence not only in Northern Ireland but also all over the world, are becoming more and more concerned by the fact that this is the world in which our children will have to live.
Northern Ireland is so very close to us. The violence is a sign that the search for a breakthrough has unfortunately stalled. As an individual watching and listening to news programmes, and so on, it seems to me that the characteristic of recent months has been the increase in Loyalist violence. It seems that the Loyalists are vying with the Nationalists and the IRA for the publicity which they think will give them the position of setting the agenda. It is sad to note that the increasing

951
violence does not seem to attract the publicity that those people would probably like. That is even more disturbing.
Of course, constitutional parties should form the focus of all negotiations and certainly not the agenda of either the IRA or the Loyalist extremists. Those who accept that that is the only way, ultimately, to achieve a peaceful solution are more likely to make progress than those who do not. I believe that recent events in South Africa and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict show us that progress is achieved by talks between moderates. Indeed, it is the moderates on opposing sides who, if they make sufficient progress, bring along the obstructive and destructive elements in the final stages. Unfortunately, it does not seem that that stage has yet been reached in Northern Ireland. However, we on these Benches would support anything that the Government introduce to bring us closer to that stage.
Obviously, the addressing of political problems is the answer to the ultimate aim of an enduring peace. I accept what the Minister said; namely, that all the news is not bad. Indeed, how can all the news be bad when steps have been taken to increase employment wherever possible and to introduce social measures in the way outlined by the noble Baroness? Therefore, we accept the interim order reluctantly and—it is to be hoped— with some optimism.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is a matter of regret that we are here again debating the extension of direct rule in Northern Ireland. In principle, it seems to us that no one can defend it, but it is recent history that has driven that course upon us. Therefore, once again, we are simply renewing the status quo after 20 years. We are obliged to do so by terrorist activity which, as the Minister rightly said, we all abominate.
The recent spate of killings to which the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, referred, seems to us to highlight the need for a political settlement. We support the British and Irish Governments in continuing to try to agree a joint document to be put to the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. We believe that it is vital that both Governments remain united in pursuit of a settlement which gives parity of esteem to the aspirations and beliefs of both sections of the community in Northern Ireland. If at all possible, it would be helpful if the Minister would give some indication in her reply of the timetable for the expected summit and also some indication, if she thinks it appropriate—as always, on such occasions, if the Minister says that it is not appropriate, I shall accept that—as to what agreements have been reached so far on the nature and powers of cross-Border constitutions.
It is now well known that our policy on these Benches has been for many years to support a united Ireland achieved on the basis of consent freely given. We would—as, indeed, we have always said—accept any agreement which had the support of the people of Ireland, both north and south. It was for that reason that we welcomed the assertion in the Joint Declaration that
952
no impediment would be put in the way of free agreement, freely arrived at without outside coercion or interference.
We urge the resumption of inter-party talks as soon as possible on the basis of the three-strand structure of 1991 to which the Minister referred. I support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. We favour, as soon as possible, devolved power-sharing in Northern Ireland in the context of a wider constitutional settlement. As the noble Lord rightly observed, there is little direct accountability and virtually no power locally exercised by local authorities. Therefore, the quality of those willing to serve in local authorities remains sometimes modest because they have no effective powers. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord said about that being in part the way ahead.
Our policy is that there can be no likely purely internal settlement in Northern Ireland. The majority in Northern Ireland at present define themselves as British citizens, but in the recent European elections almost 40 per cent. of Northern Ireland voters voted for nationalist parties. As has been said earlier, Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution and Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act are now on the negotiating table. That is a significant change from the past and offers a degree of hope.
I was not proposing to deal with questions of economic detail on this occasion but would reserve that for the second order with which we shall deal this evening. We reaffirm of course that the Unionist population in Northern Ireland has the cast-iron guarantee—which I repeat again on behalf of the Labour Party—that Northern Ireland will not be united with the Republic without the majority assent in Northern Ireland. What we need to look for—again I respectfully endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, said —is some indication as to what is in the Government's mind as to the next step. For my own part, I can readily understand and sympathise with the nature of the suspicions to which the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, referred. We need to have some indication as to what the Government are looking to. What are they thinking of in terms of a timetable? Is there any indication as to when a final response is likely to come from Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA?
If there is any prospect of some indication of what is likely to be the Government's plan for the next six to 12 months, it would be helpful because what causes the suspicions to endure is a feeling sometimes, right or wrong —that does not matter for my present purposes —that those who live in Northern Ireland are not always kept as fully informed as they could reasonably expect. Therefore, with the regret to which I referred earlier, we accept the necessity for this renewal and hope that we shall not be meeting here year in year out on a similar such melancholy occasion.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their concerned and committed contributions this evening. I share, too, the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that this is not an

953
annual programme that will last for ever and ever. We work very hard to try to move Northern Ireland into peaceful water.
I appreciate some of the anxieties which the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, identified. I hear them myself from the people of Northern Ireland. I know, too, that he has made the Secretary of State aware, both through a meeting and through correspondence subsequently, of the anxieties which he highlighted tonight. I assure him that they were taken very seriously indeed.
It is a clear objective of Government policy to return greater power and authority to Northern Ireland's own elected representatives. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has long made it clear that he holds too many of the reins of power in his hands. In making public appointments in my own areas of responsibility I take great care to try to ensure that in doing so we are giving experience to the people to whom we hope the reins can be handed.
However, if greater responsibility is to be given to local institutions, that should only be done by agreement with those who would have to work the new arrangements. In our view, therefore, this is an issue which would best be addressed in the context of the political talks where the participants are considering all the aspects relevant to a political accommodation in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, suggests that seeking an overall settlement is far too ambitious and that the process should move forward one step at a time. However, it is quite clear to us that because of the differing ideals and ultimate objectives of those whom the talks' participants represent, agreement on one set of relationships is only likely to be reached if the context for it is provided by agreement on the three sets of relationships as a whole. We believe this to be a political reality which cannot be wished away, and one which all of us involved in the process must recognise and work with.
Perhaps the noble Lord would be interested in this year's successes of the security forces. In my opening speech I referred to last year's successes. So far this year 233 people have been charged with serious terrorist offences—compared with 185 in the same period last year—including 54 who have been charged with murder or attempted murder, compared with 39 in the same period last year. However, we must take those figures in the context of the escalating violence to which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, understands that the security forces and the police offer no let-up at all.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, rightly reminded us of our responsibility to future generations—that is something that we are indeed conscious of. I thank him for his support for our aims. While the noble Lord, Lord Holme, has a great depth of knowledge about the Province, his absence today did not, I believe, leave a gap in our debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked where we are, what the state of play is at the moment and what we are looking forward to. I am delighted to say that in Corfu the two Prime Ministers were able to review the
954
progress made so far, which has been substantial, and to give a clear direction for the further work that needs to be done in a number of areas on which officials will continue to work. There are no fixed deadlines because it is important that solutions should be the correct ones. The noble Lord will not, I am sure, be surprised if I can claim no knowledge whatever of Sinn Fein's intentions. However, I would mention the joint institutions and the examples of working together. I know through my own departments that there is cross-border work on the Foyle fisheries commission which results in benefits to people on both sides of the border, as indeed did the opening this year of the Shannon canal which should bring economic tourist benefit to the people of that region.
I confirm—I cannot do so too strongly—that violence is unacceptable and has no rewards It distresses me that there may be people in Northern Ireland at the moment who think, perhaps for the first time, that it has rewards. But it has no future. The Government have an absolute commitment no work towards peace. We are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, suggested, asleep. We ceaselessly work to find a right solution which is acceptable to the majority of people in Northern Ireland.] regret that until that can be achieved I must commend this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994
7.18 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th May be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think perhaps we could describe this order as the housekeeping order of the Province.
The draft order authorises expenditure of £3,291 million for Northern Ireland departments in the current financial year. This is additional to the sum voted on account in March, and brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £5,824 million, an increase of 4.1 per cent. on 1993–94. I know that the House continues to take a close interest in the prospects for economic development in Northern Ireland I have never returned to the House from the Province without being questioned about progress, and often I can answer with some success.
The latest economic indicators show that the local economy continues to perform well. Over the year to the last quarter of 1993, the output of Northern Ireland's manufacturing industries rose by 3.6 per cent., while employment levels rose by 1 per cent. over the year to March 1994. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen in eight of the past nine months. At May 1994 the total was 98,000 or 13.1 per cent. of the workforce. That is the lowest level for almost three years. I remind the House that that figure represents a lot of people, and the Government are very conscious of it.
Encouragement is also provided by recent surveys of the local business community. These point to strengthening economic activity, improving output,

