Sitting of 15 March 1994

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to he read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Job Clubs
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of job clubs.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): May I begin by apologising to the hon. Gentleman and the House for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who is attending the job summit in Detroit.
    Next year, job clubs will be able to help 260,000 people, an increase of 20,000 on this year's record 240,000.
    Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister be more accurate about the efficacy of job clubs? Will he look at the north-west where there is less than a 50 per cent. placement record, which seems to be a bad investment considering the millions of pounds that are being put into what is really a cosmetic system?
    Mr. Forsyth: Job clubs are among the most effective measures provided by the Employment Service. They have helped over 580,000 people into work. The hon. Gentleman must be aware, for example, of people like the 50-year-old lady in his constituency who had been unemployed for 18 months and who found work as a result of being helped by a job club. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be more keen on the work carried out in his constituency than he is on that question.
    Mr. Ashby: The trouble with job clubs is that they are geared to the lowest common denominator. Will my hon. Friend try to change the way in which job clubs work so that they can help those in the higher echelons who are seeking to get back to work and who are currently hindered by the benefit rules as well? Could not the benefit rules also be altered so that they could assist people to get back to work?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Job clubs are not homogeneous—they cater for different groups.
    728
    Some job clubs provide help for people who have literacy and numeracy difficulties; some help executives who have been displaced; and others specialise in ex-offenders. My hon. Friend asked about the benefit system. He needs to address that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I believe that job clubs are very effective. They are extremely popular with those who participate in them. The Employment Service is to be congratulated on its success, which has been emulated around the world.

    Unemployment
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of people unemployed in the United Kingdom, including those who are unemployed who are not in receipt of unemployment benefit.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The claimant measure and the International Labour Organisation recommended measure both show falling unemployment in the United Kingdom at about 2.8 million.
    Mr. Evans: The Minister has just answered a question that I did not ask. Is not that a classic example of what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster described to a Select Committee as telling terminological inexactitudes to the House?
    Is the Minister aware, from answers that have been given to me by her Department and the Department of Social Security, that the true number of people without a job in Great Britain exceeds 4 million? Is not it time that the Government accepted and acknowledged that mass unemployment lies at the very heart of the country's economic, social and financial decline?
    Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman has a figure of more than 4 million, perhaps he should tell that to the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the shadow Chancellor because, at Harrogate on 16 November, the Leader of the Opposition referred to 3 million unemployed and, on 9 December, the shadow Chancellor referred to nearly 3 million unemployed.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that falling unemployment will not be assisted by interference in the labour market from Brussels?
    Miss Widdecombe: The consistent policy of this country is to have as flexible a labour market as possible. We believe that that has promoted employment and the increase in the civilian work force in employment. It ill becomes the Opposition not to take notice of that. Their policies would cause tremendous job losses, yet they appear still to be proud of them. They do not acknowledge the success of a flexible labour market.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister accept that a large number of the people who are not registered for unemployment benefit are young parents—particularly young mums—who cannot find nursery places for their children? Will the Government follow the example of the French Government and set about providing nursery places throughout the country to facilitate work?
    Miss Widdecombe: We know that, according to the British social attitudes survey, of those mothers whose

    729
    children are still of dependent age and who do not work, only some 6 per cent. cite child care costs as being the principal reason.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the number of people who are employed in this country is much higher than it was when the Government came to office in 1979? Does she agree that the European Community and interference from the Commission are more likely to add to unemployment than any Government policy?
    Miss Widdecombe: I have pleasure in confirming that there has been a rise in the civilian work force in employment. It is also true that that rise has taken place in most Labour constituencies, but that Opposition Members still tend to bemoan the levels of unemployment without looking at the positive side. As I said in response to an earlier question, the Government intend to preserve the flexibility of the labour market and to ensure that the opportunities for employment continue to increase.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister address her mind to the evidence that is being given by the Secretary of State at the G7 meeting in Detroit today? Will she confirm that the figures on unemployment in "The UK Approach", the document produced by the Government, are wrong? Does she accept that her Department's statisticians now recognise that the unemployment rate is certainly half a million more than is recorded in the document? That would take Britain from having below 10 per cent. unemployment to having over 10 per cent., and that is wrong.
    The Minister has responsibility for training the unemployed. On the same page of the document is a statement about changing the training structure in this country, but there is no statement about how many apprenticeships have been created. Will she confirm that the number is 150,000 fewer than in 1979 and that the document is no more than a tissue of lies that is being given to the rest of the world?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman has used decidedly unparliamentary language about the document.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Had that been the case, I would have asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark.
    Miss Widdecombe: It is beyond question that the figure of 2.8 million has not merely been produced by the Government's claimant count but is the International Labour Organisation's own definition. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that the International Labour Organisation has conspired with the Conservative Government to produce a figure that would specifically benefit the British unemployment rate? The figures that I have cited appear whichever measure is used.
    On the subject of apprenticeships, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the multiplicity of training schemes, including apprenticeships. He will also be aware of our initiative on modern apprenticeships. Why has the hon. Gentleman never managed to welcome modern apprenticeships?
    Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the independently collected ILO figures show that unemployment in Britain is below the EC average? Will she also
    730
    confirm that the figures show that the level of employment within the available work force as a whole is now the second highest in the EC?
    Miss Widdecombe: I have pleasure in confirming that we have the second highest number of people in work in the EC and that we have lower than average youth unemployment. In many other trends, particularly part-time work, we are one of the EC leaders. Will the Opposition welcome that as well?

    EC Directives
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on EC directives on employment-related issues which are being opposed by the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Government will continue to resist any Commission proposals that reduce competitiveness and destroy jobs.
    Mr. McFall: The British Government have opposed European directives on working time and the protection of young people at work. Britain is the only European country that has no legal pay protection. Is the Minister proud of an employment agenda consisting of long hours, low pay and inadequate protection for people as young as 14 or 15?
    Mr. Forsyth: Is the hon. Gentleman proud to be a member of a party that would stop teenagers being able to—
    Mr. McFall: Answer the question.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question. He asked me about the young workers directive. The hon. Gentleman supports his socialist friends in the European Parliament in their attempt to stop teenagers having jobs as paper boys and Saturday jobs. That is a disgrace.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Government have made it clear that they are opposed to the 48-hour week directive, will the Minister let us know when he expects to hear from the European Court about whether we have to apply it or not?
    Mr. Forsyth: As my hon. Friend knows, we have made it clear that we are challenging the working time directive. It was introduced under article 118A, which is a health and safety measure. That is an abuse by the Commission of the powers under the treaty. We have made a vigorous case in defence of our right to set proper standards in Britain. We believe that standards for working time are best negotiated between employers and employees.
    Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister boasts about creating jobs. Why is it that Italy can create six times as many jobs as the United Kingdom, Germany four times as many and France twice as many, yet those countries still give their workers proper employment and social protection rights? Why is the Government's definition of competitiveness screwing down wages, sacking workers and giving them a worse deal than workers in any other country in Europe?
    Mr. Forsyth: In Britain, take-home pay is among the highest in the Community as a result of the policies that the Government have pursued. As for the point about other European countries, the hon. Lady must know that they

    731
    have a smaller proportion of their working population in work than the United Kingdom. That is because of the success of our policies. While we are on that matter, will the hon. Lady tell the House at some stage how we are expected to pay the £20 billion bill that introducing a 35-hour working week would cost employers in Britain? That is what she and her party have signed up to in the manifesto for the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is my hon. Friend aware that the announcement by the Social Affairs Commissioner, Mr. Padraig Flynn, that it is his intention that 10 million legal immigrants to countries in the European Union should have the right to work in the United Kingdom has caused alarm and anxiety to the British public, not least to the 2.75 million people who are out of work now? Will he make it his business to see off that provocative proposal?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am aware of several initiatives that the Commission has proposed which have caused anxiety to those of us—particularly in the Conservative party—who wish to ensure that our country remains competitive and that we offer good job prospects for the future.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to make the TECs more accountable to the communities they serve.
    Miss Widdecombe: TECs already consult widely in planning and publish their plans and annual reports. Their performance is open to public scrutiny through the comparison tables published by the Department.
    Mr. Prentice: If the TECs are to made more accountable, will the Minister join me in unreservedly condemning the decision of my local training and enterprise council, East Lancashire TEC, to refuse to appoint any elected member from the local district councils and instead to appoint the chief executive of Hyndburn? He has many excellent qualities, but being elected is not one of them. Does the Minister take any responsibility for the mushrooming number of quangos and the anti-democratic culture that they spawn?
    Miss Widdecombe: I am rather surprised at that question because ELTEC has the leader of Lancashire county council on its board.
    Mr. Paice: But is it not the case that more than 90 per cent. of our work force is in work and that, however important it may be to provide schemes for the unemployed, TECs should be accountable to the businesses that employ those 90 per cent. and on which we primarily rely for the well-being of this country?
    Miss Widdecombe: That is why it is important that TEC boards consist of leaders of the business community; that they are involved in partnerships; and that they are delivering training locally according to local business needs and local business perceptions.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will have seen the highly critical report that was published by the London School of Economics on the performance, management style and use of resources of TECs in England and Wales. One aspect that worries many Opposition Members is the
    732
    proposal in that report to halve the number of TECs and thus to make them much larger and less responsive to the needs of their communities. Do the Government intend to respond to that report?
    Miss Widdecombe: The report by the London School of Economics was based on much outdated material, and much of the material was gathered when TECs were at fairly early stages. Therefore, many of its criticisms were not well founded. We have no current intentions of changing the present TEC structures.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the Calderdale and Kirklees TEC in my constituency? Does she agree that, had Labour local politicians tried to help their communities for the past 15 years, rather than blindly opposing any Government policy, TECs would perhaps not have been necessary?
    Miss Widdecombe: The answer to that is yes on both counts.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The House knows that many questions have been asked about the accountability of TECs as regards Astra Skills Training Ltd. Precisely why was the Department of Employment prepared to account, and to pay, redundancy payments on civil service terms, to TICC Ltd.'s former employees at the point of bankruptcy, but not to make the same offer to those people who had given many years of service to Astra and lost literally tens of thousands of pounds because of the actions of this Government?
    Miss Widdecombe: In the case of TICC, at the point of liquidation, the employees still enjoyed civil service redundancy rights because their terms had not changed. In the case of Astra, the employees themselves had twice agreed to a change of terms.

    Foyer Initiative
    Mr. Hendry:: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives his Department is taking to support the foyer initiative to co-ordinate accommodation, training and employment policies for young people.
    Miss Widdecombe: The Department has contributed nearly half a million pounds to the foyer initiative through support for the employment and training elements of five pilot foyers, secondment of staff and funding for publicity material. In addition, the Department of the Environment, through the Housing Corporation, is providing several million pounds' worth of capital and revenue support.
    Mr. Hendry: I thank my hon. Friend for that statement of the degree of Government support for the foyer initiative. Can she confirm that an analysis of the foyer programme shows that up to 60 per cent. of previously homeless unemployed youngsters have ended up in accommodation and in work or training? Does not the foyer initiative show, at its most effective, the way in which Government Departments are working together and co-operating to tackle a range of problems that confront young people?
    Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that so far foyers have been successful. According to the Young Men's Christian Association report, 567 young people have taken part; a third have

    733
    begun training; more than half have begun job search; and 180 have been placed in permanent jobs and 74 in temporary jobs.
    Mr. Clapham: The skills levels among the British work force are about 40 per cent. of those of our major competitors. Obviously there has been a lack of investment since 1979. Why are the Department and the Government failing to pick up the aid package that is on offer from the EEC?
    Miss Widdecombe: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that there has been no lack of investment. What is more, the investment is not only Government investment. About £20 billion comes from the private sector. If Opposition Members are seriously worried about skills shortages, do they welcome national vocational qualifications, general national vocational qualifications and modern apprenticeships—all measures which the Government have taken to improve the skills level in this country?

    Works Councils Directive
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had recently with the European Commission about the European works councils directive.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State restated the Government's firm opposition to the proposal when he met Commissioner Flynn on 28 February.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that under the Single European Act we had a veto over that directive and that under the Maastricht treaty we no longer have a veto, so the directive may proceed in the other 11 countries with damaging consequences for British jobs and British industry'' Does he agree that, given the fourth framework directive on social Europe and the continuing court judgments imposing social Europe on this country whether we like it or not, we need to address the issue of social Europe at the. intergovernmental conference in 1996 to protect British industry and jobs?
    Mr. Forsyth: No, I do not agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. It is clear under the social protocol that agreements made by the Eleven will not apply to the United Kingdom. A text that appears to be rather ragged in that respect has been circulated for consultation, but the United Kingdom means to ensure that the terms of the protocol set out under the Maastricht treaty are observed. On the 1996 conference, I agree with my hon. Friend that the whole question of European competitiveness and the impact of some of the proposals that have been put forward as social measures will need to be addressed.
    Mr. Grocott: May I give the Minister an opportunity to put to the test his eccentric theory that the lack of worker protection in Britain brings jobs to Britain? Will he make a firm prediction that, because of the lack of worker protection in Britain, the takeover of Rover by BMW will mean fewer jobs in Germany and more in Britain? If he believes that, he believes anything.
    Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Britain is getting the lion's share of inward investment from the United States and Japan into the Community because of the
    734
    labour market policies that we have pursued and our general economic approach. He describes as eccentric the theory that excessive protection destroys jobs. He may like to read some of the speeches currently being made by Spain's socialist Prime Minister, who says that, in order to create more jobs, it will be necessary to remove some protection from the workers. So that eccentric theory is well understood by politicians across the political divide. Only the British Labour party is stuck in the time warp of the 1950s and 1960s.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is just the sort of petty bureaucratic regulation that is so favoured by Opposition Members and rightly opposed by British employers? Is it not simply an attempt to introduce the social chapter by the back door?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government favour worker involvement, participation and consultation. What we are against is their imposition by statute. If they are done voluntarily, they will work; if they are imposed by statute, as proposed in the European works council directive, they will be inflexible, destroy competitiveness, make it less easy for business to respond to market needs, and therefore destroy jobs.
    Mr. Barron: If the Minister really believes that, will he explain why Germany, which has had workers' councils and workers' directives for decades, has a £20 billion surplus in world trade while we have a £13 billion deficit?
    Mr. Forsyth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed it, but in Germany unemployment is going up. It has broken the 4 million barrier and is at its highest level since the Weimar republic. In Britain, unemployment is falling. We are unique in that respect and the hon. Gentleman should recognise that our policies have created the opportunity for unemployment to fall so quickly during a recovery.

    Child Care Grant
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made with making the out-of-school child care grant self-financing.
    Miss Widdecombe: The out-of-school child care grant provides financial and other help for the start up of new after-school and holiday child care schemes. Training and enterprise councils may fund individual schemes for up to 12 months, after which they are expected to become self-financing. It is still too early in the cycle of the schemes to obtain reliable information about how far they are succeeding.
    Mrs. Gorman: While I welcome whole-heartedly the Government's determination to ensure that children have somewhere to go after school instead of running round the streets and perhaps getting into mischief, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be easier for those schemes to continue if parents could treats the costs as tax deductible expenses and if those parents who have to work to support themselves and their families could be given assistance without losing wages or benefits?
    Miss Widdecombe: Our view is that it is not for the Government alone, either through tax relief or other measures, to fund such schemes, but that they must be

    735
    funded by partnerships of employers, volunteers, the employees themselves, Government and other local interests.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Minister recognise that at a cost of £30 a week in school time and £60 a week in the holidays, such provision will not help families in areas of deprivation, particularly if the Government insist on the schemes being self-financing after one year?
    Miss Widdecombe: I believe that people in areas of deprivation will benefit substantially from the £28 disregard that we introduced into family credit. The hon. Lady says that the cost is a prohibitive factor. It is worth recording that on the basis of partnerships and other provisions that we have introduced since 1988, nursery places are up 150 per cent., places with registered child minders are up 40 per cent. and more than 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds spend some time each week with their peers in some form of provision.