955
increasing investment intentions and improving order books, particularly for exports. Businesses do not have an easy task, but I believe that we can look forward with some confidence to continued progress in the months ahead. In the past six months I have been delighted to find that Northern Ireland companies are less hesitant and nervous of exporting than many companies in England.
I turn to the main items of expenditure covered by the order as detailed in the estimates booklet, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision in the two agriculture votes amounts to some £164 million. In Vote 1, some £25 million is to fund EC and national agriculture and fishery support measures. In addition to various market support measures under the common agricultural policy, the vote includes some £10 million for grants for capital and other farm improvements, and £14 million is for the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme.
In Vote 2, some £139 million is for regional services. This includes £59 million for agri-food development and scientific and veterinary services. Forty-four million pounds is for farm support, enhancement of the countryside, fisheries and forestry services. I am pleased to say that £5 million is for the rural development programme, an increase of £3 million over 1993–94. We regard that programme as one of importance to both fanners and rural areas.
In the Department of Economic Development's Vote 1, £130 million is required for the Industrial Development Board. Thirteen inward investment projects were successfully negotiated last year, representing a total investment of £259 million, while 2,309 jobs were promoted. That is a significant achievement in anybody's book.
In Vote 2, £34 million is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit and £14 million for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit. Elsewhere in the vote, £12.5 million is for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. It is encouraging that in 1993 a record 1.26 million visitors came to Northern Ireland. I appreciate that that figure represents many people who visit their families and attend conferences, but in the latter case we know that if we can get people to come to Northern Ireland they will come again.
In Vote 3, £204 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. That includes £53 million for the youth training programme, £53 million for the action for community employment programme and £24 million for the job training programme. Neither Northern Ireland nor anywhere else in the country can hope to succeed without a skilled workforce.
I turn to the estimates for the Department of the Environment where £183 million in Vote 1 is for roads, transport and ports. This includes £152 million for the development, operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's public road system. Vote 2 covers the important area of housing. Some £188 million will provide assistance mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into
956
account, the total resources available for housing will be some £570 million. This is £14 million more than in 1993–94 and will enable us to build on the progress which has been made in recent years. After a job, perhaps the most important thing to ensure quality of life is a home.
In Vote 3, gross expenditure on water and sewerage services is estimated at £200 million. Ninety-three million pounds is for capital expenditure and £107 million for operational and maintenance purposes. In Vote 4, £136 million is for environmental services, including £34 million for urban regeneration measures. These continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need and have helped secure a welcome improvement to many areas of Northern Ireland where the need is indeed desperate.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,317 million, an increase of 3.6 per cent. over last year. Vote 1 includes £807 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase over the previous year of £40 million. This includes £760 million for schools and colleges of further education, which should maintain the pupil:teacher ratio at present levels. Also included is £47 million for libraries, youth services and administration, and £40 million for boards' capital projects. There is a provision of £133 million for voluntary schools and £11.5 million for integrated schools. There are now 21 integrated schools in operation, with 4,276 pupils in attendance. There are proposals to open three new integrated schools later this year. I have quoted many figures. I wish to assure your Lordships that they represent the importance that we attach to education in Northern Ireland. Vote 2 includes £109 million for universities, £124 million for student support, £17 million for arts and museums and £3 million for community relations.
In the Department of Health and Social Services, Vote 1 includes some £1,293 million for expenditure on hospital, community health, personal social services, health and social services trusts and family health services. I am delighted to report that that is an increase of 6.8 per cent. on last year. Vote 3 includes £116 million for the Social Security Agency and £14 million for the Child Support Agency. In Vote 4, £1,302 million is for a range of social security benefits, an increase of 4.3 per cent. on last year. In Vote 5, £458 million is to cover expenditure on the independent living funds, housing benefit, the Social Fund and payments to the National Insurance Fund.
Finally, I turn to the Department of Finance and Personnel. In Vote 3, some £4 million is for the community relations programme. Together with the expenditure by the Department of Education, total spending on the community relations programme will be £7.2 million, reflecting the importance that the Government continue to attach to community relations.
I hope that this short summary of the main components of the estimates is helpful. I assure your Lordships that the figures represent the values that we hold in Northern Ireland for the benefit of the people of the Province. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th May be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, it gave me no pleasure to speak, as I felt I had to, on the order whose proceedings we have just completed. I am very much happier to talk about the positive and encouraging matters that lie behind the appropriation order. The Minister described it as a housekeeping exercise, but I suggest that it is very much more than that. Behind that exercise there has been a great deal of planning and hard work by civil servants, Ministers and many people in industry, education and so on.
The House knows that the noble Baroness has been responsible for two departments in Northern Ireland in recent months. I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased to know that her hard work and ability have been recognised and noted with satisfaction. She has a wide range of responsibilities. The Department of Agriculture covers a varied field. I expect that the noble Baroness found that she had to learn a new language to understand the many acronyms such as ADOPs, LFAs and HLCAs. I shall not tell the House what they are, but these are all things that the Minister will have to understand. In addition, she is responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services where, I can assure the House, there is plenty of opportunity for an unwary Minister to trip up. I hope that the noble Baroness is enjoying her work.
Under many headings of expenditure matters are moving fast, not only in Northern Ireland but also elsewhere, not least in education. The recent announcement by the Minister responsible for education, Mr. Ancram, that he is undertaking a wide-ranging review has been widely welcomed. I have no doubt that much will come from it. In Northern Ireland we have enjoyed a high standard of education for a long time. I trust that that will continue. I suggest that this is an opportunity to make certain that at the higher level of education it becomes easier for school-leavers to move across into a job or, if not into a job, at least into positive training. I wonder whether in the past the educationists have taken as much notice as they should have done of the need to help students move across and adapt to the outside world.
It is the intention to develop a new university on the Springvale site in West Belfast. I wonder whether a university is the correct establishment or whether it should not be a polytechnic or technical college. A university does not always prepare students for the reality of work and equip them with the skills which are needed in working life today.
Training for work is most important. A great deal of work has been undertaken by the various departments and organisations responsible for training young people. A great deal of money is being spent on that. I believe that the Minister at the Department of Economic Development, Mr. Smith, has announced a review of training. Training needs to be co-ordinated to make sure that no gaps are left and that it is appropriate. Unfortunately, at present one quarter of those between
958
the ages of 17 and 24 are unemployed. As everyone knows, it is vital that young school-leavers get some form of employment as soon as possible so that they are not induced to engaged in unlawful activities. I know that the Minister is well aware of that, but it is my feeling that more could be done to co-ordinate training and to ensure that it is appropriate.
The hospital service is also undergoing change. Following the recent review of the hospital service here, the Secretary of State, Mrs. Bottomley, tells us that by the year 2000, 40 per cent. less bed space will be required in hospitals because of the revolutionary changes which are taking place in surgical procedures and other health care. I suggest that now is the time for an urgent all-Province strategic review of medical facilities looking forward 20 years so that plans can be made to ensure that appropriate facilities are available. I have no doubt that that review should be Province-wide, and that the territories of the present four area boards should be set aside. I feel that it is important that that is done so that money will not be spent in the wrong directions. What is happening is almost revolutionary. This is a great opportunity for an area the size of Northern Ireland to set up facilities in a way which will be most economic and will offer the best service for everyone.
In the Department of Agriculture there is uncertainty at present in respect of small farms. Your Lordships may be surprised to hear that 72 per cent. of the farms in Northern Ireland are classed as less favoured area farms and are therefore eligible for hill livestock compensatory amounts in respect of their cattle. Last year the budget for such grants was reduced substantially in the United Kingdom as a whole, and Northern Ireland suffered 16 per cent. of the total cut, amounting to just over £4 million. That has had a serious effect on the economy of very small farms. It has also had some effect on the continuity of economic farming in those areas. I ask what the Government intend to do to support the continuation of livestock farming in less favoured areas in Northern Ireland.
It appears that at present many farmers are experiencing delays in the payment of grants, and in some cases long delays. Those include the agricultural development operation plan—otherwise known as ADOPs—and the farm and conservation giant scheme. I wonder whether those delays are the result of public expenditure restrictions or due to administrative hold-ups. They are having an effect on the cash flow of farmers and, as everyone knows, cash flow is very important to farmers.
Agriculture includes fisheries and sums voted for the fishing industry. Some of those sums go to fish processing companies. There is assistance for the fishing fleet. The fishing industry as a whole in Northern Ireland is not very large but it is important. It provides considerable employment in coastal areas. Of approximately £9 million allocated to the fishing fleet in Northern Ireland under the EC Objective 1 Area Sectoral Plan only £2 million is allocated to the Northern Ireland fishing fleet. Of that, £1 million has already been taken up in decommissioning, and the remainder will probably be taken up in further

959
decommissioning grants. That will leave nothing to assist with the essential modernisation of ships and the substantial expenditure which is expected to be necessary in order to meet the new EC safety and hygiene regulations. No one is complaining about those regulations where there is a need to improve safety and hygiene, but at present the owners of small ships comprising the Northern Ireland fleet are wondering how they will be able to afford this necessary work.
In Northern Ireland we have been fortunate over a long time with our road infrastructure. We have an excellent road system, but anyone who drives round Northern Ireland regularly will see that road maintenance is steadily falling behind due to cuts in maintenance budgets. Various critical road plans have been delayed. For example, the two-lane road between Antrim and Ballymena has been further delayed and it is even more important now that the hospital has opened at Antrim. On occasions it can take some time to drive from the north of Antrim to the new hospital because of the heavy traffic on the single-lane highway.
It is important to the development of industry in the Province that the good road system is maintained. I ask what plans the Government have to ensure that maintenance standards are kept up. If maintenance is allowed to drop behind, the eventual cost of repairing the roads is much greater.
Great progress has been made on a number of matters in Northern Ireland in the past year. The Industrial Development Board is to be congratulated on its success in bringing in a number of important new industries. The work which is being done by the Industrial Research and Training Unit, for which funding is provided, is useful in assisting firms in all areas with technical assistance, advice, help with research and so on.
The electricity service is mentioned and money is voted to the regulator. Unfortunately, the tariffs for industry which rule at present mean that the cost of electricity to firms in Northern Ireland is higher than in Great Britain. It is almost certain that the difference will increase over the years rather than even staying at a similar level. There are various reasons for that which I need not go into now, but there is little real prospect of competition reducing the cost of electricity in Northern Ireland until well into the next century. There is just one possibility that could perhaps reduce the load to industry. That is in the balance of tariffs between industrial and domestic tariffs.
When the Northern Ireland Electricity Authority was privatised, the balance between the tariffs was altered in favour of the domestic tariffs, which are now on a par with those on the mainland. It is the large industries that will suffer the highest extra cost, in some cases up to 30 per cent. If the larger industries become uncompetitive, with resulting unemployment, it will not make a lot of sense that they will have gone out of business to benefit the householder. I understand that it would cost only between £10 and £20 more per household to bring the balance back to where it was before and make a considerable difference to larger companies.
960
I wish to finish by saying that the extent of public funding in Northern Ireland is widely recognised and I do not think that anyone would suggest that it should be increased. However, there can be cases where priorities should be changed and economies made. In the health service it seems that there is a chance that something could be done.
The management and administration of the hospital service are generally believed to be cumbersome, bureaucratic and over-costly. I should say, by the way, that it is widely recognised that we have an excellent health service from an operational point of view in Northern Ireland, but that does not mean that improvements cannot be made if the management and administration costs could be reduced. I understand that an internal report on administration will soon be available. I should like to ask the Minister whether the savings offered in the report fall short of those suggested in the report submitted to the Minister by Dr. Sir George Quigley and others. Will the Minister call in an outside consultant, on the lines of the Tomlinson review for London, to advise on this important matter?
7.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness for so clearly explaining the background to the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 which meets the full estimates for the current financial year. That is against a general economic outlook in Northern Ireland which differs somewhat from that of the mainland of Britain, most noticeably in unemployment. To me personally and to all my colleagues on these Benches, unemployment is one of the most difficult and worrying problems which faces not only us but the rest of Europe and many other countries in the world.
In Northern Ireland, unemployment is significantly higher than here, and in certain parts it is alarmingly high. There is a 13.2 per cent. overall level of unemployment in Northern Ireland, and there are areas where it is as high as 20 per cent. That can hardly be the right climate for discouraging paramilitary recruiting, among the other effects of unemployment which involve many young people, unhappily. I understand that something over 50 per cent. of all the unemployed in Northern Ireland have been out of work for more than a year. In the first quarter of 1994, unemployment fell and has been falling ever since. However, there were still worrying job losses recently, notably in the construction industry with some 1,500 net job losses, as well as in the medical and health services and the veterinary services. There were 240 job losses in public administration. The losses may be related to the Government's radical health and personal social services Northern Ireland order which passed through both Houses of Parliament in February.
Curiously, there is a relatively small drop in jobs in banking and financial services. That may be a temporary phenomenon. Perhaps the noble Baroness could enlighten us on it. I should have thought that Northern Ireland was well placed for providing banking and other financial services with the very good communications which have now developed. Perhaps there is an

961
opportunity here which could be profitably exploited. It is of course quite obvious that the Northern Ireland economy differs in two major respects from that in mainland Britain. The most noticeable difference which has already been mentioned is the importance of agriculture. Proportionately three times as many people in the total workforce are employed on the land in Northern Ireland as on the mainland. There are the special circumstances which mean that the Government play a particular role in investment to support the economy. That the country is so largely dependent on agriculture and the investment that it receives are facts that are both relatively insensitive to economic cyclical developments, which can mean that the Province is, and certainly feels, left behind as Britain may (and we all hope will) enjoy the fruits of steady recovery.
In regard to particular points that arise in respect of the order, Vote 1, dealing with agriculture, is down on last year, from just over £14 million to something just under £12 million, having dropped from £17 million in 1992. Given the clear dependence of many parts of Northern Ireland on agricultural support and subsidy and the very substantial role that is played by agriculture in the total economy, it seems to us on these Benches that that reduction could be extremely damaging, especially to the smaller communities in the remoter parts.
Since the recent privatisation in electricity, anecdotal evidence suggests that the service has not performed as was expected and that there has been a deterioration, with power cuts and high prices. The extra £4.5 million to assist that privatisation is interesting considering that Northern Ireland Electricity became a plc in 1992. Parliament was also asked to approve £4 million last year and £3 million in 1992 for the same purpose. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be kind enough to explain that. The fall in funding for OFFER Northern Ireland is also interesting. Is it perhaps related to performance-related cuts given the relatively poor standard of service offered recently by Northern Ireland Electricity? It seems to us that greater resources rather than fewer should be given to electricity regulation.
So far as education is concerned, in Vote 3 the figures in 1992 and 1993 were £7.5 million and £8.5 million respectively. One wonders why there has been such a sharp and sudden rise. The figure includes premature retirement costs. Is a wave of early retirement anticipated?
Vote 2, for the Department of Health, has more than doubled in two years. In 1992 the equivalent figure was only just under £8 million. That has increased by about 140 per cent. in two years. Some of that increase concerns superannuation benefits for employees of the Department of Health. Is it related to the recent privatisation of health and personal social services in Northern Ireland? Perhaps the noble Baroness can throw some light on that point.
Vote 3, for the Department of Finance and Personnel, has fallen now for two years running. It seems to us that that is one of the most worrying aspects of expenditure covered by the order. The Community Relations Council does extremely worthy and useful—indeed, crucial—work in Northern Ireland which one hopes is
962
not being undervalued. Surely that must not be a component of expenditure to be dealt with alter everything else is sorted out. In our view it should certainly be a central element in the Government's strategy for the Province. The reduction is a cause of dismay to those of us on these Benches.
Finally, perhaps I may just remark on the amount of increase for the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Does that indicate any plan for reopening in the not too distant future? Perhaps the noble Baroness would give her comment on that.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for two things: first, the clarity of her explanation; but, much more importantly, that I am able to say what a pleasure it was to hear the word "draft" correctly pronounced with a short "a", as she and I always do, rather than mispronounced with a long "a" as many of your Lordships do, having fallen into serious error.
Earlier this year we had a discussion on these lines. As the Minister indicated, it is very good to see. a slight fall in the May figures for unemployment. However, if one looks a little more deeply into the figures, more than half of those who are registered as unemployed are long-term unemployed and therefore have been unemployed for a year or more, which is worrying. The increase in those who are in employment is about 2,200. Unfortunately most of those jobs are female part-time and, although they have a value to some, they are not the full-time jobs that people really need if an economy is to be properly stimulated and reinvigorated.
More than one-fifth of those who are unemployed have been out of work for more than five years. That is dispiriting, sapping for the individuals and extremely expensive for public funds. The numbers in full-time employment in Northern Ireland (although the May figures were better) fell by 3,290 from December 1992 to September 1993. One wonders what hope is offered to those who are coming onto the labour market in their struggle for full-time, productive, decent, reasonably paid employment.
If one looks, for instance, at the travel-to-work areas, there are some further rather alarming figures. Eight out of 12 travel-to-work areas in Northern Ireland have unemployment figures of 18 per cent. or more. Of 566 Northern Ireland wards, no fewer than 107 have male unemployment figures of more than 30 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, said, more than 25 per cent. of those in the 17 to 24 age group are unemployed. We think that that is laying up a fairly dreadful harvest for the future. As the noble Lord said, and I respectfully agree, those are the people (that is the age group) whom paramilitaries are only too ready to exploit, the young disenchanted who are hopeless and dispirited.
I gave notice to the Minister informally earlier today about what troubles us about rumours of cuts taking place in training facilities for young people in Northern Ireland. I should be grateful if she could put our minds at rest on that matter, if she is able to do so.
Specifically also—I shall not traverse ground that was fully covered by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of