    Maternity and Paternity Leave
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to improve the employment rights to time off for maternity and paternity leave.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: All women will soon have a new right to 14 weeks maternity leave.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: As someone who was refused paternity leave from this place, may I press the Minister to take the issue seriously and to pull his finger out? When the Government profess to believe in the International Year of the Family, why are they so mean minded about parental leave? Why are we light years behind most other European countries on this matter?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure who refused the hon. Gentleman his paternity leave. If it was his Whips, I suggest that they adopt a rather more enlightened policy in line with the Labour party research document that was published in 1990.
    Mrs. Gillan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although our maternity provisions are excellent in the United Kingdom, it is still quite ridiculous that mothers who are cleared to adopt babies cannot get the same maternity provisions as natural birth mothers? I am referring to my constituent Dr. Estelle McAndrew who is cleared to adopt a baby, but cannot get the same provision as she would if she were giving birth to a child.
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend raised this matter in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill Committee. As she will know, only a small proportion of adoptions—I believe under 9 per cent.—involve children under the age of one year. Without getting into the technicalities, there are clear differences between adopting a child and giving birth and the period immediately before and after that, which is why we thought it appropriate to make provisions for statutory leave.

    Employment Statistics
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve the accuracy of employment statistics.
    Miss Widdecombe: We have introduced a number of improvements over the past two years. Further improvements, based on completion of the inter-departmental business register are in hand.
    Mr. Flynn: Has the Minister noticed that, in the meaningless propagandist fantasy of Government employment figures, the record number of part-time workers are counted as full-time workers, that the number of self-employed are estimated and out by at least 1 million and that more than 1 million people are counted twice? Can the Minister answer a question without blaming the last or the next Labour Government and confess that the employment figures are a tissue of Waldegraves?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman—as is consistent with Opposition Members—is extremely selective in the sources that he quotes and, as usual, misses completely the fact that in addition to the growth in employment figures we also published the labour force quarterly survey, which gives all the breakdowns that he has just mentioned. We published it, he can read it; I suggest that the Labour party does so.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware that many early retired people are forced to sign on to ensure the continuance of their national insurance contributions? Does she believe that, in many instances, such people are not seeking work and are falsely inflating the unemployment figures?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is undeniable that we include figures in our claimant counts that the International Labour Organisation does not include in its count. It is also true therefore that of course the figures are inflated by the numbers that my hon. Friend suggests. Nevertheless, it is right that people should sign on for national insurance credits. It is also right that there should be more than one measure. As I have to say yet again, all the measures show the same figures and the same trends. That means that they are the best possible guide to what is happening in Britain.

    Parental Leave
    Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made on implementing parental leave.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Arrangements for parental leave are a matter for voluntary agreement between employers and employees.
    Ms Corston: Can the Minister explain why the British Government have consistently blocked the European Union parental leave directive? Is not that a disgrace in view of the fact that Britain is the only country that does not provide some form of family leave and that the Equal Opportunities Commission calculated that the cost of 10 days' paternity leave would be the same as one quarter of a day's holiday for the entire work force? Would not that be money well spent?
    Mr. Forsyth: I beg to differ with the hon. Lady. Britain is not the only country that has had trouble with the Belgian text of the directive on parental leave. The hon. Lady is also wrong to suggest that Britain is alone in not providing parental leave. There is only one—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady keeps shouting "family leave", but her question is about parental leave. She will

    737
    know that only Denmark offers paid parental leave to both parents. Other countries have different arrangements and most allow only one parent to have leave. Policies differ as to whether it should be paid. We believe that the issue is best taken forward voluntarily. Some employers, such as Abbey National, have very enlightened policies, in contrast to what we learn about the Chief Whip's Office. That is the way forward.
    Mr. Rowe: Did my hon. Friend hear the other day the personnel director of Boots explaining that it was profitable to the company to provide such a facility because it was much better than having a disgruntled work force? Is not it much better for firms to make their own calculation as to whether it is profitable for them to provide such a service rather than have it forced on them?
    Mr. Forsyth: I should explain, in case I find myself taking leave, that I was referring earlier to the Opposition Chief Whip's Office and not the Chief Whip's Office. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says. One of the advantages in going forward voluntarily is that flexible policies can be adopted. I mentioned Abbey National as an example of an employer who allows five-year career breaks, provides help with child care and allows flexible working hours. That is the way forward—not to try to write rigid regulations, particularly at a European level.

    Hereford and Worcester TEC
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the performance of the Hereford and Worcester training and enterprise council.
    Miss Widdecombe: Hereford and Worcester training and enterprise council is regarded as an effective TEC. It has performed very well on most of the indicators published in the 1992–93 inter-TEC comparison tables.
    Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend recall visiting Worcester last month, when she was told about the important role. of Hawtec, together with the chamber of commerce and local authorities, in establishing a business link in the county, and when she made awards to Hawtec for its success with both Investors in People and BS5750? Does not that underline what she has already said about the excellent performance of Hawtec?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, I am delighted to repeat the congratulations that I offered when I visited my hon. Friend's training and enterprise council. That TEC is certainly an excellent example of what can be achieved; it is particularly gratifying that it managed to succeed with both Investors in People and the BS5750. My hon. Friend has reason to be proud of his TEC, and the TEC has reason to be proud of him.

    Full Employment
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy as regards the attainment of full employment.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Government have a wide range of policies to promote employment growth and reduce unemployment.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does not the Minister understand that the Government's employment figures disguise the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people in part-time work who seek and need full-time work, but are at present denied it? Does he not realise that many flagship employers, including Marks and Spencer, now employ part-timers in preference to full-timers as a matter of policy, and that many young men and women who have left school are denied the opportunity of job satisfaction and a career, despite their zeal and their skills?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The labour force survey shows that 75 per cent. of those in part-time work are in such work because they want part-time jobs. It is disgraceful for Opposition Members, who seek to present themselves as the champions of women, to denigrate part-time work, which has enabled many women to take a place in the work force while continuing to fulfil their responsibilities for child care and so forth.
    The survey shows that only 13 per cent. of those in part-time work would prefer to be in full-time work. A part-time job is better than no job at all, but if Opposition Members had their way they would regulate part-time jobs out of existence.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Why do Opposition Members continually miss the point about unemployment? Do they not understand that labour market regulations and directives add to industry's costs, and cost employees their jobs? Why do they not consider the experience of Spain, where—with all the benefits of a socialist Government and the tightest labour market laws in Europe—nearly a quarter of its work force are out of jobs?
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. At the time of the Chancellor's Budget in March 1993, the Leader of the Opposition said that the test for the Government would be the test of whether unemployment fell. Unemployment has fallen month after month; it has fallen by 200,000 since January 1993. Opposition Members should recognise why that is happening: it is happening because of the success of our labour market policies.
    Mr. Cryer: If the Government's policies are so successful, can the Minister tell us when they will achieve the unemployment level attained in April 1979, under the last Labour Government? The figure then was 4.1 per cent.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should know that more people want to take their place in the labour force; that we have the highest proportion of women in work in the European Community, apart from Denmark; that we have a higher proportion of our people in work; and that we are creating more jobs. If we embraced the policies of Opposition Members—the minimum wage, the social chapter and other measures that would destroy jobs—we would never reach the goal that the hon. Gentleman has set himself. This Government have been more successful than any other Government in Europe in tackling unemployment; that is why unemployment is falling in Britain and rising everywhere else.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that the change in the benefit system and the introduction of incapacity benefit represent a great drive by this

    739
    Conservative Government to tide people over until they are fit enough to return to work? We do not intend people to be invalids for life.
    Mr. Forsyth: The vast majority of unemployed people want to return to work and the Employment Service is doing better than ever in helping them to do so. That is a tribute to its innovative approach. I believe that unemployment will continue to fall, because of the success of the supply-side reforms that we have introduced into the economy. If Opposition Members had their way, we would be condemning millions of our people to the dole with their minimum wage proposals and other social chapter measures.

    Youth Unemployment, Leicester
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of youth unemployment in the city of Leicester; and what it was in March 1979.
    Miss Widdecombe: In the Leicester local authority district, unadjusted claimant unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds fell from 6,762 in October 1983, which is the earliest available date for such disaggregated figures, to 5,501 in January 1994.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister know that since her Government took office the number of unemployed young people in the county of Leicestershire has nearly doubled? Does she accept the ultimate misery of youngsters who have no jobs, cannot get jobs and have no prospect of ever securing jobs?
    Miss Widdecombe: What I accept is what must be the ultimate misery of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents in having a Member of Parliament who never brings them the good news and who never brings them hope. Why does not the hon. and learned Gentleman point out that unemployment in his region is down by 7 per cent? Why does not he point out that the number of young people waiting more than eight weeks for a guaranteed youth training place has fallen from 70 to three in one year? Why does he not welcome the fact that, in the context of the European Community, we have a lower-than-average youth unemployment rate? Why does not he welcome all this, and why do not his hon. Friends join in the welcome?

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q 1. Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ms Eagle: On top of all the tax increases that he will impose in April, how can the Prime Minister justify the new insurance premium tax, which will hit hardest those who live in areas of high crime, such as my constituency? Is not the truth that, while Labour is tough on crime and on the causes of crime, the right hon. Gentleman's Government are tough just on the victims of crime?
    The Prime Minister: We seek to be tough on the people who perpetrate crime. I believe that that should be the ambition of every hon. Member. We have raised taxes for the reasons that I have previously set out in the House, and we have chosen to spread the load in the way that we think is most appropriate. Those are the measures that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor set out. If the hon. Lady opposes tax increases, I trust that she will indicate where she would cut expenditure.
    Mr. Dicks: In the light of the mortar attacks at Heathrow airport, which is in my constituency, will my right hon. Friend tell the IRA that there is no place for it at the peace table, and will he institute a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland to enable the security forces to eliminate all IRA terrorists in the Province?
    The Prime Minister: The attacks on Heathrow airport demonstrated once again the IRA's callous disregard for the safety of ordinary members of the public and its disregard for the words that its own members utter from time to time. The whole House will regard the IRA's action as totally despicable. It is certainly the case that it cannot bomb its way back to the negotiating table, either now or at any stage in the future. However, I am not sure that I can endorse the particular measure that my hon. Friend proposes.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister think it satisfactory that, in the space of a single year, the amount spent on cars by health service trusts has increased by 65 per cent. to a total of nearly £25 million?
    The Prime Minister: One of the purposes of health service trusts is to enable their managers—[Interruption] If hon. Members listen, they will get their answer. One of the purposes of trusts is to enable managers, across the whole range of their activities, to determine how best to use the resources at their disposal. The growth in the number of trusts, the improvement in services and the rise in the number of patients treated demonstrate the trusts' increasing success.
    Mr. John Smith: Perhaps we should test the situation by individual examples. Is the Prime Minister aware that the St. James's University hospital trust has increased its car bill by more than 200 per cent. and that in the case of Kingston hospital the increase is 250 per cent? Is that the Government's order of priorities? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that most people in the country want to see money spent on patients and not on cars?
    The Prime Minister: The overall priority, on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be best advised to concentrate, is whether more patients are being treated, either in individual hospitals or in hospitals in general. I cannot carry in my head the details of individual expenditure in every health authority, and neither can the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What I can say is that it is right to devolve responsibility rather than to centralise it, as he would do, and that it is right to take action administratively to increase and improve the patient service that is offered. More patients are being treated and they are being treated better, with a wider range of operations and treatment than ever before.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister understand that hardly a day goes by without further evidence of waste and inefficiency in the health service,

    741
    introduced as a result of the Government's changes? Does not he appreciate that, whatever he can or cannot hold in his head, it is the daily experience of both patients and staff that the health service is being undermined by this gross misallocation of priorities?
    The Prime Minister: I do not recall the right hon. and learned Gentleman ever mentioning any of the inefficiencies in expenditure that occurred prior to these reforms. He was perfectly prepared to condone them at that stage; we are trying to put them right. That is the reason for the changed management structure and devolvement of responsibility. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's question shows that he remains an unreconstructed centralist and is unwilling to trust people with devolved responsibilities.
    Mr. Sykes: To turn to far more important matters, is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread pleasure and relief in Scarborough, Whitby and other seaside resorts following the Government's action yesterday to curb the rising tide of benefit hostels on our English coasts?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly true that that is the case in Yorkshire, but the problem is in Blackpool, Bournemouth and many other parts of the country as well. My hon. Friend and many of my other hon. Friends have campaigned extremely hard to have it solved. I believe that the announcement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State yesterday will be welcomed by hoteliers, residents and taxpayers who feel that they have been taken for a ride for too long. Not only will it prevent the problem spreading, but the licensing scheme that we are examining may also deal with the problem that currently exists.
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: With only 3 per cent. of people north and south of the Irish border expressing any support for the pursuit of violence, does not the Prime Minister believe that this vindicates the patient approach that he has taken towards the pursuit of peace in Northern Ireland? In that context, does not he believe that he should raise with the Taoiseach the use of the political defence as a way of justifying murder and terrorism and as an argument against extradition in the Irish courts? Will he also consider the possibility of the creation of an interlocutor or mediator to pursue the course of peace in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he has consistently given to our attempts to secure peace in Northern Ireland. I agree with him that the extradition arrangements need to be strengthened. That is why I welcome, in particular, the new Irish extradition Bill which will make the arrangements between our countries more logical and more straightforward.
    As I indicated a moment ago, on the hon. Gentleman's first point there will be no negotiations with Sinn Fein before a permanent end to the IRA's violence. I do not intend that we should be shifted from our present course. I believe that it has the overwhelming support of people in the island of Ireland and that it has huge support both in
    742
    this country and abroad. The Taoiseach and I intend to press ahead with our talks in the hope that we will be able to find a peaceful future for Ireland.
    Dr. Liam Fox: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Fox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that British interests in Europe have always been better represented by Conservatives than by socialists or Liberals? Will he assure the House that the protection of British interests in Europe will lie at the heart of our position in the current negotiations on the widening of Europe and on qualified majority voting?
    The Prime Minister: I do believe that it is important that this country plays a full part in the European community and exercises its influence both on behalf of the people in this country and on behalf of Europe as whole. We have sought for a long time to have enlargement, and we are very much in favour of it. The negotiations are very nearly complete. The present discussions between the Twelve are about the institutional changes that will accompany the enlargement. Like many other states, we attach importance to qualified majority voting, but I think that it is right to consider very carefully the effect on QMV of an increase in membership. What we need to ensure is that democratic legitimacy and the rights of minorities are sustained within the European Union. That is what my right hon. Friend will be seeking to do in his negotiations.
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Prime Minister agree that the short-term policies of banks and financial institutions undermine the recovery of manufacturing companies such as Rover? Does that reflect a lack of confidence in his Government, or is it nothing to do with him?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman will see from most of the statistics now being produced that manufacturing industry is in fact recovering and it is recovering rather well. It is increasingly—[Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) waving his finger. If he will give me time, I shall get to his question if he can bear to be patient for a second. Banks are seeking to provide resources for appropriate lending. The question of lending to Rover is of course something that Rover pursues with its own bankers and not with anyone else. [Interruption.] It is interesting to see that the hon. Gentleman would have Government Ministers determine individual bank loans to individual companies. I am pleased to see another indication of the centralism that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was attempting to shrug off a moment ago.
    Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Given the importance of the construction industry to the economy as a whole, does my right hon. Friend agree that the latest figures for private orders are excellent news for British firms and British jobs?
    The Prime Minister: Construction orders are now at a very high level; higher than they have been for some years. New housing starts are still up and I trust that they will continue. Confidence is growing and a large part of this is, of course, related directly to the economic policies that enabled us to reduce interest rates—I am perfectly happy to accept responsibility for that.
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Simpson: Is the Prime Minister aware that last year in Nottingham, 1,090 households faced repossession and that, in the same year, the city was allowed to build a grand total of only 12 houses for rent? Is there any practical advice and help that the Prime Minister is able to offer to the 99 per cent. of households caught in the terrible truth between his rhetoric and repossession, or is it yet another matter that is not of his concern?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, as the economy recovers and interest rates have fallen, the number of repossessions is also falling and falling quite distinctly. What of course is also necessary in providing rented accommodation is that local
    744
    authorities, notably Labour local authorities, should fill up the property that they have and not leave large numbers of voids and empties in many parts of the country.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept the need to reduce public borrowing? Is he aware that Ealing Conservative council has now repaid £75 million of the £158 million borrowed between 1986 and 1990 by the then Labour council, and that Birmingham, Hackney and Manchester have debts higher than many third world countries? [interruption.] All Labour-controlled councils.
    Hon. Members: Name them.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friends are tempting me to name them, but I fear that it would take up the rest of today's Question Time and all of Thursday's. I congratulate Ealing on reducing its debt. However, my hon. Friend was being characteristically generous in naming only three Labour authorities. He could have named substantially more. I know that the Labour party has a lot to say to us from time to time about third world debt. It is about time that it did something about fourth-rate Labour authorities that build up debts as large as, if not larger than, third world debt itself.