963
Islandreagh —there are serious worries in Northern Ireland on all sides about the closing down of accommodation for elderly people and sometimes mentally ill people. Quite insufficient alternative arrangements are made for the mentally ill under the alleged care in the community policy and in respect of the elderly, causing deep worry and distress to very many people. There is real feeling about the possibly precarious position of the Royal Victoria Hospital. In dealing with residential care for the elderly, I would welcome a word of reassurance that there will be no threat of closure on The Banks, the residential home for the elderly in Bangor, North Down, in the constituency of Sir James Kilfedder, who frequently expresses a widespread unease about the position of that home. The average age of the residents is no less than 85. It seems quite monstrous that people of that age in those circumstances should be subject to worry and anxiety in the twilight of their lives.
I also indicated to the Minister the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland; namely, the purpose of the £220,000 grant for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I personally welcome the component of Vote 3 (on page 7 of the draft order) in respect of cultural traditions, which we on this side entirely support.
Finally—I am afraid that it is now becoming for me a King Charles head but I intend to continue until the matter is resolved favourably, as I am sure it will be —what is the present position of the Government's thinking, if any, about the criminal injuries compensation scheme in Northern Ireland? As is well known, because of the superior legislative knowledge in your Lordships' House, the Government's proposal to do away with the proper scheme and introduce a mean, miserable tariff scheme was defeated in this House.
I should like to know what effect that entirely proper defeat is having on the Government's thinking on Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister always deals courteously with these matters and, subject to the constraints of decisions made by others, perhaps a shade deviously. I say that, as she knows, in all friendliness. But there is a serious point here. We have unanimously condemned the recent wicked killings of the people watching television in a public house. I put my mind only on the survivors. The fact is that if the Government's parsimonious scheme is introduced in Northern Ireland, the future care of those who are grievously wounded and possibly suffering permanent injury will not be compensated, nor will there be compensation for their lost future working years. So it is very important for many Members of this House, not only on these Benches but on the Benches which noble Lords to my right occupy.
We feel strongly that the uncertainty is becoming extremely demoralising. I constantly receive requests from a large number of different sections of the communities in Northern Ireland to know when at last the Government will be able to make up their mind. One would have thought that that was not a difficult activity.
8 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, let me first assure noble Lords that I did not mean to denigrate the order by describing it as a housekeeping order. We have to manage our resources to achieve our policies and aims. I hope that tonight's debate has proved that we do so. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, for his kind remarks. I do indeed love my job in Northern Ireland and I suspect that perhaps it shows.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, said that we must give our young people hope and skills. That has been endorsed by other noble Lords. Perhaps it will reassure your Lordships when I say that there is no reduction in the budget for training. The Training and Employment Agency, which is responsible for industrial training in Northern Ireland, has had its budget for 1994–95 increased by almost £10 million to £203 million. That includes an increase of over £3½ million for the Youth Training Scheme, making a total of almost £52 million.
The Training and Employment Agency has recently completed a consultation exercise, following pilot training programmes in Ballymena and Newry, for a new training scheme called Jobskills. Decisions about full implementation will be taken after the results of the consultation exercise have been fully considered. The new scheme, if introduced throughout Northern Ireland, would have all the resources allocated to YTP, JTP and the skills training scheme—some £75.3 million in 1994–95. I hope that that scotches the rumour about a reduction or a withdrawal, which has given some concern.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, trying to ensure that the health service runs efficiently is a more complex task than I have found in any company that I have run in the past. As he rightly says, much of the change is driven by medicine itself. But he also referred to the management and administration of the hospital service in Northern Ireland. I am very conscious of the importance of reducing the management costs of the service to the minimum necessary to ensure that the highest quality and most cost-effective services are provided to patients.
I recently received the report mentioned by the noble Lord which was commissioned by my predecessor on the organisation of purchasing functions in Northern Ireland. I shall announce my decisions on that matter in the very near future. The report was based on analysis and research undertaken by outside consultants and outside members sat on the review body.
I can also assure the noble Lord that I listen very carefully to anything that Sir George Quigley says to me. We are very fortunate to have him as a trust chairman. In this instance, he had no opportunity to quantify the costs of the scheme that he put before me. But perhaps it would help the noble Lord to know that the cost of senior managers across the health service is less than 1 per cent. of total costs, while 56 per cent. of administrative and clerical staff are engaged in patient-related duties—staff such as ward clerks and medical records clerks.
If we are to manage efficiently, we have to measure. I can assure the noble Lord that when I look at the

965
Northern Ireland health service, I see it not only as individual trees but as the forest that represents the whole of the Province. I aim to ensure that if possible we have a health service which we would all wish to experience if it were our own families who were using it.
The noble Lord referred to the problems of hill farmers. I recognise the need to look very carefully at the difficult times that they are having. The noble Lord's concern was perhaps based on reductions in the hill livestock compensatory allowances which were made last year. But the reductions were far outweighed by the large increase in direct livestock premiums. In addition, many of the small farms referred to benefit uniquely in the United Kingdom from the special rate for suckler cow premium—some £20 per cow more than in Great Britain.
Our present information suggests further substantial increases in income for those people in 1993–94, in particular, income increases for the various smallest farms. Prices have been buoyant and farmers, like others in the rest of the economy, benefit from the Government's economic policies which have led to lower interest rates and low inflation.
I believe that the noble Lord correctly drew my attention to the delays by the Department of Agriculture in paying grants, particularly those relating to the agricultural development operation programme and the farm and conservation grant scheme. I recognise that the delays have caused problems for farmers. Cash flow is important for all businesses. We are doing our best to minimise the problem. Our target is to have all properly completed and substantiated claims for grants paid within 10 weeks of receipt. That is a figure that I should like to improve. We have not been achieving the present target in recent months. The recent relocation of staff involved in processing payments from Belfast to Londonderry has resulted in a backlog of work and a delay in the issue of payments.
That is a one-off situation. I can assure the noble Lord that the staff is attempting to reduce the backlog as quickly as possible. However, an important part in this matter can be played by the farmers. If all claims are submitted properly completed and supported by the necessary documentation, they can be processed more quickly. "Right first time" benefits all of us.
The noble Lord was concerned about assistance for modernisation and updating of the fishing fleet. There is a 4 million ecu budget set aside to provide aid towards the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels, which is intended to address the aging profile of the Northern Ireland fleet. I shall be making an announcement on arrangements as soon as final decisions have been taken in Europe. The separate cost of decommissioning Northern Ireland vessels will not come out of that 4 million ecu figure. Northern Ireland participated fully in the 1993–94 UK decommissioning scheme. I understand the difficult life that fishermen have and I am pleased to say that we were recently able to announce the continuation of decommissioning support and also that I have been able to clear support for two much needed ice-making plants.
966
The noble Lord was concerned about a good road system. I can assure him that the Government consider that to be a prime need for the Province. Despite many competing pressures, substantial sums have been spent on roads in recent years. The total spending this year will be £157 million, with over £65 million being allocated to maintenance. That is in addition to the £180 million which was spent on the maintenance programme over the past three years. At a time when all public expenditure programmes are facing pressures, those figures illustrate the importance which the Government continue to give to roads.
Of course, we have not been able to proceed as quickly as we would have liked with every scheme, including the Antrim-Ballymena road. It is being completed in stages. Stage one has been completed and the second stage is programmed for 1996–97. The remaining stages were always seen as long-term proposals and are included in our long-term plans. I accept that the delay will cause the noble Lord some disappointment but I hope he will recognise that we face difficult choices. I am pleased to reassure him that, if he is worried about the ambulance service to the new Antrim hospital, those services have been retained at both Ballymena and Lame. Information published yesterday showed how well our ambulance services do in meeting their charter standards, for which they deserve much praise.
The noble Lord raised the question of whether the proposed establishment of a new campus on the Springvale site should be a university or a polytechnic. It is an argument which has been debated for many hours in many places. It may be that a university degree will better help our young people to obtain employment. But I shall pass on his remarks to my honourable friend the Minister for Education.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, again emphasised his anxiety about the unemployment figures in the Province. It is an anxiety that the Government share. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, was telling me that my health service was over-managed and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was asking about the jobs lost from the health service. As a Minister it is difficult to please everyone all the time. We believe that we will deliver a good community care programme in Northern Ireland. There must be a transfer from the acute hospitals to the community and a period of adjustment. I believe that we will continue to ensure that the dedicated and committed people who work in our health service are well looked after and that their efforts are appreciated.
The financial service redundancies mentioned by the noble Viscount are not unique to Northern Ireland but simply a reflection of the productivity increases which banks and building societies are looking for. Northern Ireland weathered the recession well and I hope that it will benefit from the recovery in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The noble Viscount mentioned the increase in costs in education. I can assure him that my honourable friend is a doughty champion when fighting for funds for education and none of us can argue with him about the importance of that. On agriculture the noble Viscount

967
questions reductions in figures. It is part of the agricultural policy that, if it is at all possible for farmers to be reliant on the customer who is beating a path to their door rather than on a subsidy from Europe which can be withdrawn at the stroke of a pen, I am sure that they will sleep happier in their beds.
I cannot say too firmly that there is no privatisation in the health service. The formation of the trusts was in order to allow responsibility to be carried at local level and I find it working extremely well. They are properly funded and reduction in costs is not a reason for their formation. As a priority in our programme we target social needs, and community relations fit into that area. It is a prime plank of our policy and many other items in our budget cover it.
Both noble Lords had obviously combed the budget carefully to identify the amount required for residual functions of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The net figure for this year is £347,000 and it includes the maintenance of the Assembly Library, which also acts as a reference library for all Northern Ireland departments, the examination of statutory rules and the running of dining-rooms for official and ministerial functions. We try to ensure that as many of Northern Ireland's people as possible enjoy functions in those splendid rooms. The Assembly is also responsible for the pension fund for members of the last Assembly. These costs have been incurred annually since the Assembly was dissolved in 1986 and I can assure noble Lords that they are not connected with possible political developments in Northern Ireland, though I note that that item will probably be scrutinised annually and carefully.
The noble Viscount raised many questions on the subject of the Estimates and I shall write to him if I have missed any. But I should like to take up the question raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, and the noble Viscount in relation to the cost of electricity. It is important that our industry remains competitive. It is more expensive to produce and distribute electricity in Northern Ireland than it is in Great Britain because power stations are smaller, the reserve margin is higher and customers on average are more dispersed.
The problem of higher electricity prices has been addressed through the development of the planned electricity and gas pipeline linkages with Scotland, competition in the supply of electricity and investigation into the potential for combined heat and power in Northern Ireland. As part of this investigation the Director General of Electricity has commissioned a study by the Department of Economic Development. It is a problem of which we are aware and we are working hard on it. I can reassure the noble Viscount that the cost of electricity privatisation will be met totally from the sale of the shares. That includes the figure that the noble Viscount mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, rightly returned to one of our major problems; that is, unemployment and the difficulties of the long-term unemployed, the relationship between full and part-time work and male and female employment. They are all points that we regard as a prime requirement for efforts. There is a
968
direct relationship between this and terrorism. If violence could cease it would be so much easier to attract investment to the Province.
The noble Lord also raised the question of residential home closures, in particular The Banks. The matter of The Banks home is at the moment one for the North Down and Ards Health and Social Services Trust. Should a decision be made to close The Banks, it would come to me to be considered and endorsed. I can assure the noble Lord that I would not propose to endorse any decision on residential homes for old people without visiting and meeting the people. It is a programme that I have already started. I too am conscious of the stress it places on elderly residents and the fact that they probably go to bed at night worrying about the future of the home. I can assure him too that we shall make these decisions as quickly as possible. We recognise that for many of these people the family they now have are the friends with whom they reside in the homes.
The noble Lord questioned the future of the Royal Victoria Hospital. One of the main decisions of the Eastern Region Health Strategy Review was that the Royal and the City hospitals should not be merged. We have two flagships which can hold their heads up high throughout the United Kingdom and possibly through-out the world. We are at the moment rationalising, with my former chief medical officer as chairman of the steering group, to ensure that there is no duplication and no gaps and that we maximise on the skills available there.
I turn finally to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, says he raises on every possible occasion. I am not being critical in saying that but I hope that he will perhaps consider again the suggestion that I might be being devious. I am telling him the situation as it is and continues to be. My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is considering what connotations there might be for Northern Ireland from the Home Secretary's new tariff-based compensation scheme. If my right honourable and learned friend decides to make changes to the compensation scheme in Northern Ireland, there will be a full public consultation exercise with all parties. I hear the noble Lord's appeal for speed and I will pass on his concerns.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was not suggesting—and I hope it was quite understood—that the Minister is devious. I was complaining about the message, not the messenger. Sometimes the message seems a shade on the devious side to those people who want to know what their future will be if they are injured.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, but the message is the facts as they are. I shall pass on his concern on the speed with which decisions are made. But I doubt whether he needs to press that point. Those of us who live in the community are aware of the concerns and the needs of the community. Perhaps the noble Lord might take some comfort from the fact that my right honourable and learned friend is indeed a most distinguished lawyer.

969
I shall read Hansard carefully and if I have missed any points I shall write to the noble Lord. Meanwhile, I thank noble Lords for their concern for the Province and for the people there. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Psychogeriatric Care: NHS Provision
8.23 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the report by the Alzheimer's Disease Society, what is their policy on the provision of National Health Service psychogeriatric continuing care beds.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret very much the circumstances that have prevented my noble friend Lord Ennals from being able to ask this Question himself. We all wish him a speedy recovery and we hope that he will be back with us as soon as possible.
My own interest in this sad and tragic problem goes back many years to when I was privileged to serve as a constituency Member in another place. I have tried to maintain that interest since coming to your Lordships' House. Through all those years I have watched the Alzheimer's Disease Society grow. I have the greatest respect and admiration for how it has developed into a competent and caring unit providing us and many others with reports and information on all the aspects of this tragic disease as well as helping and dealing with carers and sufferers in all parts of the country. We owe the society our gratitude and support for the difficult tasks it has taken on.
This Question tonight gives me an opportunity to acquaint your Lordships with the findings and concerns outlined in the society's report National Health Service Psychogeriatric Continuing Care Beds, published at the end of last year. The report was also one of the subjects discussed by the House of Lords all-party group on ageing, when the executive director of the society, Harry Cayton, addressed our group a couple of months ago.
I shall start with the size of the problem. There are approximately 600,000 people with dementia in the United Kingdom. About 70 per cent. have Alzheimer's Disease. The term "dementia" is used to describe a group of illnesses which are the cause of progressive decline in the ability to remember, to learn, to think and to reason. Those people with severe dementia or who are in the later stages of Alzheimer's disease need continuing care where skilled nursing and regular medical supervision is available. This need will grow. We have discussed at length in a number of debates the demographic changes that will be responsible for that growth and for all kinds of problems. By the year 2021 there will be almost 900,000 people with dementia living alone in the community. That is a fairly sizeable problem that we should be tackling as soon as possible.
The Alzheimer's Disease Society believes that to meet this need there should be sufficient National Health Service continuing care available in every district. National Health Service continuing care beds are invaluable to carers in providing continuity, flexibility and reliability in terms of environment,
970
staffing and high quality care for their relation or friend with dementia who can no longer be cared for in the community. In supplying continuing care which is free of charge, the health service has traditionally been important also in providing a real choice for those carers who cannot afford long-term care in a residential or nursing home run by the local authority or the independent sector. However, despite local authorities having a duty to provide continuing care for the chronically sick and terminally ill, the society's evidence is that the health service is withdrawing from this role at an alarming rate.
The report surveyed the level and type of continuing care provision supplied by 64 district health authorities. It had three main findings: first, 56 per cent. of those: DHAs were providing fewer beds than in 1990, 31 per cent. were providing more beds and 13 per cent. the same number of beds; secondly, there was a wide variation between different district health authorities as to the level and type of continuing care provision; thirdly, at least three authorities—5 per cent.—had no psychogeriatric continuing care beds available for the care of elderly people with dementia. Further evidence suggests that there has been a 40 per cent. fall in the number of continuing care beds over the past five years.
One significant development arose from the health ombudsman's report on the Leeds health authority. In February 1994 the health service commissioner published a special report on the failure by Leeds health authority to provide long-term National Health Service care for a brain-damaged patient. In perhaps the most revealing comment of the investigation, the. Leeds health authority said that in not providing any long-stay medical beds in hospital or having contractual arrangements for such beds in private nursing homes,
"they were no different in that respect from most other health
authorities".
That is a damning indictment of the present situation.
While reductions in the numbers of National Health Service continuing care beds are in themselves worrying and important, the society feels that a number of other key issues are highlighted by the health service's abdication of its responsibilities in this area. There are serious territorial inequities as to whether people with dementia who have high needs and dependencies have access to suitable and sufficient psychogeriatric continuing care beds in their area.
There is a lack of accountability in this area of health service planning. More often than not, users, carers and voluntary organisations are not consulted adequately on health authority plans for closures or reductions in long-term care. Meanwhile the Government refuse to take effective action against those DHAs which are not shouldering their responsibilities in this area. If continuing care beds continue to disappear against the wishes of these people; if health authorities are accountable neither to the Department of Health nor to the community they serve, who is to ensure that they meet their responsibilities?
In those areas where people with dementia are denied access to National Health Service continuing care, carers are having to find and fund the care themselves. Most concern has been expressed by carers about the