Contaminated Land
3.30 pm
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require those who were responsible for polluting land to be responsible for its restoration and decontamination; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is designed to ensure the remedying of contaminated land under the general principle of the polluter pays. The need for and the benefit of such legislation should be plain to all: the improvement of our environment in the immediate locality of the sites involved, the removal of obstacles to the redeveloping of derelict and contaminated land and thereby relieving pressure on green belt and virgin green field sites, and the insurance of not handing to future generations the responsibilities of our actions in a totally unreasonable and irresponsible manner.
My Bill would require a monitoring of current processes to ensure that contamination is avoided and minimised. It would require the treatment of contamination as it arises or, where appropriate, in a reasonable time scale of a site being vacant or a polluting process ceasing to operate. It would require the establishment and maintenance of a register of contaminated land to ensure that full information was available to potential purchasers, developers, local authorities and the public.
The necessity for such a Bill should be clear. The Government have repeatedly mouthed the slogan of "the polluter pays" and time and again they have run up to the fence and refused to jump it. In January 1990, the Environment Select Committee said:
"it is the responsibility of the polluters to restore land on surrender or to ensure that clean up will take place."
It called for a code of practice to be implemented by the industry within two years and, failing that, for legislative action to be taken. Almost four years later, the Lords Committee on remedying environmental damage said that when one considers Government policy,
"It is quickly apparent that the polluter pays principle is providing no more than general indications of what might he desirable policy."
The Government's recently released consultation paper "Paying For Our Past" shirks the issue entirely and effectively advocates the continuation of the status quo. It states:
"If unnecessarily early steps to treat land have to be taken, this may positively jeopardise wealth creation … Contamination on most sites can he safely left until an opportunity such as redevelopment arises."
That, plus the Government's deregulation initiative, should be understood as the. clearest of signs that the Government will maintain the status quo. The green veil behind which they have sought to hide their policies has been exposed and has fallen, and we can now see clearly that the vested interests which caused many of the problems on the sites, and which in some cases continue to cause them, are to be protected.
The realities of the Government's protecting of the vested interests and of the status quo can be seen all over the country. I could give so many instances that I do not have time to mention them all. In Armley, in Leeds, the residents of 258 properties face average bills of £7,500 to clean up asbestos pollution. A former factory has been
746
clearly identified as the cause of the pollution, yet residents have been told by the local authority that if they do not clear the pollution the council will clear it at their expense.
The failure to enact section 37 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 caused a huge rush among waste disposal operators to return their landfill licences, thereby avoiding all responsibility for the damage done to the sites over the years when profits were derived from their operation. The liability has thus been transferred back to the public purse. The Government's failure there has imposed a direct and considerable burden on the taxpayer.
In my constituency we have Foleshill town gasworks site—57 acres of derelict land, some of which has been derelict for 20 or 30 years. That is 57 acres of disgrace, danger and mess for the people who have to live around it. The site cannot be properly protected, and children gain access to it and play dangerously there. Criminal elements, too, gain access and get up to all sorts of activities such as breaking up cars. The heavy metal deposits on the site are a grave danger to the health of nearby residents. Moreover, the potential opportunity to create 2,500 jobs in a constituency in which 6,000 people are unemployed continues to be missed because of an over-long negotiation between British Gas and the Government about who should accept the responsibility.
Some issues that arise from that example are outside the scope of my Bill, but I can mention some of them. For instance, who is responsible for the pollution on such a site? British Gas was publicly owned until recently. Now that it is a private company, is it to accept responsibility for the pollution, or did the Government frame the privatisation legislation so as to transfer the asset into the private sector while leaving the liabilities with the taxpayer in the public sector?
Another issue that is causing problems affecting the site in my constituency is an unholy row between the Department and British Gas on grant allocations in central Manchester, where it is alleged that British Gas has managed to claim £4.4 million for site redevelopment to which it was not entitled.
It seems that the old maxim, "Tell Sid," which we heard at the time of privatisation, will soon become, "Keep a close eye on Sid" if the lesson of central Manchester is learnt. Meanwhile, the people of Foleshill continue to suffer that appalling situation in my constituency, and the consequent lack of opportunities. That and the many other examples from all over the land should prove that legislation such as my Bill is required.
The Government have signed up to such documents as, "Agenda 21" and "Sustainable Development—the UK Strategy". Those documents stem from the Rio summit and, as has been shown, the Government are effectively sustaining the status quo and their policy is totally at odds with those stated aims. My Bill will be at odds with their policy; it will be at odds with the thrust towards deregulation in this sector. It will seek to take effective action, to prevent, cure and monitor contaminated land and to relieve the green belt by, wherever possible, bringing it back into economic use at the expense of the polluter.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Ainsworth, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Ms Estelle Morris, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. Robert Litherland, Mr. George Howarth and Mr. Harry Barnes.

CONTAMINATED LAND
Mr. Robert Ainsworth accordingly presented a Bill to require those who were responsible for polluting land to be responsible for its restoration and decontamination; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 May 1994, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

Points of Order
3.40 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that has been brought to my attention. In Thursday's debate, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), without informing me that she would name me, accused me of dishonourable conduct. She made the entirely untrue accusation that I bought, sold and profited from council housing. Through you, Madam Speaker, I request the hon. Lady to withdraw her accusation because I have never owned, bought, sold, lived in or rented a council house in my life. The accusation that she made about me is entirely wrong.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker: I noticed that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was named. I had intended to name another hon. Member. I went to the Hansard office and corrected the matter immediately.
Madam Speaker: The matter has been resolved. I am most grateful.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you read the Order Paper every morning and that you will have noticed that I have tabled an early-day motion concerning more than 100 people in the Campsfield detention centre who are seeking asylum in this country and, to get their cases heard, have gone on hunger strike. I am sure that you will agree that that is an important and urgent matter because their lives are at risk in the long term. Have you had any intimation from the Home Secretary that he takes the matter seriously and plans to make a statement to the House about the plight of those poor people, who have come to this country to seek safety from oppression abroad?
Madam Speaker: It is a little early in the week to draw attention to early-day motions. No Minister has informed me that he or she wants to make a statement on the subject that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Local government reorganisation has been debated extensively. The Government have consulted widely, issuing three documents and subsequently publishing the White Paper on Wales on St. David's day last year. Each of those papers generated many hundreds of responses, which have been placed in the Library.
  We established the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government so that representatives of both counties and districts could advise us. Groups of local authority workers worked with the Welsh Office to consider the practical implications of our proposals. More recently, working groups have been considering how to manage the transition to the new structure. I and my ministerial colleagues have had many meetings with Members of Parliament, councillors, professional organisations and members of the public. I am grateful for the positive co-operation of so many local councillors and their officers and much of the good advice from Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that, after having all that consultation with local government organisations and Members of Parliament, he still proposes a Bill that is actively opposed by 32 out of the 38 Members of Parliament who represent Wales, as is shown by the amendment on the Order Paper? Can he confirm that in the Cabinet in the autumn he offered to withdraw the Bill but that that offer was swept to one side on the basis that a consensus existed in Wales? Is not it clear now that there is no consensus in Wales for the Bill, and will the Secretary of State now withdraw it?
  Mr. Redwood: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise. As the reasoned amendment makes clear, there is strong support for the idea of unitary authorities in Wales. Labour Members have different arguments. They wish to see an additional assembly on top of the unitary authorities that we are proposing. I know from my discussions with hon. Members on both sides of the House that there is a lot of support for the thrust of having unitary authorities, and quite a lot of support on the ground for many of the boundaries that we have proposed. Later, I shall make some additional amendments which I think will be welcomed by Labour Members. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) knows, the Cabinet discussions are private. However, I can assure him that I vigorously defend the interests of Wales. I have no difficulty in recommending the Bill to the House this afternoon.
  As I said, we have had plenty of opportunity to debate the proposals in the Welsh Grand Committee and during debate on the Queen's Speech. The Bill has been fully considered in another place and we have another all-day
  750
  debate today. The Government have listened carefully to representations. In response to the consultation, I have made a number of changes to the boundaries proposed in the White Paper. I have included all of Delyn in the new Flintshire, which has been welcomed by many Labour Members; restored the communities of Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf to Powys; returned Coychurch Lower to Bridgend; reunited the community of Llanelly Hill with the rest of Breconshire in Powys; and moved the communities of Cynwyd and Llandrillo to Denbighshire. I have always chosen to move territories that test Welsh pronounciation to the extreme. I have accepted a number of amendments in another place—most importantly, agreeing that any joint authorities established under clause 31 should be composed of local councillors.
  The aims of local government reorganisation in Wales are to create good 'local government close to and accountable to local people based on a strong sense of community identity, and to establish authorities that can operate efficiently, buying in services where that is better.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Secretary of State gives way to a Scot who apologises that he must flee to the fiasco of the Committee dealing with the reform of Scottish local government, which meets every Tuesday and Thursday from 10.30 am to 1.00 pm, 4.30 pm until 7.30 pm and then 9.00 pm to 1.00 in the morning. If he looks at the report of our proceedings, he will see that it is a fiasco. What is the cost of Welsh local government reform?
  Mr. Redwood: A range of costs have been estimated by a consultant. I believe that the cost will be modest. I do not believe that there will be a large number of redundancies, so the result is that there will not be large capital costs for the transition. I will be working closely with local government to ensure that we do not need a lot of additional administrative office blocks, for example, which are some of the other costs that some people have proposed.
  Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned redundancies. May I tell him that my constituents who work in Alyn and Deeside district council and Clwyd county council are anxious about the future and about whether they will have a job once the Bill is enacted and the measures are in place. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to my constituents who work in local government that they have a future?
  Mr. Redwood: Most local government workers will have a good future in the new unitary authorities. If they are delivering services—if they are teachers or care workers providing a front-line service—I envisage them being transferred in their entirety in practically every case. I hope that that is the sort of reassurance for which the hon. Gentleman wishes. When it comes to senior management and administration, there will need to be some competition for the posts that are required in those local authorities.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: If one of the main aims of this reorganisation is to bring local government nearer to the people, can the Secretary of State explain how that is possible in south Meirionnydd when it is proposed that there should be a centre at Caernarfon, which is 110 miles and a good two-hour drive away? Is that bringing local government nearer to the people?
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman's area may well be one which would want to take advantage of the decentralisation proposals. That would mean that some of the functions could be carried out closer to his own constituents in Meirionnydd, and I will give more information on that if I can make progress with my speech.
  The aim is to have just one council in each area which is close enough to people to represent them, strong enough to command respect and able to decide for itself and get on with the job. No one will be left in doubt who is responsible. Each constituent will be able to turn to one council through his own local councillor for help, redress and service. The present system divides responsibility for planning and economic development between county and district.
  Closely related areas, such as social services and housing, and trading standards and environmental health are given in part to the county and in part to the district council. A local developer may take a planning application to his district, only to be told that the highway issues are for the county, which in turn must advise the district. An elderly person who is seeking help may be shunted from county social services head office to area social services to district housing. I believe that we can do better than that, and the proposals will provide a clearer service for all.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I recognise that, as an English hon. Member, I am looking forward and beyond local government reorganisation in Wales. There are to be 21 highway authorities, and I accept that there will be co-ordination in some planning matters. Is my right hon. Friend confident that 21 highway authorities will have the competence to be able to carry forward co-ordinated routes? Will we find that, on the boundaries, there will be a change from salting to non-salting, or roads not meeting? How will those be co-ordinated?
  Mr. Redwood: The principal routes are trunk roads, for which I and the Welsh Office are responsible directly to the House. In other areas, there will be agreement between local authorities on the ground and, of course, the Welsh Office will offer guidance and some strategic information which may help in the development of a proper highways strategy.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The Secretary of State talked about people being shunted from county social services to area social services in a critical way. Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that area social services offices are out-stations of county social services? Is he proposing now to abolish area social services offices?
  Mr. Redwood: Of course not. I was drawing attention to the difficulty that constituents have when they first go to headquarters, are then told quite properly to go to an area department and are then told that it is a housing matter and that they must go to the district. We are producing a rather simpler procedure which will help the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents and others.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The Secretary of State is showing an abysmal ignorance of how local government works. When people go for help from social services, they immediately go to the local offices. They do not go to county hall for a walking aid. They go through their local offices. The Secretary of State's argument surely defeats the object of the exercise of creating unitary authorities. He is arguing that the proper relationship between what people
  752
  can have and the best way of delivering the services can be achieved by two-tier local government, which we will get at the end of the day anyhow.
  Mr. Redwood: That is not what I said. We are moving from three points of contact either to two or to one, and that to me is an improvement and simplification in the services. It will make it better for individuals, and it is common sense. Many who now go direct to their area office still have the tension of wondering whether they will be dealt with by the area office or by the housing office. That will go under the proposals which I am putting forward.
  Mr. Roger Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a particularly compelling example of the point that he is making is the responsibility for land drainage and for flooding? At the moment, the county authority has the responsibility if the water comes from a highway while the borough or district authority has powers but limited duties. Is not the confusion in the mind of the person whose house is flooded quite impossible?
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has chosen a good example. There are many such examples, but I shall not bore the House with more of them. The case rests, and it is a strong one.
  In building a new structure of local government, the Government wanted each council to represent a community, to enjoy the loyalties of local people and to be sufficiently strong to manage services well. The pursuit of the objectives has resulted in a varied pattern of authorities proposed for Wales—varied in geographical extent and in populations.
  It has also led in some cases to vigorous argument about the need for smaller or even occasionally for bigger councils. I cannot respond positively to every demand of community identity. If we did, we might well return to the days before 1974 when there were 181 local authorities in Wales, few of which were big enough to do a good job. Nor do I intend to seek larger units on the ground that they may produce more economies if that means an unacceptable erosion of loyalties.
  Following the debates in Parliament and in Wales generally, I have decided that there is a good case for a unitary Merthyr and a unitary Blaenau Gwent. Although I am reluctant to increase the number of authorities in the Bill, I understand the differences between Merthyr and its proposed partner in Blaenau Gwent. I understand Merthyr's long, proud history and its former status as a county borough. Its size, which is comparable to that of Cardiganshire and Anglesey, also works in its favour.
  Mr. Rogers: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will also want to intervene. I find the Secretary of State's statement amazing. I congratulate Merthyr on becoming a unitary authority, but the same arguments that he put for a unitary authority in Merthyr could be put for Rhondda. Rhondda is the only authority that has not changed since the local government structure was set up last century. What is the difference?
  Mr. Redwood: The arguments on size, history and former status do not all apply in the same way to Rhondda. As I have just explained, I cannot continue indefinitely creating many more authorities because they would not be

  753
  sufficiently strong, firm or large to do the job. Merthyr is a special case. I am granting it unitary authority status because I can see the force of the argument.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for, on this occasion, being a listening Secretary of State. He has listened to the universal representations that he has received. The proposed Heads of the Valleys authority had no supporters whereas there was an alternative consensus such as he described. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and others who joined in making the representations.
  Twenty two years ago I returned to the House in a by-election in the very year that the then Government abolished the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil. It is a great pleasure to be here when we are about to restore it.
  Mr. Redwood: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I think that it is the right decision and I look forward to his support when the amendments are tabled. We intend to move amendments to add the northern Rhymney valley to Caerphilly and to create the two new unitaries that I have described, bringing the total number of authorities up to 22.
  Mr. Llew Smith: While I welcome the Minister's statement that unitary status will be given to Blaenau Gwent, may I ask him to comment on the decision to take the Llanelli community into Powys, especially in view of the recent referendum? Although the result of the referendum was not in favour of Blaenau Gwent, only approximately 15 per cent. voted for the Llanelli community to go into Powys.
  Mr. Redwood: As the hon. Gentleman said, the result certainly was not in favour of Blaenau Gwent. There was a stronger feeling that the community should not be in Blaenau Gwent than for anything else. I have responded to that feeling.
  I have revised my original proposals for 1,100 councillors, following consultation. The Standing Committee may wish to discuss my present proposal for 1,260 councillors for the new authorities. There will be an additional 15 for the extra council that I have announced today.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: While I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), may I ask the Secretary of State to explain why Cynon Valley is not to be a unitary authority? In the original proposals of his predecessor, Cynon Valley was to be a unitary authority. What has changed in the meantime? Why has he not changed his mind on that issue, as he has on the other two areas?
  Mr. Redwood: I have not amended the White Paper proposals of my predecessor in this respect. I think that they were right. I have described the special circumstances that apply to Merthyr which, as the hon. Lady will understand only too well, do not apply to her area. That is where the matter rests.
  Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman's memory is selective. The original proposals made by his predecessor showed Rhondda borough as a unitary authority. The
  754
  proposals were later amended when the Secretary of State made the amalgam of the Glamorgan valleys, which he has now altered simply by name. Will the Secretary of State explain why he is setting up one authority with a population of a quarter of a million, and saying that that is the right size for a unitary authority, when next to it—I do not carp about the fact that Merthyr has received selective treatment—he is setting up an authority with a population smaller than two of the authorities immediately adjacent? Both Taff-Ely and Rhondda have larger populations than Merthyr.
  Mr. Redwood: I think that it is Opposition Members who have selective memories. The White Paper was published by my predecessor and I have not changed the White Paper proposals in the areas in which Opposition Members are now asking me to change them. I think that my predecessor's judgment was right. It is a balance between the sense of community and the scale and size of the authorities in the way that I have described. I believe that we have now come to the right judgment in the light of the decisions that I am proposing today.
  Mr. Carlile rose—
  Mr. Redwood: May I be allowed to finish with one set of interventions before coming to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—who, I seem to remember, did not want to allow me to speak at all to the House when we last debated the subject on the Floor of the House? I will offer him a courtesy that he did not offer me when we last debated the matter.
  I have already made the point about Merthyr. Its former status, its sense of community identity and the special unpopularity of simply putting the two communities together across the Heads of the Valleys swayed my judgment, which makes it different from some of the other cases that we are examining.
  I will now give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because I wanted to ask him a question in the context of his current remarks. Bearing in mind the consideration that he has given to Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent, what special historical and community circumstances apply to Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent, the decisions on which are welcome, that do not apply to Montgomeryshire?
  Mr. Redwood: I have already dealt with that. The hon. and learned Gentleman obviously was not listening. If he were a better advocate of his case, perhaps we would be making more progress. He should be aware that Merthyr Tydfil was the only county borough whose former historic status was not recognised in the White Paper proposals —that is one of the points that is of importance—whereas several historic shire counties unfortunately have not had that recognised in the form of separate unitary status because of size and service delivery problems, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman should be well aware.
  As to the issue of councillor numbers, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales will, following implementation, conduct further electoral reviews of each of the new authorities. Some areas will be reviewed before the second elections in 1999, and the whole of Wales will have been covered by the time of the third elections to the new authorities in 2003.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Secretary of State explain to me, and to the House, why he wants to delay the Boundary Commission's review? I can give him examples in the proposed Pembrokeshire unitary authority of wards that, under his proposals, will have two members and 4,000 electors, yet there will be another ward with fewer than 800 electors with one member. Surely those anomalies should be tackled at the earliest opportunity and not delayed for six or more years.
  Mr. Redwood: We are simply trying to come up with a practical programme for the local government Boundary Commission, but I am happy for my hon. Friends to consider that matter again on our behalf in Committee if that is the wish of the Committee. However, we need a realistic timetable that provides a sensible work pattern for Wales.
  I am currently considering responses to my announcement that elections to the new authorities could be held on 6 April 1995. That would allow a full year for recruitment of senior staff and for planning the provision of services. I think that that is long enough, but I will consider all responses carefully, including those of people who want May rather than April, and I will welcome the further views of Members in the debate and subsequently in Committee.
  In some cases, the new unitary authorities contain towns and historic shires that retain a strong sense of identity. To take account of that, the Bill proposes, in clauses 27 and 28, special arrangements for establishing area committees where those are requested by not fewer than 10 members from those areas. Where those arrangements are invoked, it would be for councils to come up with their own decentralisation schemes. That means that if Powys or Carmarthenshire proposed suitable schemes in respect of Montgomeryshire or Llanelli, local councillors could make their own decisions on matters such as housing allocation, planning applications, local social services, local roads and amenities and leisure facilities.
  Dr. Kim Howells (Pontypridd): Is the Secretary of State saying that those would also apply to the Cynon Valley, Rhondda and Taff-Ely administration that he wishes to create? If it does, where does it make sense? In Taff-Ely we have created, since 1974, a cohesion out of what were two very different boroughs. It has taken 20 years to create that. The borough has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Wales. It is a go-ahead borough which has been a success. Why does the right hon. Gentleman insist on coming up with that second-best method of running local government when a perfectly good unitary authority already exists? Where is the sense in it?
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that this is an enabling power. I am leaving the decision where I hope that he wants it—with local councils. If elected councillors, on behalf of their electorates, believe that they need those special local responsibilities, they have them in an area committee. If they believe that they do not need them and that they would get in the way, they need not have them. That is true local democracy. I hope that the Opposition will reflect on that and see the advantage of my proposal.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: It would be helpful to have an explanation of what my right hon. Friend has in mind concerning area committees. Does he agree
  756
  that local councillors who seek to take advantage of the area committee idea would want to be in a position where they also controlled the finance for providing local services, as they do not have proper autonomy unless they also hold the purse strings? What are my right hon. Friend's proposals for financial arrangements?
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pushing me further on that point. We may be able to come up with arrangements in terms of block grant or block money voted by the local authorities concerned. I wish to return to that matter and I hope that the Committee will return to it. I hope that we shall return to it in the form of guidance and in developing more details of the system.
  What is important for the statute is that it will provide a guarantee, if the scheme is approved by me, of the local decentralisation sought by local councillors. [Interruption.] I shall explain that in a little more detail for those hon. Members who seem unable to grasp the essential point.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on this important point. If I heard him correctly, he proposes to come up with something in Committee. If the decentralisation proposal is of such fundamental importance that it will deal with the particular problem of Powys and recognise the case of Montgomery for unitary authority status, he should have given more thought to it. He should be in a better position to put explicit proposals to the House this evening, rather than hoping that, in Committee, he or the Committee will come up with something.
  Mr. Redwood: I shall go on to explain the positive proposals incorporated in the Bill.
  There is then the separate issue of what local schemes councillors might like to design in order to seek my approval to them. They should include some discussion of how the money will be handled. I firmly recommend that we do not go all the way, as some hon. Members might like, and give separate tax-raising powers to area committees. That is not part of the proposal.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: The Secretary of State has not responded to the acute question put by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) concerning the connection between responsibilities in practice and finance in practice, which is the essence of democracy. It simply is not good enough, after Green Papers, White Papers, consultation, sessions in the Welsh Grand Committee, consideration with his civil servants and contacts with local authorities, to say on Second Reading that he might be willing to allow certain things to occur and we must see what he can come up with in Committee. We are discussing the Second Reading of a Bill to which he is committed. We are discussing not an intimate detail or a tiny matter of consideration at the margins of public importance but a matter that is central to the operation of local government in Wales, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor pointed out. The Secretary of State must give a much more convincing answer to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) than he has given so far.
  Mr. Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman would be right if we needed some legislative provision to cover that point, but we do not. We need legislative provision to

  757
  cover the constitutional issue of the area committees' power vis a vis the principal council. I recommend firmly to the House that they should not be given separate tax-raising powers.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Redwood: May I explain this point first and come back to the hon. Gentleman if he is still not satisfied?
  The proposals for decentralisation schemes have been criticised both for not giving councillors enough power and for trying to recreate a two-tier system of government by the back door. Opposition Members cannot sensibly argue both those propositions at the same time. There is a third possibility: that the Government have struck the right balance. There will be savings in cost because there will not be two groups of councillors and two corporate structures and overheads to maintain. There will be strong local interest in being represented by local committees. Councillors could meet for that purpose in the principal town of the area and could have staff working in the same place.
  Authorities do not need my approval to establish a decentralisation scheme. There would be nothing to prevent the new authorities from establishing, as now, a wide range of decentralisation measures, including an area committee system using existing powers. I see no need, in Wales, to impose a duty on all the new authorities to submit general schemes to me indicating how they propose to apply those existing powers.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I should like to finish this important point. I shall then give way, if I have not dealt with the hon. Gentleman's problem.
  The Bill offers members of local authorities representing particular areas—such as Montgomeryshire —a guarantee that a decentralised system of administration will be adopted and maintained.
  The Secretary of State's involvement in the process is required to provide that guarantee. The Bill does not require me to have a detailed or continuing role. It is for the authorities concerned to submit a scheme to me for approval. In that way, the schemes that emerge should be tailored to the particular local circumstances. The schemes should, of course, have something to say about how the money is to be granted, in what blocks it can be granted and how it can be protected under the Bill.
  Once a scheme has been established and the guarantee given, the Secretary of State's involvement would cease. In keeping with the thinking that runs throughout the Bill, to which I am strongly committed, any decision to amend the scheme or to abolish it altogether would be for local determination—not for mine—in this case requiring the agreement of not only the principal council but also the area committee. Does the hon. Gentleman still have a problem?
  Mr. Rogers: I still have a problem: it is the Secretary of State. Quite frankly, he has been duplicitous on a number of occasions. I have asked to see the Secretary of State and I have put forward arguments about the reorganisation in regard to the Rhondda. I have also seen the Under-Secretary of State.
  758
  The Bill went through the House of Lords; there were never any proposals along those lines except that we have to have authorities of a certain size to do the job. We are not carping particularly about Merthyr or Blaenau Gwent, but if the Secretary of State says that two areas—one with a population of 73,000 and one even smaller—are able to be unitary authorities, how is it that three authorities—Taff-Ely with a population of more than 90,000, Rhondda with more than 80,000 and Cynon Valley—are now not worthy of unitary status?
  The Secretary of State has certainly misled me all the way and on every representation we have made to him. He has seen me on a number of occasions, he said that he would take our representations on board and then, at the end of the day, between the Lords and here, he has now turned on his head. Quite frankly, it is a disgusting thing that he has done.
  Mr. Redwood: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect and will withdraw those remarks. I have never promised an independent Rhondda authority. The representations I received were particularly strong in wishing to have the important name of Rhondda reflected in the local authority. I met that in the change of name I recommended to the House which has been approved in the other place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that I listened carefully to what he said. I reached the judgment I am putting to the House today which reflects the facts on the ground in the different circumstances of different councils in Wales.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: May I move my right hon. Friend to another point? The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is concerned about the fact that the Bill places no statutory duty on local authorities to have a social services committee. Can he give me some reassurance about how social services will be structured in Wales after the changes have taken place and let me know whether the same child protection arrangements will be in place for each local authority'?
  Mr. Redwood: The Bill does not change the statutory responsibilities of local government; they will transfer to the new unitary authorities. Social services will be one of the most crucial areas for which they are responsible, but in accordance with the settlement in the Bill, we are leaving the maximum amount of freedom to those unitary authorities to decide how to organise their political and administrative arrangements. I reassure my hon. Friend that the real concerns that he has in mind will, I am sure, be properly taken care of by responsible local government in Wales. The statutory requirements will remain in place to ensure that they stay up to the mark in delivering these important services.
  I disagree with those who say that we need larger councils to deliver effective services. There were several debates in another place on trading standards. I believe that trading standards services, such as environmental health, can be organised by councils smaller than the current counties. Powys, one of the smaller new unitary authorities in population terms, is already a county authority responsible for trading standards and provides that service without problems. If councils believe that they can provide a better service by subcontracting to a neighbouring or larger authority, or alternatively by sharing their service with their neighbours, powers are available. I have

  759
  confidence that local government will be able to sort out its own arrangements for those important services and will want to do a good job for their local communities.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that voluntary arrangements between the new unitary authorities will tackle planning issues, knowing what a mess the voluntary arrangements for waste disposal turned out to be? If strategic plans will remain in position, do not the Welsh people deserve to have at least the same treatment as Scotland?
  Mr. Redwood: The Welsh Office will retain its interest in planning matters and has a responsibility for the general planning strategy and guidance affecting the whole of Wales. Many of the big investment decisions will be made by the House and financed out of central taxation, which will have a considerable influence on the development of Wales.
  One of the most important strategic planning statements that I have made since taking up office was the statement on road priorities, which will in turn have a considerable impact on development patterns. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that, at strategic level, the House and the Welsh Office will have strong responsibilities. I have every confidence that 22 local authorities—not many more. as 22 is the maximum that we could allow—will be able to plan for their local areas within that general strategic guidance and advice from the Welsh Office.
  Mr. Ainger: The Secretary of State mentioned roads as an important strategic issue. Will he give an assurance during the debate that, on the problems that will undoubtedly he faced by the new unitary authority in Pembrokeshire for the funding of the Cleddau bridge—both the outstanding debt burden that exists and the strengthening that will have to take place to comply with European Union legislation from 1 January 1999, which, with the outstanding debt, could total more than £30 million—he will investigate the possibility of tabling an amendment to the new legislation so that grant aid can be given to the new Pembrokeshire unitary authority to offset that massive burden, which will undoubtedly strangle any unitary authority at birth?
  Mr. Redwood: I do not agree with the apocalyptic vision of the hon. Gentleman, but the spending requirements and needs of each area are, and will be, taken into account when we come to settle both capital programmes and revenue support grant. I am sure that nearer the time the hon. Gentleman will remind me of the need to take that into account. I cannot hold out the assurance that he would really like—that I would transfer the whole thing to my Department's responsibility. That would not be the right course. But that local authority needs to have a reasonable settlement and to bear in mind its obligations.
  It may be helpful if I repeat the undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.
  Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Redwood: May I make this point, as I have been trying to make it for some time? I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
  In response to cross-party concerns expressed about the future of existing archive collections, an amendment will
  760
  be tabled in Committee providing for the new authorities to consult me and my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor before arrangements are made for the archive service. That is a concession to the cross-party team in the other place. I assume that it is also satisfactory from the point of view of hon. Members who might serve on the Committee.
  Mr. Ray Powell: I am still rather confused about the financial structure that the Secretary of State has outlined. Some of my hon. Friends have already suggested that he should be more explicit, and I think that Welsh local authorities would like more information than he has offered. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was a great supporter of the poll tax; perhaps he will suggest a similar scheme in Committee. We do not know what is in his mind at this stage. It is essential for him to be more explicit about the financial structure before we go into the Lobbies to vote for or against the proposals.
  Mr. Redwood: I have been extremely explicit, as have the Government as a whole. It fell to me to help to see the council tax through, but we have nothing further to add on that side of the local government ledger. The new tax was enough for me; I wish to live on with it, rather than with some replacement.
  As for the other side of the accounts—the question of grant and revenue funding for the services for which the area committees will be responsible—I have been crystal clear in explaining that that is a matter for the local authorities to recommend under the decentralisation scheme. The Bill must give a guarantee that the approved scheme will work, and cannot be reversed by the principal councils; it is now up to local government to decide how far it wishes to go within the law of the land and the general rules in regard to those decentralisation arrangements.
  It is not for me to be over-prescriptive in the world in which I wish to create—a world in which local authorities take more responsibility. I thought that Opposition Members were trying to encourage that, but now, at every turn, they are trying to make me answer all the questions rather than just those that should properly be answered by the holder of my office.
  In another place, concern was expressed that local authorities would be unable to make representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about the membership and structure of combined fire authorities, and any new amalgamation schemes for police authorities. The Government are considering the matter. We believe that one way forward could be to impose a duty on the Home Secretary to give notice of any new proposals to the existing fire and police authorities, as well as to the relevant shadow unitary authorities. The giving of notice would carry with it a duty on my right hon. and learned Friend to consider representations. I am sure that the Committee will return to that issue.
  To allow for an orderly handover, the existing counties and districts will be under a duty to come together in transition committees—one for each of the new authority areas. The committees will need to identify the property, assets and staff that should transfer, and the existing service delivery arrangements. Clauses 29 to 31 provide a package of reserve powers enabling me to intervene if there is any risk of a breakdown in service delivery. I have already stated my clear preference for local arrangements.