971
stringent means test for long-term care in a residential or nursing home. While the Alzheimer's Disease Society is not opposed to some people making a certain contribution to the costs of caring, a policy which places the financial burden increasingly on older people and which increases the likelihood of making carers casualties of caring, makes no sense on either social or economic grounds.
The report notes that it is the harshness and the impact of the means test for such care which has caused the greatest alarm among carers of people with dementia. One of the most bitterly contested aspects of the means test rules is that, where a resident of a residential or nursing home has savings of between £3,000 and £8,000, local authorities have the power to sequestrate the whole of a person's occupational pension to pay for the costs of care.
There is a great deal of concern about the obvious impact that this is having on elderly couples of modest means, but particularly on women carers who have been reliant on their husband's occupational pension for a significant proportion of their income. Although they are entitled to income support in such situations, it is clear from those cases which have come to light that the wife's income is substantially reduced and that they face serious financial difficulties as a result. As one carer puts it:
"As I have no occupational pension myself I have had to apply for income support which has been granted, but I am left in much poorer circumstances and I have to meet heating bills, electricity, telephone and any repairs to the house".
Most of the women who have contacted the Alzheimer's Disease Society about the effect of the occupational pension rule have had to rely on their married woman's pension for income after their husband has entered long-term residential or nursing home care. These women have pointed out that they are therefore worse off than if they had been widowed or had divorced their husband. In both cases their pension entitlement would be greater. Therefore, these women would appear to be victims of both the system by which the state pension is administered and the rules by which their husbands have been means tested. Neither recognises this particular financial need. Of course, there are some men in similar circumstances, but by and large it is women who have had to bear the brunt of this kind of problem.
This feeling of injustice is compounded by one of humiliation that after many many years of working and caring and of priding themselves in their financial self-reliance and good housekeeping, they now have to claim benefits to make ends meet. That can be very hard on a large number of people in those circumstances. It is estimated that there may be as many as one in 10 women placed in that invidious position. It is well documented that among the over-65 age group women are even less likely than men to have built up significant pension entitlements of their own. The rules relating to the treatment of occupational pensions therefore discriminate indirectly against women over 65.
In response to the growing concern expressed by the carers and by the society about this particular aspect of the regulations, the Government have issued guidance to local authorities asking them to "bear in mind" that,
972
where the income of the spouse at home is significantly reduced by the sequestration of the occupational pension, they can use their discretion to award an increased personal expenses allowance so that a proportion can be used to support the spouse. This personal expenses allowance is presently set at £13.10p per week.
Despite the guidance decisions, other decisions have been taken which worsen rather than ease the financial situation of the carer. Indeed, increasing the personal expenses allowance will have financial implications for the local authority. That means that it is not in the interests of the social services departments to operate any guidance rule for the benefit of carers—in other words, they will do nothing about it despite the Government's attempts to issue guidance.
In sum, the report feels that the present system of financial hardship arising from the treatment of a resident's occupational pension is flawed. Until carers have a preserved right to a proportion of the occupational pension, social services will continue to apply the rules in their own favour. While recognising that it will not ensure financial security for all carers in this position, nor the need for some to claim income support, the society favours reform of the regulations which would give women a preserved right to 50 per cent. of their husband's occupational pension when he enters long-term care in a residential or nursing home.
In response to the concerns expressed in the report about the availability of National Health Service continuing care, the Government have reaffirmed that district health authorities have a responsibility to provide such care. The noble Baroness who is replying to this Question this evening, herself said last February:
"Our policy is quite clear: if people need professional healthcare —and that is a judgment made by a clinician—they should get that care within the National Health Service."—[Official Report, 22/2/94; col. 513.]
Similarly in a letter of 25th May 1994, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, John Bowis, stated:
"As I have stressed in our correspondence on this issue the NHS has a responsibility to provide long-term health care for those who need it for reasons of ill-health".
That is clear enough. Despite those assurances, it is the duty of the district health authorities to provide long-term care. The experiences of carers of people with dementia suggest that such rhetoric does not match the reality of the difficulties occurring in this area of health care. They are just so many words which are not being implemented at grass roots.
The discrepancy between the evidence collected by the society and the reported results of the Government's monitoring, merely highlight the need for further investigation and for a more open public debate on the issue.
In view of the growing numbers of people with dementia this need will increase. In this context, National Health Service continuing care beds should be available in every district for those people who need them. The society is being constructive as well as critical. A useful model which it endorses was proposed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 1989, when the RCP recommended that DHAs should supply one

973
continuing care bed for every 1,000 people over the age of 65 in their catchment area. It is a matter of concern that the society's report should reveal that 70 per cent. of DHAs are not aspiring to this sort of provision. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to enlighten us on that point.
The society is conscious of the need for the DHAs to decide such provision on the basis of local needs and resources. Of course we accept that. However, it is felt that the Government should not use this as an excuse for inaction where authorities are clearly not performing their duties. The report therefore urges the Government to issue stronger guidelines to district health authorities reminding them of their duty to provide continuing care; to clarify where accountability for continuing care for people with dementia lies; to issue further guidance to district health authorities on consultation procedures involving users, carers and local voluntary organisations in the future planning of health services; and to set out and consult with interested parties their future policy and objectives on psychogeriatric continuing care for people with dementia.
Before I conclude, perhaps I may give an example which encapsulates most of the issues. It is an illustration of the typical problems that are encountered by many carers. I am referring to the case of a lady who has; cared for seven years for her husband, who has Alzheimer's disease. He is 72 and she is 65. While caring for her husband at home, that lady has received limited help from the National Health Service in the form of day care and occasional respite care. She has had to continue caring for him at home because of the lack of NHS continuing care in the North Yorkshire area. In April her situation reached crisis point. Her husband was admitted to hospital in an emergency because of her mental and physical state and his own deterioration. Her GP agreed that she could no longer cope.
That month that lady wrote to the Alzheimer's Disease Society in desperation saying that she was waiting for an assessment to see whether her husband could be admitted into long-term care. She was anxious that that should be funded by the NHS since she could not afford the cost of a place in a residential or nursing home. She said:
"If I had to place my husband in private care I would be in the undignified position of receiving DSS support. I would be left with a demeaning £60 per week to live on after all these years of caring".
That lady wrote to the society again in May. Things had got so bad that she had tried to commit suicide. Her letter was written a few days after her discharge from hospital. She wrote:
"After being driven to breaking-point and still no firm promise of an NHS bed for my husband, whom they had taken into care because of my mental state I just couldn't take any more".
The society wrote to the area authority and to North East Yorkshire Healthcare, the trust, on her behalf asking them to intervene and to find her husband suitable care. In its reply the trust said:
"If you would like to assist [this lady] and many other carers like her … who at present do not have the hope of long-term care for their relative, I would ask you to make the points you raise in your letter to the North Yorkshire Health Authority. You may
974
also like to ask them to tell you how the level of provision for elderly mentally ill people in the area compares with other nearby areas".
That lady and her husband are still waiting for an NHS bed. That case is not unusual. It is a sad problem and there are far too many such cases throughout the country.
Finally, I should like to remind the House of what the Secretary of State, the right honourable Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, said in response to media reports of age discrimination in the treatment of people by the health service. She said:
"The founding principle of the National Health Service shines like a beacon in our society. The NHS provides services for everybody, on the basis of their clinical need and regardless of their ability to pay. There are no exceptions to that rule, whatever the age of the patient… It is the duty of all health authorities to ensure that people of all ages have access to acute care, and that specialist care is available for those who suffer with chronic: conditions due to the ageing process".
I can readily agree with all those sentiments. What I and the Alzheimer's Disease Society would like would be for the Government to begin to implement those sentiments in their policies and to tell us what their plans are for the immediate future.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when I started reading up on this subject in preparation for this debate, the main thing that struck me was how frightening Alzheimer's must be not only for the carer, but also for the person who starts to suffer from that disease. If my reading is correct, the person concerned goes through a process of losing layers of memory and of ability. In the first stages, the sufferer will be aware of that. He or she is often aware of starting to deteriorate mentally but they know that they cannot do anything to help their condition. After that incredibly worrying and disturbing process, the sufferer then starts to lose all functions, layer by layer. Sufferers cannot organise themselves and they lose their social skills. They do not know, for instance, whether they are correctly dressed for going outside their house.
While that process is going on, the carer, on whom the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, concentrated, will suffer on two levels. They will be caused distress and they will suffer the stress of watching the sufferer—usually their partner —deteriorate. That leads to incredible emotional problems. The partner can do very little to help other than deal with day-to-day tasks. Those tasks will progressively become more difficult over a long time frame. We are dealing with couples of generally similar age. As the sufferer becomes less capable of coping with the problem, the problems for the carer will increase in severity. I can envisage few more nightmarish scenarios than that. We are talking about a situation that will get worse as one gets more feeble.
There will always be variations, but surely the Government should make a point of providing sufficient cover and help for the simple reason that we cannot reasonably or realistically expect anybody 1o cope in the latter stages. We must remember the emotional stress that is involved when dealing with a loved one who is deteriorating in such a way, and the physical difficulties of so doing.