  761
  I see the reserve powers as very much a last resort, for use in the transitional period only. If hon. Members wish to modify them, I shall be happy to consider their requests.
  Part V of the Bill provides for the establishment of the residuary body for Wales and the Staff Commission for Wales. It sets up mechanisms for transferring staff to the new authorities, and for the payment of compensation in appropriate circumstances. The residuary body's prime function would be advise me on the transfer of assets, and to manage and dispose of redundant assets. The body could also end up in temporary ownership of an asset if two or more authorities disputed its future. That would allow time to sort out the matter.
  The residuary body is not a means for the Secretary of State to deprive Welsh councils of various assets that are unaffected by the reorganisation. Transfers would be made under the order-making power in clause 53. Clause 53 could not be used, for example, to transfer the St. David's shopping centre in Cardiff to the residuary body; such a transfer would not fall within the purposes of the Act, nor would it be a consequence of its provisions.
  Assets that might be transferred to the residuary body are those such as administrative buildings which are, or are likely to become, redundant because of the organisation. I propose to use a mixture of asset proceeds and credit approvals to fund any new administrative buildings that might be required by the reorganisation. The precise arrangements in each case will need to be judged on their merits nearer the time.
  As far as possible, I want to achieve two objectives in the transfer of staff. First, staff in district and county councils should be treated equally; secondly, the large majority of staff should pass to a new employer with a minimum of disruption.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I should like to pursue with the right hon. Gentleman a very important matter that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) from a sedentary position. There has been huge county council investment in Cardiff Wales airport. Will responsibility for the airport stay within local government after reorganisation?
  Mr. Redwood: Recently I had a useful meeting with representatives of interests at the airport. We discussed the future investment and shareholding. There may be moves afoot to secure a local answer. I should like to see one that is good news for the future of the airport and that brings in the right kind of investment and management partnership. I should like to see how far we can get in discussion following our useful first meeting. I am not making any distinct proposals for the airport under this provision.
  The Government's present proposal, which has been set out fully in another place, is that the vast majority of staff should be transferred by statutory transfer order. Other staff would be able to compete for jobs with the new authorities or receive a severance package. Some commentators have pressed the Government to transfer all staff to the new councils. That is an option which the Government are considering and which the Standing Committee will undoubtedly wish to debate further.
  Whichever option is finally adopted, I do not expect the reorganisation to lead to a dramatic cut in the number of local authority staff in Wales. Inevitably there will be
  762
  reductions in some areas as a result of the removal of the duplication that exists in the present two-tier system. As I mentioned earlier, I anticipate that all teachers, care workers and other local service operators are likely to transfer. My present estimate is that at least 95 per cent. of all staff will transfer. I hope that most people in local government will find these comments reassuring, which is what they are intended to be.
  In the light of the debates in another place on staffing, the Government will be looking again at the drafting of clause 44. We wish to reassure staff that they will have their full rights under employment protection legislation—including consultation with staff and trade unions about prospective redundancies and notice of redundancy. Any amendments that are necessary to achieve this will be brought forward in Committee.
  My right hon. Friends and I are still considering carefully the compensation arrangements that should apply to the reorganisations in Wales, Scotland and England. We shall consult on our proposals when they are finalised.
  Finally, I plan to set up the Staff Commission for Wales in shadow form immediately after Easter. That is in accordance with the undertaking given in the White Paper. I hope that the House will agree that it is important for the commission to begin its work as soon as possible, building on the valuable work already done by the advisory committee on staffing matters. I shall make an announcement about appointments to the staff commission in due course.
  The Bill will create strong new local authorities—local authorities based on communities, able to represent them well and serve them better. The Bill will strengthen local government. It should lead to better local government. It will lead to a renaissance of local government in Wales. I commend it to the House.
  4.27 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, while recognising a broad measure of support for the principle of unitary authorities in Wales, declines to give a Second Reading to the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords] since it fails to establish a directly elected all Wales tier of government, concentrates further power over local government in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales, abolishes a democratic tier of local government in favour of joint boards and other joint arrangements, threatens to undermine the viability of local services, provides opportunities for further privatisation and the possible creation of even more Welsh quangos, does nothing to improve the system of Welsh local government finance, ignores important traditional and historic Welsh local government boundaries and will cost the Welsh people at least £100 million which could be better used in improving basic local government services."
  I should like to draw attention to the fact that, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), this is the first occasion on which such an amendment has united all Opposition Members representing Welsh constituencies against the Second Reading of a Bill that relates exclusively to Wales.
  Following the Secretary of State's uncertain and hesitant introduction, I am not convinced that the right hon. Gentleman has major areas of discretion that he wishes to see clarified in Committee if the Bill is given a Second Reading. I believe that, rather, he is full of confusion, reflecting the fact that he has not thought the proposals through as carefully as he ought to have done.

  763
  Before moving to the detail of the Bill, I want to reflect on three matters. The first is the strength of feeling in Wales against these proposals. Of the 38 Welsh Members of Parliament, 32 have signalled their opposition. The three major political parties are united in opposition. I exclude the Conservative party, of course, as, given the level of its electoral support and its current showing in the opinion polls, it can hardly be described as a major political party—least of all in Wales.
  It is worth noting that the reason for reorganisation of Welsh local government being carried through by the Secretary of State, without the benefit of a commission as is the case in England, was made clear in the original consultation paper of June 1991. The then Secretary of State, in paragraph 1.5 of the paper, trusted
  "that, in light of responses to the ideas set out in this consultation paper, it will prove possible to reach a broadly based agreement on the way forward in Wales."
  As we all acknowledge and as the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech, there has been extensive debate in Wales, especially in local government, on the most appropriate course for reform. The proposals before us have managed to unite all parts of Welsh local government, but to unite it in opposition to the Bill. The county councils that have the relevant responsibility believe that too many councils have been proposed and that the smaller unitary authorities will not be sufficiently viable to undertake the necessary planning and co-ordination of services for which they will become responsible, notably strategic planning, education and social services. The districts contend that there are too few councils and that the historic boundaries of areas such as Radnorshire and Meirionnydd, in rural Wales, and Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent, in the valleys—which were in the right hon. Gentleman's initial proposals—are not reflected in these proposals.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: During his address the hon. Gentleman has told us of the views of the county councils in Wales. Looking at the hon. Members on the Opposition Benches behind him who have made contributions so far, it seems to me that every single one was asking the Secretary of State to go still further in setting up even more unitary authorities. In those circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the benefit of hon. Members and of Wales where he stands on the proposals of the county councils in Wales?
  Mr. Davies: I will certainly give the hon. Gentleman the satisfaction of clarification on one important matter. As I understand it, he is concerned about the future of the unitary authority of Powys. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity in Committee to vote on whether Powys should continue as a unitary authority.
  I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will see to it that an amendment is tabled allowing the Committee to vote for the creation of unitary authorities for Montgomery and for Brecon and Radnor. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is my firm intention to support him.
  If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) wishes to table an amendment to create a unitary authority for Brecon and Radnor, I give him the firm assurance that I am prepared to support it. If, on the other hand, he wishes to submit an amendment to create a unitary authority for Radnorshire alone, I shall give the matter careful consideration and I should be delighted to receive any representations that he cares to make.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I note the hon. Gentleman's response in relation to mid-Wales. Perhaps he will now answer the question that I put to him: what is the position that he takes on the representations made by the county councils in Wales?
  Mr. Davies: Given the confusion that exists in Powys, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want to resolve that problem rather than involve himself in debates elsewhere. However, I can give him an assurance that in the latter part of my speech I intend to refer to the proposals that the Secretary of State announced today with reference to Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr, and I will certainly give him a clear indication as to the map of local government in Wales that would be preferable.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Answer the question.
  Mr. Davies: I have given the hon. Gentleman a clear answer to his question—[Interruption.]—even if he does not like it. I have twice given way. I am amazed that, every time we have a debate on Welsh affairs, the conduct of Conservative Members seems to sink to the level of the gutter. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor has intervened twice and I have given way to him twice. He has asked questions and I have responded to them. If he wishes to pursue that issue, he will doubtless attempt to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. If he wishes to pursue it in Committee, I shall be happy to do so, too, but I should now like to make progress.
  I have said that the county councils believe that too many councils have been proposed and that the smaller unitary authorities will not be viable. Of course, the districts take a counter-view; incidentally, that is despite the 1991 consultation paper which boldly declared guiding reform as one of its five fundamental principles. Paragraph 1.6 of that paper stated:
  "local authority boundaries should as far as possible, reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties."
  Setting aside the vexed question of boundaries, on which the counties and districts understandably have different perspectives, both tiers are united in opposing the reforms precisely because they reflect a deliberate attack on the ability of local government to plan and deliver local services. How can anyone welcome the proposals, especially those in clause 25 that will weaken direct democratic control in favour of centralised Welsh Office control, in light of the inefficiency, waste, corruption and incompetence that characterise the Welsh Office and its attendant quangos?
  Democratic local government clearly has a direct interest, but its objections to the proposals are echoed by, among others, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress in Wales, the Churches, the training and enterprise councils and a swathe of community opinion. According to the latest opinion poll undertaken for BBC Wales, 47 per cent. of the Welsh public were against these proposals and only 20 per cent. were in favour. Paragraph 1.6 contains a fundamental principle:
  "local authorities should be democratically accountable to their electorates".
  What clearer expression could there be of public opinion—of the democratic wish of the electorate—than all those varied views?
  Only one local authority out of 45 has declared support for the proposals—Conservative-controlled Monmouth. As we know, its agenda is to protect its own party political

  765
  interests. The last elections in Wales were held in May last year. Of the 502 county councillors elected, 31 were Conservative. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) will point out, last week Labour had a resounding victory in the Bassaleg ward of Gwent county council, for the first time taking a Conservative-held county council seat. The 31 Conservative county councillors are represented by the independent group on the Assembly of Welsh Counties. In representing their views, the Assembly of Welsh Counties has made it clear that the leaders of Conservative opinion—Conservative local government in Wales—are vigorous in their condemnation of the proposals.
  The second matter on which I wish to reflect is how the Government have managed to squander the genuine consensus in Wales in favour of reform. As our amendment makes clear, there is a broad measure of support in Wales for the principle of unitary authorities. Indeed, unlike the Secretary of State, most of us who stood as candidates and were elected for Wales in the last general election had such a manifesto commitment. Those of us who represent Wales understand that a sensible reform of local government could allow more unitary authorities, recognising the important traditional and historic boundaries to which our amendment refers.
  We also recognise that any sensible reform of government in Wales has to include reform of all tiers of government. As well as democratising the existing devolved tier of government in the Welsh Office, a Welsh assembly or parliament would provide precisely the right mechanism for the strategic planning and co-ordination of the services that are delivered by the unitary authorities but that would require such an overview.
  Mr. Rod Richards rose—
  Mr. Davies: You were present, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the previous debate on Welsh affairs and you had to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention three times to the codes of courtesy and good conduct that we apply in the House. He took it on himself to launch a sustained, vicious and unsubstantiated attack on people outside the House of Commons who were not in a position to defend themselves. Until he understands that there are codes of good conduct and courtesy with which we should all comply, I have no intention whatever of giving way to him in the debate.
  There is now an overwhelming view in Wales and a genuine consensus that to have an assembly and unitary authorities is the appropriate way to proceed. Certainly, it is the considered and joint view of the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Council of Welsh Districts and 70 per cent. of the Welsh electorate who voted for those policies at the general election and the overwhelming majority view of those of us who represent Wales in the House of Commons. It is a pity that those who now run Wales—Conservative Members—are so lacking in confidence, so hidebound by their own centralising tendencies and so determined to cling to power for their own party's sake that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge our majority view. I have never been one to regard the House of Lords as some beacon of democracy, but overwhelming support was forthcoming there for an all-Wales tier of government,
  766
  even from the likes of Lord Hailsham in Committee, and it certainly managed to demonstrate how the Government are so out of date and reactionary.
  By their failure to come to terms with the issue, the Government are proceeding with legislation that, inevitably, will be unsatisfactory. It will create a pattern of local government that will be inherently unstable and history will judge the Bill as the starting point for a fundamental and radical reform of Welsh government.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, far from proposing to enhance democracy in Wales, which is what a directly elected assembly would do, the Government are undermining democracy, taking away democratic powers and placing them under the control of centralised authorities, especially in education? Do the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman recognise the great anxiety in Wales, especially about education, because of the reduction in democratic accountability and the effect of the opting-out process on the delivery of services to schools? Confusion will be created by having, in effect, two education systems—two school systems with two systems of funding—and that will have a terrible effect on services.
  Mr. Davies: I know that the hon. Gentleman made that compelling case in the Committee on the Education Bill. It is a point that I intend to address shortly.
  The explanation for the stubbornness and the state of affairs lies in the real motivation for the reforms. They are designed not to improve Welsh local government but to take forward the political agenda of the Conservative party. The proposals represent a massive assault on the independence of local government and provide a far greater concentration of powers in the Welsh Office.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall give way, but allow me to complete the point. Democratic local government in Wales is overwhelmingly anti-Tory, with the Labour party the dominant force. The Welsh Office is currently, albeit temporarily, on a short lease under Conservative control, hence the need for a concentration of power in Tory hands in the Welsh Office—powers that will, no doubt, in the normal course of events, be exercised by quangos that will be staffed by Tory candidates who either have been defeated or are about to be defeated at the polls by the electorate.
  Mr. Redwood: Given the way in which I have described the Bill as extending the choice, powers and responsibilities of local government, which is what the Bill says, will the hon. Gentleman point to anything in the Bill that will centralise or take powers away from local government in the way he described? That simply is not on the face of the Bill. It is a charter for stronger, better local government, not for less local government.
  Mr. Davies: The problem is that the right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric is far removed from reality. I have marked out parts II and III of the Bill. Every clause in part III refers to powers being given to the Secretary of State. In part II, clauses 19, 20, 23, 24 and 25 all refer to additional powers being given to the Secretary of State. In addition, there are the reserve powers of the Secretary of State and the special powers relating to the education

  767
  function, to which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) referred. Such references are abundant in the Bill and I have suggested to the Secretary of State where he can find them in his legislation.
  The Bill represents an assault on democratic local government. For example, the number of councillors will be dramatically reduced from 1,976 to about 1,250. For the first time in our history, the numbers of democratically elected local councillors will be exceeded by the 1,400 quango members—not elected but selected covertly by the Secretary of State.
  The ability of the new authorities to undertake cross-border trading arrangements will be severely curtailed. Of course, that has nothing to do with the development of viable local authorities or good practice; it has everything to do with the ideological view of the Conservative party. It is a view to be imposed by central control because it would never be adopted by democratic local control.
  Above all, the Bill provides an opportunity—obviously too good to miss—to gerrymander the boundaries of the parliamentary constituencies in Wales. If the Bill is given a Second Reading tonight, under the terms of the Boundary Commissions Act 1992, the Boundary Commission will have to take into account those new boundaries and, in effect, redraw the electoral map of Wales on which the next general election will be fought. Part III of schedule I provides an interesting insight into the Government's or, should I say, the Conservative party's intentions. Of the eight "preserved" counties, Dyfed, Gwynedd and West Glamorgan have unchanged boundaries. The other five have small, but significant, shifts of population. Those changes and those changes alone will have an impact on parliamentary constituency boundaries and, in each case, the direct or indirect consequence will be to the detriment of the Labour party's interests at the next general election.
  In mid and south Wales there are only four Tory-held seats at the moment. Of course, after the next general election, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) will doubtless join the former Member for Cardiff, Central, Mr. Ian Grist, in semi-retirement. I can assure—
  Mr. Kinnock: We will not give him a job as chairman of a quango. It will be Jones the Dole after the election.
  Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend beat me to my punch line. I was about to assure the hon. Member for Cardiff, North that, in his retirement, he will not find that the next Labour Government offer him a post as chairman of a quango.
  In the mid and south Wales seats of Monmouth, Brecon and Radnor, Vale of Glamorgan and Cardiff, North, the interests of the sitting Tory Member are potentially advantaged by the changes. The clearest possible case is evidenced by the transfer of Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny from Mid Glamorgan to South Glamorgan and, more accurately, from the political point of view, from the Bridgend constituency to that of Vale of Glamorgan. Despite overwhelming evidence that local opinion is opposed to those changes, those communities and their supposed Tory votes are used in the most corrupt of ways to attempt to shore up the 19-vote majority of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). Any reputation that the Secretary of State has, either for
  768
  intellectual honesty or for political probity, will be shredded if he fails to concede that those changes are indefensible.
  Clauses 1 to 16 establish the new authorities. I am pleased to welcome the Secretary of State's announcement on Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil. My noble Friend Lord Prys-Davies presented a powerful case in the House of Lords. My hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) have argued powerfully and consistently, publicly and privately, on behalf of their respective communities. I am grateful for the fact that the Secretary of State acknowledged that and saw fit to announce today that he would table amendments to create the unitary authorities of Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent.
  The strength of my hon. Friends' case lay in the public support that they enjoyed. Having made that concession, the Secretary of State must understand that he will now receive further strong representations from authorities all over Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) was the first to his feet pressing the case for Rhondda. No doubt Taff-Ely will wish to make a similar representation, as will Cynon Valley, Neath, Port Talbot, Llanelli, Meirionnydd and Montgomery, which all feel a sense of injustice at the way in which they have been treated.
  I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, now that he has acknowledged that his original proposals are capable of amendment, we shall want to examine the revised boundaries in great detail in Committee. I did not understand his response to one intervention during his speech, when he said that 22 was the maximum number of authorities that he could allow. Why 22? There is no particular reason for that number. Indeed, when the consultative paper was produced in 1991, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor suggested that 24 was an option. If 24 was an option then, why does the Secretary of State now assert without evidence or argument that 22 is the absolute maximum?
  Mr. Redwood: I explained that a balance had to be struck between the strength of feeling about community identity and the size and scale of local authorities for delivering services. The Labour party is split on the issue, because it argues that it wants both bigger authorities, for the delivery of certain services, and more smaller authorities, for community identity. I have struck a balance in the way that I described, and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State has not answered my question. The Labour party's position is clear. We want a Welsh assembly and more unitary authorities. We have argued that clear position, and it commands overwhelming majority support in Wales. The problem lies with the Secretary of State and his party. They cannot accept the fact that that is the consensus in Wales.
  The Secretary of State is creating problems for himself. He cannot concede the larger number of unitary authorities, and he will not concede the county case for a smaller number of larger authorities. In the absence of a consensus he is merely splitting the difference, and has arrived at an arbitrary figure of 22, which he cannot and will not justify. He must understand that that is in direct contradiction to the position adopted by his predecessor. The right hon. Gentleman is frowning. If a total of 24 local

  769
  authorities was an option in 1991, when the consultation paper came out, why can he now not move from 22? Why is 24 not an option?
  Mr. Redwood: I have answered that question.
  Mr. Davies: All that the Secretary of State did was to ask me a question. He refused to respond to mine.
  Mr. Roger Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I understand the sense of gallantry that makes the hon. Gentleman want to come to the Secretary of State's rescue.
  Mr. Roger Evan rose—
  Mr. Kinnock: Here comes the dock brief.
  Mr. Davies: I must reassure my right hon. Friend that on this occasion the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) is probably not being paid.
  The Secretary of State must understand that real and strong arguments have been advanced in respect of small communities in south Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda put a compelling case for the Rhondda. He knows the difficulties in the mid-valleys area of Mid Glamorgan and the concern in towns such as Neath, Port Talbot and Llanelli and in the rural parts of Wales, such as Meirionnydd and Montgomery. If, having made the concession on Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil, which I unreservedly welcome, the Secretary of State were prepared to make another concession and allow 24 authorities—I do not suggest that that would be adequate—and if he undertook now to allow the Committee to reflect natural justice, I am sure that he would find it possible to achieve greater agreement on the proposals.
  Mr. Roger Evans: The hon. Gentleman told us that his party's policy was to have a Welsh assembly plus a larger number of unitary authorities. Does that mean that Labour policy for Gwent, for example, is that there should be a number of unitary authorities, such as Newport, Torfaen and Blaenau Gwent?
  Mr. Davies: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. If we had a Welsh assembly and a pattern of between 25 and 30 unitary authorities, we would wish to discuss the details with the local authorities involved. We should really be debating the proposals before us, Madam Deputy Speaker, rather than the Labour party's proposals, but I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Richards: Has the hon. Gentleman read the amendment?
  Mr. Davies: Conservative Members are anxious to intervene from sedentary positions. Certainly, I have read the amendment; I wrote it, and I am fully aware of its contents.
  The hon. Member for Monmouth must understand that, in any pattern of local government for Wales that included between 25 and 30 unitary authorities, there would clearly be unitary authorities in places such as Newport, Torfaen and Blaenau Gwent. I have already said at least twice that I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement today that there will be a unitary authority for Blaenau Gwent. I
  770
  assure the hon. Member for Monmouth that, if we had a unitary authority for his part of the world to replace Monmouth district council, it would be called Monmouth, not Monmouthshire.
  Mr. Roger Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that he has put his party's policy absolutely clearly? Is it Labour policy, on the premise of a Welsh assembly, to abolish Gwent county council?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. Davies: Our policy has been absolutely clear at every stage. I have had discussions with the leaders of Gwent county council. Councillor Graham Powell is a model of moderation, and my colleagues and I have had many warm fraternal discussions with him and with his good friend Harry Jones, the leader of Newport council. On several memorable occasions, we have even met in the same room.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is complete unanimity in Wales. All the Labour leaders of local authorities in Wales—that means all the Labour-held county councils and district councils—have put their names, as has every Labour Member of Parliament, to the document that we issued in February last year, which made clear our proposals for the reform of government in Wales, based on a directly elected assembly and a pattern of between 25 and 30 unitary authorities. Naturally, the existing pattern of district and county councils would then be abolished.
  Mr. Roy Thomason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must say that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), I am happy to take interventions from any hon. Member who I believe has a proper interest in the matter under discussion. I know that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) had a former—[Interruption.] There is no need for Conservative Members to chatter at me. I well know who he is, and of his former role in the Association of District Councils. I am concerned with democratic government in Wales, and I am happy to discuss that with anyone who receives a mandate from Wales, who stands for election in Wales or who creates policies that are chosen by the people of Wales. I am sorry, but I do not recognise the hon. Member for Bromsgrove in that context.
  I shall now proceed with the rest of my speech.
  Mr. Richards: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it is order for a Member of the House to select from whom he will take interventions on the basis of geography and race?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is the absolute right of any hon. Member to give way or not to give way. What his reasons may be is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Davies: When I select my targets for political debate, I select targets who can reply.
  The central flaw in the Bill is clearly demonstrated in part I. The Secretary of State wants to create unitary authorities, yet if they are large enough to be viable they will be too large to reflect identifiable local communities and historic boundaries. For reasons of dogma and party

  771
  political interest., the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the solution that is not only logical but commands overwhelming popular support—more unitary authorities with our all-Wales tier of government.
  The Secretary of State's response has been to introduce two elements to the Bill, both of which fundamentally weaken it by undermining the principle of unitary authorities. The first is the concept of decentralisation, which was mooted last summer in an attempt to reconcile conflicting interests in Powys and is enshrined in clauses 27 and 28. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) was quick to point out the flaws in the Secretary of State's argument. I was singularly unimpressed by the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Committee would have to come up with suggestions on how the proposal could be financed.
  If the proposal for decentralisation works, it will undermine the Powys unitary authority. If it does not work, it will fail to meet aspirations for local self-determination, especially those expressed by Montgomery district council. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) christened that the "Powys pudding". The chairman of Montgomery district council, David Jones, wrote to me this week to say that the "Redwood recipe" for the "Powys pudding" was fatally flawed. Indeed, that was the almost universal view in the House of Lords and on all sides in local government in Wales.
  Mr. Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he thinks that the recipe is so unattractive that no one will wish to mix the ingredients up and eat it? I suspect that there would be deep resentment in Wales if the enabling power were stripped out, because many local communities would welcome it. Does he agree?
  Mr. Davies: I agree that the provision is included in the Bill to meet an inherent defect, which is especially relevant to a county such as Powys. If the right hon. Gentleman had made the concession demanded by the people of Powys and parliamentarians who represent Wales, there would have been no need for the compromise arrangement.
  The second element relates to joint boards and joint working arrangements. A properly constructed system of unitary authorities should have no need of those arrangements, which will be an insecure base for the planning and delivery of services in the medium to long term. The compromise in the arrangements will be prone to lowest common denominator services and will lack the consistency and clarity of decision making that a single authority can provide. Even worse, as the number of joint arrangements increases—as it inevitably will if smaller local authorities wish to provide services—the system will come to resemble a two-tier structure, except that there will be the disadvantage that the upper tier will be neither directly elected nor directly accountable.
  One way to obviate some of those difficulties would be to allow greater cross-border trading, especially in professional services and sectors of specialist expertise. If the Bill proceeds, clause 25, which gives great power to the Secretary of State, will need close scrutiny. The fear shared by all who care for local government is that the Bill may become a charter for privatisation because of that provision.
  In any event, the Bill's assault on the principle of social services committees, the prior removal of mandatory education committees—to which the hon. Member for
  772
  Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred—and the renewal of compulsory competitive tendering after reorganisation are a further step towards the destruction of publicly delivered services in Wales.
  In part II, in addition to clause 25, clauses 19, 20, 23 and 24 confer on the Secretary of State powers over local government. Clauses 27 to 33 in part III confer more such powers on him. Given the demonstrable incompetence and undemocratic nature of the Welsh Office, that centralisation of power is reason enough to oppose the Bill.
  Little attention has been given to the interests of the 140,000 local government employees, many of whom face worry, insecurity and possible redundancy. Many have given a lifetime of dedicated public service. I hope that the employment of all those people will be protected by transfer to the new authorities. I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that he will allow flexibility and consider the options in Committee. I am also grateful that he has announced a compensation scheme in clause 44.
  I welcome the establishment of the staff commission. Should the Bill proceed, I trust that the Secretary of State will do all that he can to ease the worry of staff during the transitional period.
  The Bill heralds turbulent years for local government. The reorganisation that it proposes will be costly and controversial. Much of Wales will be badly served by it. It contains proposals that are badly thought out, undemocratic and deeply flawed. Many Conservative Members, including Ministers, have made clear their intention to oppose the introduction of similar measures for their county councils in England. It is a sad reflection on our democracy that they are asked to vote tonight to enforce on Wales a system that they would reject for Somerset, Hertfordshire or wherever. If the Bill succeeds on that basis, it can proceed only in a Committee packed with compliant Back Benchers without an interest or a mandate in Welsh affairs. If it passes into law, my hon. Friends and I will not regard it as the end of the process; rather, it will be the start of the process of the reform of Welsh government. That reform will become more radical, more democratic and more relevant to the needs of Wales when the Government are thrown out at the next general election.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Roy Thomason: I have two interests to declare. The first is pecuniary—I am a consultant with solicitors Dyson Bell Martin, whose clients include local authorities in Wales. The second—an interest in legislation of this type—goes back many years. Ten years or more ago, in my capacity as the leader and subsequently chairman of the Association of District Councils, I held discussions with leaders of Welsh district councils about abolishing the county councils in Wales. They were keen advocates of the introduction of smaller unitary local authorities. Their trust has been let down by the Labour party, which wants to torpedo the legislation that those leaders have been seeking for more than 10 years. Their interests are not being represented by the Labour party.
  The Bill represents an opportunity for local government to be a significant force in Wales. It gives a chance for communities to be more closely identified with local government and for councils to be more imaginative and innovative in their approach to community problems. Such