975
The idea of care in the community and of trying to keep people in their own homes is laudable in most situations, but surely we are talking about terminally ill people. People do not get better from Alzheimer's disease. When the Minister answers the debate, I hope that she will be able to give us some guidance about how the Government can help those people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said, find their incomes being cut as their partner is placed in the type of care that they have to have. In most cases, the sufferer does not go into care because the carer wants to put them there but simply because they have to have it. Surely some arrangement can be made—it need not necessarily involve very much more money—so that the carer can get more support if he or she is dependent on the spouse's pension. Surely something can be done along those lines.
Can the Government give some form of guarantee about the provision of effective respite care during that period? Someone who is caring for a sufferer for, say, five days a week may be able to cope for very much longer than someone who is caring for a sufferer for seven days a week. That may well lead to a far better balanced, more rational and more efficient approach to caring than if the carer was cooped up for long periods. It is not unusual for the carers of those with Alzheimer's disease to have to cope in that way. Any carer who is constantly cooped up with a problem will react against it. That might lead to a lack of sufficient care or even to abuse of the sufferer. Such problems tend to be enhanced if the carer feels trapped. That is a perfectly natural reaction.
I do not think that I can add very much more to the debate. As always, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was very thorough in giving us the hard facts of the matter. I hope that the Government can give us some idea of their thoughts about providing support to carers in general, as well as, more particularly, to the carers of those with Alzheimer's disease.
8.48 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Stallard for tabling this Unstarred Question and particularly for standing in for our noble friend Lord Ennals. I join my noble friend in hoping that we shall see our noble friend back with us soon. It is also important that I thank the Alzheimer's Disease Society for its important report which has stimulated today's debate.
As well as highlighting the acute anxieties of one patient group, the report has drawn attention to some serious general problems about the present provision of continuing care. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to those general problems. I shall speak briefly about a few of those problems, and shall try to phrase my comments in the form of supplementary questions so that the Minister may be able to address some of them in her reply to my noble friend.
First, it is probably worth repeating the basic facts that were given by my noble friend in his extremely comprehensive introduction. Two points stand out. The first is that nearly 70 per cent. of health authorities now fail to provide the minimum number of psychogeriatric
976
beds recommended by the Royal College of Physicians, and more than a half of health authorities provide in 1994 fewer beds than they did four years ago in 1990.
As my noble friend pointed out, we all know the demographic position in this country and how demand is clearly rising. So it is particularly surprising that at this time we are seeing less special provision of beds than we did four years ago. It seems clear that there must be a connection here with the introduction of the internal market and the reorganisation of community care. After all, as we all know, geriatrics, and psychogeriatrics in particular, have always been Cinderella services in the health service. Few people have wanted to work in them, and there have been relatively few specialist physicians. How much more so now, in 1994, when we see hospital trusts having to compete to achieve better star ratings for rapid patient throughput, and to try to balance their budgets by concentrating upon care which is economically efficient. I wonder to what extent the Minister thinks that the introduction of the health market has exacerbated the care problem in this area which we all know has always been financially difficult for local health authorities, but which now seems to be becoming almost scandalous.
The Alzheimer's Disease Society Report and my noble friend have drawn attention to the very patchy provision of continuing care, and the very different ways in which duties are interpreted at a local level. They have both called for more precise guidance from the Department of Health about minimum standards, and more direction from the centre. But of course that direction from the centre I see as one of the victims of the reorganisation. Even responsibility for care from the centre is, as my noble friend said, often denied, because chief executives and trust chairmen are given their heads. In many ways, that autonomy is welcome; but with issues like Alzheimer's Disease, which are unpopular and create special problems for local health authorities and local trusts, clear leadership is needed at a national level. After all, dementia, as we have heard, is a complex, degenerative condition which involves many expensive types of support. It is vital if we are to retain the concepts of the National Health Service that we must have national standards of care. The Government must ensure that they are adhered to.
I know that the health Minister, Mr. John Bowis, has recently written to the Alzheimer's Disease Society rejecting the need for further guidelines; but I hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will urge her colleague to think again and, perhaps in her reply will explain why the Government think that a departmental spur towards what could be uniformly good practice is unnecessary. One of the areas where national guidelines could be most helpful would be in demarcating the responsibilities of health and social services for the continuing care of dementia. We may need to go even further back than that, and try to secure a generally agreed definition of Alzheimer's disease as a progressive neurological disease, rather than, as it sometimes seems to be viewed, a social problem.
At the moment, as the society's report points out, the degenerative nature of the disease for which different types of care are appropriate at different stages, makes

977
it difficult for local authorities to pigeonhole sufferers as the responsibility of either health or social services. That is true of other degenerative conditions such as HIV infection and AIDS, Parkinson's Disease and multiple sclerosis. The trend in all those cases is for social services to assume more of the burden of care and more of the responsibility. That has been particularly true since the introduction of the National Health Service and community care Act just over a year ago.
During a debate on where we stood on community care that we had in your Lordships' House in the middle of March, we discussed how the arrangements for the special transitional grant to local authorities and the Government's insistence that 85 per cent. of that grant is spent in the private sector have, at least in the view of speakers from these Benches, impeded the development of community care for many client groups. As my noble friend described vividly, it has been particularly hard for people with dementia and their carers.
Alzheimer's disease sufferers are assessed increasingly under the community care regulations. As my noble friend Lord Stallard recalled, that means stringent means testing. Carers themselves are not offered a separate assessment of their needs. That has led to the chilling threats to occupational pensions and family homes that my noble friend mentioned. If one were to be entirely cynical, it would be easy to deduce an almost Machiavellian process here. People with dementia are assessed for social services continuing care rather than being treated as NHS patients. Social services are compelled to spend 85 per cent. of their STG on private sector provision which usually means, because that is where the private sector concentrates, spending it on residential homes.
Alzheimer's disease patients are discharged from health service beds to private residential homes with obvious financial savings to the NHS but at the same time sometimes crippling financial costs to partners and carers. I do not think that the process is cynically planned, merely because I think what we are seeing in the present situation is probably a rather unfortunate muddle. That muddle would be greatly reduced if in her reply the Minister could give us a clear definition of the circumstances and conditions in which anyone, anywhere, is entitled to an NHS continuing care bed. A clear picture of the extent and limit of the duty of continuing care in today's health service market would provide a touchstone against which to judge an individual's needs and the type of service he or she should expect, and from what kind of agency.
At the moment it seems that genuine confusion about that crucial definition of where duties lie is causing a dislocation of local services and great distress to people suffering from Alzheimer's disease which, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, described, is one of the most frightening conditions that anyone can face. These people are being passed from one agency to another and, frankly, when one looks at the examples given by the Alzheimer's Disease Society and other people involved in this area, many local authorities seem only to be competing with one another not to provide the right sort of care. That is a long way from ensuring a
978
comprehensive service from different providers, which was recently described as the ideal by Mr. Bowis when he wrote to the Alzheimer's Disease Society.
The Alzheimer's Disease Society has asked members of the health Select Committee in another place urgently to review the system of continuing care. I hope that that inquiry will happen so that the questions noble Lords have raised briefly this evening can be investigated thoroughly and discussed. In the meantime, it would be valuable if the Minister could respond to some of our specific questions, because we have a collective duty to ensure that particularly vulnerable members of our society are not falling through what seems to be an alarming gap in the provision of care, and that their carers are not being oppressed by additional unfair financial burdens.
8.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I should like first to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who has done much to improve the quality of life for those who suffer from mental illness, particularly through his work at MIND. I am very sorry that he is not here tonight, and, like the noble Baroness, I wish him a speedy recovery. I should like also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, on picking up the baton at such short notice, but with his long commitment and knowledge of the issue he has appeared to do it with great ease. I should like also to acknowledge the work of the Alzheimer's Disease Society, whose tireless efforts in this very difficult and, some would say, somewhat unpopular area are so impressive. It has proved to be a strong and effective advocate for sufferers and their carers and has made a forceful impact, concentrating the nation's attention on Alzheimer's Disease. The department recognises the work that it does by giving it both a core and a project grant.
In 1991 there were not merely 9.5 million people of retirement age, but, of those, 750,000 were aged over 85. That figure will increase to over 1 million by 2000 —the largest number of octogenarians this country has ever had. Many of those people, although admittedly not in the prime of life, contribute much to society. They participate in voluntary organisations and are as a group not only receivers of care but also care givers. I remember hearing an 85 year-old woman who, after spending years supporting Age Concern, told the director that, sadly, she had had enough and that she would be giving up. "I want to spend my free time working for the peace movement", she said.
Despite the numbers of older people who are fit and well, the increasing population represents a significant challenge and will have a real impact on the kind of services which we develop in the years to come. One of the commonest diseases occurring in older people is dementia. It is estimated that 20 per cent. of people aged over 80 suffer from it and the main cause is Alzheimer's disease.
It is the Government's policy that people with a mental illness, including those with dementia, should be treated and cared for as close to their homes as possible.