  773
  an approach has been denied to district councils in the past because so many functions have been undertaken by larger county councils.
  The Bill represents the chance for a better future for local government in Wales and it should not be cast aside in the dismissive manner proposed by Labour Members.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving his vision of successful, small unitary authorities. Does he agree that, 10 years ago, when he had those discussions, he envisaged unitary authorities similar to the ancient county of Montgomeryshire? Will he give an assurance that if he is a member of the Committee he will vote for a unitary authority in Montgomery?
  Mr. Thomason: The size of local government units is critical. I think that the Rowntree Foundation has argued that it is viable to have units of 25,000 people—[HON. MEMBERS: "25,000?"] It is argued that units of that size are viable. The local government reforms were introduced in the first place in 1974 to create authorities with proper career structures for officers and with a proper committee structure to deal with important policy issues. Therefore, there is a nice balance to be arrived at between a minimum size for local authorities on the one hand and a proper career and committee structure on the other. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) contended that area offices were not an appropriate way to deal with social services functions. I think that that was the hon. Gentleman's argument. Of course, there is a difference between an area office that is carrying out an administrative role and a fully accountable unit of local government.
  I have great sympathy with the arguments advanced by authorities such as Montgomeryshire and Brecon and Radnor. However tempted one may be by the proposals in the Bill that allow for a decentralisation mechanism to be introduced, which may address those subjects, one must balance the need for creating a properly resourced local authority unit reflecting the needs of a community.
  In some instances the community issue will be so strong that it may be appropriate for a smaller authority to be introduced. However, there may be other occasions—the vast majority of local government units will fall into that category—where the size requires something a little larger. With Montgomeryshire and Brecon and Radnor there is the delicate balancing exercise to be made of whether it might be appropriate for them to be individual units.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He gives us the great advantage of his expertise on such matters. Does he agree that a strong natural community with ancient roots and 57,000 people is a viable basis for a unitary authority? Can he answer yes or no?
  Mr. Thomason: I consider that it is a viable basis, provided that the community interest is as strong as the hon. and learned Gentleman is inferring. I believe that it is possible to have a unit of that size. However, there is a downside to the argument, and that is that the quality of the staff and their career prospects, and the committee structure for the elected members which may be introduced, may not be as strong as would be the case in a Powys authority with decentralisation. As I have already
  774
  made clear, the argument is a fine one. I have much sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that there is a case for Montgomeryshire being an authority on its own, as for Brecon and Radnor.
  Mr. Kinnock: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's experience in local government. However, I must say that, in speaking in support of the Local Government (Wales) Bill, he is fulfilling the function of someone who kicks the ball high into the back of the crowd and, without having time added on for injury, wastes a considerable portion of the game. I suppose that by speaking in support of the measure he is talking his way on to the Committee that will deal with the Bill. What strong and repeated representations has he made to the Government in support of a proposition that the Government should impose on England exactly the same sort of measure as is being imposed on Wales?
  Mr. Thomason: I have encouraged the Government to proceed with local government reorganisation in England. I wish that we were debating a smaller measure for England today. I make no apology for saying that. My position is absolutely clear: I want a reorganisation of local government in England based on smaller unitary authorities introduced as quickly as possible because it will serve both the national interests and the interests of local government that much better. I assure the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) that I am making no bid to serve on the Committee that will deal with the Bill. However, I am happy to support the Bill because of the important steps that it makes.
  I return to what I was saying a few moments ago. The great mistake of the local government reorganisation in 1974 was to abolish many proud county boroughs such as Cardiff—places that had a long tradition, and an understanding of where their people stood and what their problems were—and to impose a county council covering a wider and more remote area. Those reforms were wrong.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: It was a Tory Government.
  Mr. Thomason: The reforms were wrong, whoever introduced them. Attempts by Labour Members to sabotage the Bill today is not a constructive way forward. I understand that some of them have difficulty understanding such matters.
  The history of local government is one of continuity, to which this Bill will add. When the 1974 reforms were introduced, the philosophy of the day was that size mattered—the big unit offered opportunities for savings and the organisation, above all, should be self-sufficient: for example, it could have its own in-house violin or oboe teacher; it could provide all the services within its own boundaries; and it could service a mainframe computer and all the staff who went with it. However, those days have changed.
  There is no need now to talk of self-sufficiency within local government. There is no need to argue the case that big is beautiful because a smaller unit, by contracting out its services and sharing its facilities with other local authorities, is well able to provide the full range of local government services, often more efficiently and effectively than those provided by the previous in-house services.
  Mr. Rogers: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have had considerable experience of local government. Throughout the years that I served on district and county councils, I

  775
  tried to discover what would be an ideal size. The hon. Gentleman is constructing an argument on what is a reasonable size and saying that small is beautiful. Can he put a figure on that for an urban area? I know that the Secretary of State does not want him to do so because of the peculiar way in which the Secretary of State's mind works. Can the hon. Gentleman put a figure on that? He has much more experience than the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Thomason: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's blandishments. Earlier, I made the point that the minimum size depends in the end on the strength of the community.
  Although it is clear that an authority with more than 150,000 inhabitants, say, can provide a worthwhile structure, it could be argued—I believe that it is right so to argue—that much smaller authorities are appropriate, depending on the strength of community which attaches to them. One must balance those two aspects. It is a perfectly legitimate and proper process to do that. There may be a strong case for the establishment of an authority such as Montgomeryshire, with 57,000 people, because it has a long tradition.
  Equally, one can think of other examples of authorities of about 100,000 people where the strength of identity and traditions may not be sufficient to warrant its independent existence. Those matters must be looked at case by case. It depends on the individual authority—its community identity and traditions. One should avoid making wide generalisations in the way that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is seeking to do. He is trying to impose a blueprint, a formula, across the whole of Wales. That will not work. He should know and appreciate that Wales has a much richer pattern than that.
  Mr. Rogers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. If he is saying that in the parameters or guidelines that the Secretary of State should adopt—I wish the Secretary of State would listen to some sound advice from his more knowledgeable Back Benchers—there should be a marriage between the size of the authority and its traditions and background, what advice would he give to the Secretary of State with regard to the Rhondda Valley? That council is the only one that has maintained its boundaries. It is probably the most famous community in Wales, yet the Secretary of State refuses to accept that it could be a unitary authority. It has never been anything other than the Rhondda Valley. Could the hon. Gentleman tell the Secretary of State how, in order to follow his argument, he could gauge the feelings of the people in the community?
  Mr. Thomason: I have already made clear the balancing act that must be undertaken between the considerations of efficiency and size and there is no need for me to repeat the arguments. If the hon. Member for Rhondda could not understand them, I am sure that he will read Hansard and they may be clear to him tomorrow.
  I was talking a moment ago about the ability to move away from the requirement of self-sufficiency in local government. Smaller councils have the opportunity of contracting out services which allows them to use the services of a large operator. The operator may be able to provide extensive services in a regional sense, yet the services might be specifically honed, in a contractual arrangement, with that local authority to meet its specific requirements. It follows that size is no longer anywhere near as important, although it has some importance.
  776
  Equally, there are many examples across England and Wales of local authorities which are working together. We need to foster partnership between local authorities, just as there has been a fostering of the partnership between local authorities and the private sector. The Bill creates opportunities for that to be undertaken.
  Local government must be close and responsive to its communities in a way that a smaller authority can be—that was the point I was making a few moments ago. An authority that is the right size to allow it to be representative of a community will be more effective. I say that because I believe that the councillors representing that unit will have a much closer relationship with the area.
  I give the example of a typical county council. The councillors and officers of the county council cannot have an intimate knowledge of an area which may be 30, 40, 50 or 100 miles away from where they live and work. At that distance, they cannot have the sense of individual community issues and the objectives of that community. It is only by being in close proximity to the local area that they can gauge the temperature of the people of that area and properly reflect their aspirations.
  There is a unity of objective to be sought in the local government reorganisation which is proposed today which the Bill gives an opportunity to progress. Some hon. Members suggest that reorganisation will be an expensive exercise. There are different factions which fight over these points and counties and districts have advanced their own figures. One must make a careful judgment as to which is to be considered the more appropriate. However, it is quite clear that local government reorganisation of the type proposed in the Bill can lead to a revenue saving year on year.
  There are possibilities, in streamlining the authorities' organisations, to produce a saving over a period of a few years. It has been suggested by the Association of District Councils in Wales that the cost of reorganisation could be recouped within two or three years, but it may be longer. However, an overall saving can be made on the costs of reorganisation. It need not be the call on the public purse to the extent that many have suggested will be the case. The House has heard through parliamentary answers that the cost of the abolition of the metropolitan counties in England produced a revenue saving overall and there is no reason why that cannot be replicated in Wales.
  The objective of local government reorganisation should be to invigorate local government. I pay tribute to the councillors and officers in local government in Wales for the work that they do at county and district level. Too few hon. Members speak of that, and it is right that it should be acknowledged. However, they can operate only within the structure that the House has created for them. It is not possible within the present structure for county councillors and officers to represent and seek the sort of partnership with the communities to which I have referred. There are opportunities in the Bill to create a local government that can be much more responsive.
  One looks to the district councils in England and Wales for some of the leading innovations of local government in the past 15 to 20 years. The district level of local government led the way in economic development opportunities. The counties have done a great deal of work in that field, but the districts led the way and ultimately created a function for local government based upon their

  777
  work. That was something which they saw as necessary because of their close proximity to the communities that they represented.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: In the context of Wales, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is a travesty of the truth. The counties, as well as the districts, in Wales have been particularly active in the area to which he refers and there has been a partnership. Let us not talk about one tier providing pioneering work and the other doing nothing. Both tiers have been doing it in Wales and the counties have been very effective.
  Mr. Thomason: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me say that the counties have done work in economic development. My contention was that district councils led the way in creating economic development opportunities. They created the opportunity and the counties have come along as well and work has been done by county and district councils. If we look back to the first economic development initiatives in the 1970s, we see that the work was undertaken by the smaller units of local government. That was because they were close to individual towns and groups of villages and could understand the employment prospects. They could seek to generate the jobs that could be directed at specific problems.
  Finally, I turn to the question of accountability. The present arrangements of two-tier local government create confused accountability: first, a financial one because the council tax bill arrives in two stages; and, secondly, a democratic one because people do not know whether to turn to town or to county hall for their services.
  The introduction of the proposals in the Bill will lead to a single point of contact and a single authority providing the whole range of local government services. The Bill will provide for a single authority which is raising a single council tax. It follows that people will be able to see clearly what their local authority is doing, what it is costing and to whom they should complain if they feel that the services are not being delivered in the correct way.
  That will make local government not only responsive, but more aware of its need to react to the people whom it represents. I believe that the blurring of accountability since 1974, and before, has been a great failing in local government which will be strengthened substantially by the proposals. The Bill will introduce into local government an opportunity for invigoration, better accountability, improved partnership, greater value for money and enhanced services. It should be supported.
  Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and that all hon. Members in the Chamber can catch your eye. However, I would ask you to use your discretion when Labour or Conservative Members who have been elected to Welsh parliamentary seats wish to catch your eye. Might not they have preference over hon. Members from areas outside Wales on the crucial issue of local government reform? The issue affects all hon. Members, particularly those from the Labour party, and they would all like to participate in the debate.
  The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) has taken 21 minutes out of a very short debate and some of us will be excluded from participating because of the time 778
  factor. I ask you to use your discretion to ensure that all Welsh hon. Members are afforded the opportunity to participate in the debate.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Both Madam Speaker and I have already exercised that discretion and I hope that that will be the end of the matter.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. John Morris: Given the competition to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House will be delighted if I promise to make a short speech as an elected Member for a part of Wales. The House listened with a great deal of attention to the Secretary of State's final piece of rhetoric. He expected the Bill to provide a renaissance in local government in Wales. That was putting it a bit high. Moving the chess pieces across the boundaries board will not provide the renaissance. Giving the cash to local government to provide local services will achieve the renaissance.
  There is a great deal of unanimity in Wales about the concept of unitary authorities. It is certainly the policy of my party. The argument is about the size and powers of unitary local government. I shall return to that point in a moment. That unanimity in Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) emphasised, hinges on the concept of a Welsh assembly. In England the term "regional authority" is used. I despair when that term is misused in Wales. One thing that we are not is a region. We are a nation. If we were not, the Secretary of State would not have his seat in the Cabinet.
  We have debated a Welsh assembly on previous occasions and we shall return to it in the future. I shall not discuss it this evening. As the years have gone by, I have become more and more confident that what I believed in 1974 and earlier was right then and is even more right now. I raise the matter because the concept of unitary local government as we understand it in Wales hinges on its being accompanied by a democratically elected body covering a substantial area—in this case, the whole of Wales. That is the fatal flaw in the Government's proposals. Why? Many functions could not be performed by small units of local government. The units could not discharge their functions effectively without an assembly. That is the fatal flaw.
  I am particularly anxious about the problem that will face us in Wales in recruiting more than 20—now 22—directors of education with the necessary qualifications and the right experience and in paying them properly. Of course, if the Government have their way and every school opts out, there will be less of a problem for local government. But the problem will remain in the case of joint provisioning, about which we heard a little from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly.
  I am equally worried about how we will find people of the right calibre to head social services departments. Of course, if everything that moves is privatised, the local problem will be very much reduced. But what will happen to the remainder of the services that are not privatised? Society will have to carry the burden one way or the other of meeting those needs. Of course, for those who are Thatcherites—they are an endangered species—there is no such thing as society. Yet the problem will remain. I am deeply worried about finding people of the right calibre, given the need for so many of them to cover the essential functions in Wales.

  779
  Apart from being fundamentally flawed on the grounds of not including a national dimension—
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morris: No, I am trying to be brief. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to keep my remarks brief so that other hon. Members can speak.
  I am deeply worried about whether the numbers envisaged by the Secretary of State are right. The Secretary of State is not lacking in confidence. No one would belittle him for that. However, his high office was thrust upon him. It never crossed his mind in his wildest ambition that he would be called to grace it. Worse than that, I am confident that until he went to the Welsh Office, the problems of local government in Wales had never crossed his mind.
  Lord Walker tried his hand in the 1970s. The pattern that he imposed will not be allowed to celebrate even its 25-year anniversary—its silver jubilee. It will not have lasted. It will have been cut down. No one in the House would say that he lacked confidence—certainly not Lord Walker. The present Secretary of State, with his limited experience, puts forward a prospectus with some confidence and tells the House that it will provide the renaissance for Wales. I fear that he will live to regret that particular piece of rhetoric.
  I believe that the proposed units—this is not an inconsistent observation—are too large to reflect adequately the need to preserve local loyalty and a speedy response to people's needs. Yet they are too small effectively to carry out the functions proposed for them. In any event, as for all local government reorganisation, I am confident that the costs, and certainly the transitional costs, will prove much more expensive than envisaged in any of the examples given by the Secretary of State.
  I ask the Secretary of State, through the Minister on the Front Bench, to write into the Bill an amendment to ensure that two or three years after the new units of local government come into force and after the first elections, an independent body, for example, the Audit Commission or some other body of that calibre, will examine, assess and publicise the costs of local government reform. That will be a test of the cost estimates given by the Secretary of State.
  I shall now deal with the problems of my areas. I have had the privilege to represent the borough of Port Talbot for more than 34 years. I have the privilege of being a freeman of the borough. I represent, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), part of the borough of Neath and I have done so for the past 11 years. We in Port Talbot and Neath want to know—if my hon. Friend the Member for Neath catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will ask the same question—how we differ from Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent, about which the Secretary of State made an announcement today.
  One reason that the Secretary of State gave for his change of heart was the particular unpopularity of putting those boroughs together. I assure the Minister that the unpopularity that was expressed when the first proposals were published remains both in Neath and in Port Talbot. It is stronger now than it was at the beginning. How do we differ in terms of the service that is delivered, our traditions, our civic pride and loyalty and the factor which
  780
  the Secretary of State added, the unpopularity of the proposals? I expect an answer from the Secretary of State tonight.
  What are the local views? We do not have a commission for local government in Wales because the men in Cathays Park think that they know better. I note with approval the words of Mr. John Banham, the chairman of the English commission. He said:
  "The Commission is in a sense the catalyst, seeking to identify a realistic choice, consistent with our guidance that we put before local people. The local people are the jury."
  What does the jury say in Neath and Port Talbot? A ballot was held in Neath. The form of the ballot can easily be criticised, but the result was a pretty strong indication. Of the 6,000 ballot papers returned, only 135 voted for the Secretary of State's solution of joining Neath and Port Talbot together in what was regarded and is still regarded locally as a shotgun marriage. An opinion poll in Port Talbot found that 95 per cent. of people did not want to merge with Neath, and there were 10,000 letters of support from residents and organisations in the borough. I suspect that, in relation to the third leg of the proposal, people in Lliw do not feel especially warm towards the concept of being swamped by either Neath or Port Talbot.
  Will the Secretary of State answer a question? Who, in either of those two boroughs or in Lliw, who knows the citizens, their problems and their history, wants the proposal suggested by the Secretary of State? If he can name an individual or an organisation, let us have their names, which I am sure can be counted on the fingers of one hand, so that we can examine their experience and on what basis they support the Government. I know not of one, and I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has the same experience. I know not of one who wants the shotgun marriage proposed by the Secretary of State. If I can be told differently by the Minister tonight, I will be grateful. I am glad that he is listening and I am sure that he will send out his minions to provide an answer for me by the end of the evening. I look forward to that with great enthusiasm.
  The Secretary of State was foolish enough, in the Welsh Grand Committee, to regard the map of Wales as being important. He never understood that the map of Kent, where he was born, is totally different in its geographical components to a land made up of hills and valleys, as is Wales. The bright idea that came from the Welsh Office of looking at a map and finding Neath next door to Port Talbot and using that as an argument for putting them together is sheer idiocy. The Welsh Office fails to understand the nature of our valley communities, and that a common interest does not run across mountains and valleys but runs down valleys. That is why the antipathy was so strong, and is equally strong now.
  The Secretary of State and the Government have failed to understand the importance of local loyalties, proud civic traditions and the knowledge and understanding in the locality that the existing machinery—"warts and all"—provides a responsive and sound service. People know where to go.
  It is proposed to combine two main communities between which there is deep-seated rivalry. Let me give the House an illustration. The original proposal for the name of the new borough was West Glamorgan—a misnomer. When the subject was discussed in Neath, it was suggested that it should be Nedd-Neath. If that was an exercise in trying to win friends when there was Port Talbot and Lliw,