979
In order to provide a seamless service, those involved —the statutory, voluntary, private and independent sectors—should work as closely as possible not only with each other but with informal carers, friends, families and neighbours.
As one becomes older the relationships within a family change. I have heard daughters say how difficult it is to look after a deteriorating parent when that parent has formerly been in a position of authority, a source of wise counsel, advice, love and affection. Dementia can tragically change all that, as was graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It alters personalities and regardless of previous loving relationships a sufferer can become like a stranger. As one of the Alzheimer's Disease Society's striking posters states, "A wife can feel like a widow".
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the misery, the suffering and the tragic consequences for those with Alzheimer's disease cannot be underestimated. Nor do I wish to diminish the effect that a sufferer has on the rest of the family and indeed the community. But there is a balance, and some relations derive great satisfaction from caring for someone, however dependent, whom they love. Those people deserve not only praise but need a huge amount of support. Without it, their burdens become intolerable and they then feel diminished with a sense of failure. That is why it is essential that statutory services should respond promptly, flexibly and sensitively to meet their needs, giving them the necessary support.
In the past, older people with chronic mental health problems were often looked after in huge institutions. I visited many of those wards and I do have to say that, however ill or demented the patients, they were not appropriate places for people to live out the last years of their lives. Often they were frightening, impersonal and isolated places which posed great problems for friends and relations who wished to visit. Since then there has been a consistent effort to change the emphasis and to provide more places and more services in the community, using a wide range of facilities in the statutory, voluntary, independent and private sectors.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was critical of the internal market and the requirement that a percentage of the new community care grant should be spent in the private sector. That move has brought a whole range of new facilities to the community that were not previously available. It is choice and range and a wide number of different facilities and services that people want.
The new community care arrangements which we introduced in April 1993 reaffirmed our commitment to this approach. Our aim has been to offer social services departments and health authorities greater flexibility in responding to the needs of people who require long-term support. Local authorities, working with the health service, are responsible for assessing people's needs and, after close discussion with carers, for arranging support and services to meet those needs. This includes people who may require residential or nursing home care and who previously sought help from social security. Under the new arrangements, there are opportunities through imaginative commissioning to
980
enable very dependent people to remain in their own homes, if that is their wish, or to move into more homely residential or nursing homes. We have made significant new resources available to local authorities; £1.2 billion in the current financial year, rising to more than £1.8 billion next year.
Although it is still early days, there has been widespread support for this approach. The Audit Commission and the Association of Directors of Social Services have stated that the new arrangements have got off to a good start and that there is some evidence of more imaginative and flexible approaches being used to support vulnerable people in the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was anxious that the NHS no longer has a role in providing continuing care. This is not the case. We have always been clear that the NHS's responsibilities remain unchanged. Health authorities and, where appropriate, GP fundholders should be contracting for a range of services to meet the needs of people, including those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease. But we cannot agree with the noble Lord that national norms or quotas are the way forward in terms of bed numbers. We believe that decisions about what services are purchased must be taken locally. Health authorities need to take into account local facilities both in the NHS and the independent sector. They need to consider how to use not only the skills and expertise which are available among professionals but also the range of initiatives, strengths and resources which are inherent in every community. Organisations such as the Alzheimer's Disease Society which know so well the anxieties, the tribulations, and often the very modest demands of their members have a crucial role in influencing the decisions about the planning and delivery of services. I would expect all local and health authorities to work with such groups and to take account of their views in developing their strategies and commissioning plans.
In looking at continuing care services we have emphasised the need for clear local agreements between local authorities and health authorities about their respective responsibilities. This was stressed strongly during the run-up to the implementation of the new arrangements. To reinforce local action, we required all local authorities to submit, as a precondition of receiving the Community Care Special Transitional Grant, evidence of agreements with health authorities about their respective responsibilities for continuing care.
We are monitoring the arrangements very carefully. When cases are brought to the notice of the department we act promptly, as we did in the Leeds case. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will know that the health authority has since revised its policy. It took action before the new reforms were in place. We will keep under review the need for further guidance. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
The noble Lord asked a number of questions relating to charges for residential care. The general principle of local authorities charging for residential accommodation has been established since 1948. That principle did not alter as a result of the recent community care

981
changes. It is reasonable that people for whom social services, including residential accommodation, are provided should pay for the provision of those services in accordance with their means. Otherwise, people with assets are unnecessarily maintained at the expense of the taxpayer. The method by which local authorities assess the ability of residents to pay was largely brought into line with the income support assessment rules from April 1993. But, as the noble Lord mentioned, we have also issued guidance to local authorities which stresses to them their ability to vary the personal expenses allowance to allow a resident to support a spouse at home. We believe that that is a positive contribution to that issue, but again we shall keep the position under review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, emphasised the point made by the noble Lord that most district health authorities have not implemented the Royal College of Psychiatrists' recommendations with regard to bed norms. I would be concerned if this debate were to revolve only around the number of beds. We need to look at the range of services which district health authorities, together with social services, commission to meet the needs of people with dementia. With a greater emphasis on community care, different models of provision are possible and we need to look at the totality of what is provided.
We have to recognise also that patterns of care are changing and that many providers—for example, in York, Lewisham and Bexley—are providing new and innovative services in the community, working with carers and, in one case, very closely with the society.
The noble Baroness asked whether I would define health and social care responsibilities. She will know that that is very difficult because people with dementia are often in need of both health and social care. It is not a question of pigeon-holing people but of the two agencies working together to best meet the assessed needs of the individual and his carer.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to follow that up. It is not so much a question of creating a definite demarcation of administrative responsibility. But the concern is for people whose carers consider that they are ill and
982
therefore qualify absolutely for free NHS care when they may, under systems which seem to be becoming more common, be assessed under social services and therefore be liable to the type of means-testing on which my noble friend expanded in some detail when he asked the Question.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, for people with dementia, as is the case with other people who require NHS services, it is a question of clinical judgment. One of the issues that we have stressed to local authorities when they are making their assessments is that they need to involve the GP and in some cases the consultant who is involved with that person's care. It is a clinical judgment as to whether NHS care is needed but I appreciate that there are grey areas and that it is not possible to draw very strong demarcation lines. Often it must be left to the judgment of the individuals concerned.
I should like to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness with regard to the staffing of psychiatric services. I believe that the noble Baroness was suggesting that it is difficult to find people to work in psychiatric and pyschogeriatric services. But that is not always the case. Last Friday I was able to visit the psychiatric unit at the Manchester NHS Trust where I was shown one of the most, I thought, impressive facilities for people who are suffering from severe dementia. On that visit I was interested to find out from the sister in charge that she had a waiting list of staff wishing to work there.
Therefore, in conclusion, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this subject this evening. As I said earlier, the growing needs for health and social care of an ageing population present an important challenge to us and to agencies on the ground. I am convinced that the new community care arrangements provide a more flexible framework within which health and local authorities can work. But their success will not be judged solely by the number of beds provided but rather by the quality of care given to users, the support experienced by carers and the views of organisations such as the Alzheimer's Disease Society.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past nine o'clock.

  THE GUILDFORD FOUR: MAY REPORT
  THE GUILDFORD FOUR: MAY REPORT
  THE POSTAL SERVICES
  THE POSTAL SERVICES
  COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
  COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION STAFF: REDUNDANCY PROPOSALS
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION STAFF: REDUNDANCY PROPOSALS
  EUROPEAN ELECTIONS: EXPLANATORY PAMPHLET
  EUROPEAN ELECTIONS: EXPLANATORY PAMPHLET
  ISRAELI BOMB ATTACK ON IRAQ, 1981
  ISRAELI BOMB ATTACK ON IRAQ, 1981
  PUBLIC TRUST OFFICE EXECUTIVE AGENCY
  PUBLIC TRUST OFFICE EXECUTIVE AGENCY
  PHYSIOTHERAPISTS: REGISTRATION PROPOSAL
  PHYSIOTHERAPISTS: REGISTRATION PROPOSAL
  FUNDHOLDING PRACTICES: EFFICIENCY SAVINGS
  FUNDHOLDING PRACTICES: EFFICIENCY SAVINGS
  CARDIFF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LAND
  CARDIFF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LAND
  CARDIFF: HOUSING LAND SUPPLY
  CARDIFF: HOUSING LAND SUPPLY