  781
  I hope that it does not augur for the future. I was glad that that proposal was not pursued, but it is indicative of something and perhaps I need not pursue it further. I make the argument, for what it is worth. Despite the subservience of the Secretary of State to the map, community affinity runs downhill, not across mountains.
  I thank the Secretary of State for the one good thing that he has done—as I raised in the Welsh Grand Committee—which is to increase the number of councillors. I regard that as very important. We are losing a tier of local government and simultaneously reducing to 1,250 the number of councillors in the new authorities. Councillors and their leadership provide an avenue for the community to explore problems. They are the great safety valve. They are very important in the communities. To reduce the numbers is to cause a great loss. That is what is happening and therefore I thank the Secretary of State for his revised provision to increase the numbers. It is important and will be valued.
  I could have spoken at much greater length, but I do not propose to do so. Some of the arguments have been ventilated in the other place and I am grateful to noble Lords on the Front Bench and the Back Benches for the way in which they have reported on what they understand to be the lack of affinity between the two boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath and I were elected by those two boroughs and I think that we represent as well as anyone can the deep-seated feelings there.
  The Secretary of State seemed to be vague and uncertain of himself when he discussed the problems and the provisioning of area committees. I ask him the following questions. First, what type of provision would he expect as regards financial provisioning in a scheme put to him? What does he expect to come forth in the schemes that he has to consider? Secondly, bearing in mind the numbers of people referred to in the schedule who can request such a committee, will he be sure to resist any amendment to tilt the balance against those people who request such a committee in a new unit, in favour of the central new unit itself? If there is to be any purpose—it may be attractive in some parts of Wales—it is important to preserve the interests of the locality that requires it.
  I say to the Secretary of State, in accordance with the words of Lord Ferrers, who replied to the debate on Second Reading in another place, I would hope that the door is not shut. The figure has increased from 21 to 22. When the Secretary of State said today that his proposal was
  "22—I do not think there could he many more",
  I regard that as not closing the door and I hope that he will reconsider.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Roger Evans: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made two points that will be remembered in my constituency and in Gwent generally. Neither of those two points was perhaps quite so clear before he spoke as afterwards. First, we were interested to learn that the policy of the Labour party, in the premise of a Welsh assembly, is to have unitary authorities and more of them.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to the fraternal discussions between the socialist leader of Gwent county council and the socialist leader of Newport borough
  782
  council. It is clear, for the first time, we are told, that Mr. Graham Powell, the leader of Gwent county council, has lost that internal Labour party discussion, and that it is the Labour party's policy to abolish Gwent county council. That will be welcomed in most quarters, but it will be a matter of some surprise, I suspect, to some supporters of the Labour party in Gwent.
  The second point that the hon. Member for Caerphilly made—it is a matter that my constituents especially will wish to note—was the suggestion that if he had his way—
  Mr. Ron Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: Of course.
  Mr. Davies: I should like to clarify one point in case the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The policy that I outlined to him in our earlier discussion has been the policy of the Labour party in Wales for well over 12 months. It emerged as a result of a detailed consultation exercise. It was made public as early as February last year and the leaders of all the Labour-controlled county councils in Wales have been signatories to that policy statement, so there is nothing new.
  Mr. Evans: I hear the hon. Member's protestations. That is not what many of his supporters in Gwent have been saying, whatever the position might happen to be, as a matter of technical constitutional right, in the Labour party's policy-making process. We now know the position and we are grateful to know it.
  I go on to the second point that the hon. Gentleman's speech revealed, which will be treated in my constituency as a typical example of the rather curmudgeonly approach of the Labour party: if it had its way, our new authority would be known as Monmouth, not Monmouthshire. "Monmouthshire" is what resonates with my constituents. They do not want the simple title "Monmouth".
  Mr. Paul MurphyAs someone who was born in Monmouthshire, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—
  Mr. Kinnock: And me.
  Mr. Murphy: And my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). We would find it deeply offensive not to be called "men of Monmouthshire", even though we do not live in the district of Monmouth. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his own Monmouth borough council does not want to change the name to Monmouthshire?
  Mr. Evans: When history is torn up, as the noble Lord Walker's proposals tore it up in 1972–74, and when new creations that are not consistent with history are proposed, conflicts of feeling arise. I respect that and understand the point made by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). However an area is renamed, one cannot change the name that it had when one was born or first educated there. We must consider modern reality, which is that a division exists between the urban and rural areas in our part of the world. Local people want to call the area Monmouthshire.
  On clause 2, if a council is called a shire, it would be duplex and bad English to call the local council the shire county council. In the case of Monmouthshire, it would be much simpler to call the new council Monmouthshire

  783
  council. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Torfaen, as it avoids confusion with the pre-1972–74 position.
  Clause 14 introduces for the first time a proposal to require consultation with community councils, which receive little attention in the Bill. I do not like the term "community council". Why cannot they be called parish councils? They may not technically be parishes in the old sense, but it is a much better word. The community councils want the right to be consulted and the Bill recognises that important right.
  The worry at unitary authority level is about how the proposed mechanism will work in practice. Unitary authorities must sometimes make speedy decisions and a requirement to consult in all cases may be inconvenient and unnecessary. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would clarify that point.
  On nomenclature, clause 16 uses another unhappy combination of terms from the 1970s—a "town council" and a "town mayor". In my area, there has been an unfortunate confusion between the community council of Monmouth town, which was an ancient borough until the noble Lord Walker's proposals came into effect, and the mayor of Monmouth borough. To use the present terminology in all cases would be unfortunate and unfair. As Monmouth used to be an ancient borough, I do not understand why the mayor cannot be known as the borough mayor. I am happy to say that, with the creation of a Monmouthshire council, that conflict has been resolved for the unitary authority.
  I was surprised to hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about clause 27. I had assumed that the decentralisation provisions were intended and designed for the problem of Powys. I had not realised that they were intended to be adopted elsewhere in Wales. The clause stipulates that 10 councillors must be connected with an area before it can be decentralised, which means that those provisions will come into operation only in councils of a certain size. I should be grateful for clarification on that.
  In pouring scorn on part III of the Bill, the hon. Member for Caerphilly did not do justice to clause 32, which is potentially one of the most useful, helpful and practical provisions in the Bill. Local authorities' present rules on who can delegate decisions to whom and in what circumstances are arcane, legalistic and unhelpful. Clause 32 addresses that difficulty for the first time. I should be grateful for clarification on how it is envisaged that that will be done.
  Clause 50 deals with Welsh church funds. I note the proposal simply to apportion the funds among the new unitary authorities. Given the time that has elapsed since the Welsh Church Act 1914 came into force, has not the time come to review the purposes for which those trust funds are held and their whole position? In the 1990s, there is a powerful argument for those funds to be applied for conservation purposes on a non-denominational basis, rather than for a diffuse mixture of community purposes.
  Clause 51 introduces a power to control disposals by councils that are to be abolished from an operative date. When do the Government envisage that operative date? It would be a much happier matter if it could be the same date on which the Bill is enacted, rather than some uncertain future date. The purpose of clause 51 would be frustrated by a delayed date—if the clause is necessary at all. Clearly,
  784
  my right hon. Friend considered that it was necessary to include it. If it is to be in the Bill, it must be effective and it should be effective from an early date.
  Finally, may I raise the ghost of Gwent? Paragraph 1 of schedule 2 contains a peculiar drafting device to preserve counties of Wales in certain cases and not others for the purposes of the Lord Lieutenancy and the High Shrievalty —[Interruption.] I notice the ribaldry with which certain Opposition Members greet that comment. It is up to them if they want to humiliate Newport, for example, and say that it should not enjoy the privileges of Bristol. Let them say that to their electors. I should have thought that, in 1994, Cardiff has a strong argument for being a city and a county, as Newport and Monmouthshire have the right to be shire counties in the proper sense.
  Under clause 58(2) and clause 59(2), arrangements for the reordering of Lord Lieutenancies and High Shrievalties enable the boundaries of a preserved county to be adjusted, but do not seem to provide for the creation of a new Lord Lieutenancy and High Shrievalty solely for Monmouthshire. If I am wrong about that, I should welcome a correction.
  Despite the criticisms that have been made of the Bill, it is popular in my part of the world. I leave other hon. Members to argue their own circumstances. The wording of the amendment is minimally negative. It recognises
  "a broad measure of support for the principle of unitary authorities in Wales".
  To judge by the temper of the debate, that measure of support has been less broad than the wording of the amendment. The Bill is welcomed and my constituents, in particular, will be grateful to my right hon. Friend.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Let me start by welcoming the opportunity to debate Welsh local government and to reform Welsh local government. The time has long been due for the existing Welsh local authority structure to be changed.
  I have a clear vision of a new local government framework which would be much more democratic and accountable and which, above all, would improve the delivery to the public of the range of services that are the proper responsibility of local councils. Unfortunately, however, the Bill does not provide the framework for changes that would be beneficial to Wales and could be made to last.
  A new framework of local government for Wales should include unitary authorities, and, to an extent, the proposed one does. It should also include an important and new elected tier of government at an all-Wales level.
  The concept of a Welsh senedd or parliament has become something of a bogey to the Government, although, in my view, it is only a matter of time before we are driven to accept a form of government similar to that which has served so well in modern Germany. I see that structure not as giving rise to separatism or home rule, but as being entirely compatible with a strong United Kingdom. Indeed, I see it as strengthening the wider national interest by confirming the importance of Wales under the Crown and as part of the developing regional structure of the European Union.
  In the Bill, no Welsh parliament is on offer. That makes it doubly important that we should ensure that the unitary authorities which are created reflect the best possible solution for local government.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman is expounding a view that he has held for some time and which he certainly held in the 1970s. He well knows that when we held a referendum at that time, there was a substantial vote against. In those circumstances, why should he deprive the people of Wales of the opportunity of a referendum on his proposal on a second occasion?
  Mr. Carlile: I do not believe that I have ever said that I was opposed to giving the people of Wales that opportunity. I am confident that much has changed since 1979 and the result would be different.
  To return to this Bill, in which a Welsh parliament is not on offer, it seems to me that two principles must be fulfilled if we are to achieve a worthwhile unitary system.
  First, the new system must command sufficient support and consensus to be permanent. To reorganise Welsh local government every 20 years or so is disruptive to too many people and services. It is also very expensive, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was just saying.
  It is not fair to people involved in local government, whether as councillors or as servants of local authorities, that they should face a reorganisation every 20 years. It is plain that the proposed reorganisation does not command the type of consensus that would give it 50 or maybe 100 years, as happened with the reorganisation of local government in Wales in the late 1880s. We should be aiming at a new disposition which will not be the subject of acrimonious debate when the Government next changes, particularly as, given only a little more flexibility, considerable consensus could be found through the machinery of the Bill.
  Secondly, the new system must prove to be better than the present one in terms of service delivery if it is not to be regarded as change merely for the sake of change.
  It is stated at the beginning of chapter 2 of the Government's White Paper:
  "Local government is government for local people by local people."
  Amen to that; of course it is a principle which I accept.
  My constituency, the county constituency of Montgomery, has been a unit of government since 1542. Twenty years after the creation of the new county of Powys in 1974, Montgomeryshire still resists giving up its social cohesion. Whether we talk of the young farmers' club, the women's institute, the cricket team, or many other institutions, we talk naturally of Montgomeryshire, not Powys. Despite the passage of those 20 years, there is no Powys society of exiles in London, yet there is a strong Montgomeryshire society founded upon that strong and historic local tie. The Secretary of State should recognise that 20 years of opportunity have failed to make Powys a community.
  In another place, the Lord Advocate said in introducing the Bill that few would deny that the changes of the 1970s cost Wales some of its cultural cohesion. He was right. He claimed that Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire still retained distinct identities. He was right. He said that local people identify not with the new county imposed in 1974, but with the historic shires. He was right.
  No distinction, however, can be drawn intellectually, emotionally or on any grounds between Mongomeryshire and those counties of Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire except that Montgomeryshire is a little smaller in population. As the hon. Member for
  786
  Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason), who spoke with great experience of local government, pointed out, if natural ties are strong enough, 57,000 people are more than enough to make a valid and valuable unitary authority, particularly with the opportunities that are now available to purchase services outside the county.
  If the Government value the sense of belonging and cultural cohesion which is Montgomeryshire, they have only to take the simple step of accepting the same approach for Montgomeryshire as for the other counties that I have mentioned.
  Those who have served in and worked for Powys have done so honourably and with determination, and generally without political rancour, yet all their efforts, honestly made, have failed signally to build in the public mind an identity for Powys which touches hearts and minds as well as pockets. Montgomeryshire is a natural point of contact for both hearts and minds.
  What particularly puzzles us in Montgomeryshire is that the Government recognised and accepted that fact as long as three years ago. In their consultation paper in 1991, the Government rightly recognised the importance of a structure of local government founded on natural communities. Montgomeryshire was held as a example of that in the then Secretary of State's preferred solution. He spoke of it in the House.
  I hope that we shall be told by the Minister who replies to the debate the answer to this question: why have the Government changed their mind about Montgomeryshire since then?
  The preference for Montgomeryshire as a unitary authority was not just a passing fancy of a transient Secretary of State. In March 1992, just weeks before the last general election and therefore when he well knew the weight that would be attached to his words, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), now the Secretary of State for Employment, announced:
  "in the rural areas I want to see local government based on the traditional counties"—[Official Report, 3 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 171.]
  Montgomeryshire was expressly cited with Pembrokeshire at the head of the list of examples. Please will the Minister answer this question, too: why, if the Government had changed their mind, did they not say so then? Perish the thought that it had anything to do with an impending general election.
  The intention to provide unitary status was reaffirmed yet again by the then Secretary of State in dramatic circumstances. During the 1992 general election, he paid a visit to Montgomeryshire. He addressed a meeting in the pretty village of Llanfechain. Ministerial visits there are as rare as memories of what Ministers say are long. He made as explicit an electoral promise as anyone could imagine—that there would be a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire.
  Perhaps the Minister will answer these questions. What does he think now of his right hon. Friend's remarks on that occasion? Was the right hon. Member for Wirral, West—as one would expect of him—being truthful, or was he reckless or negligent? His statement in Llanfechain was important. It almost certainly confirmed the loyalty of a significant number of usually Conservative voters for whom it was a key issue in their voting intentions. The then Secretary of State knew that. That is why he did not equivocate.

  787
  What has happened since then to persuade the Government that a new unitary authority, perhaps with fewer councillors than the existing Montgomeryshire district council—the Secretary of State knows that I do not quarrel with that proposition—is no longer the natural solution for the historic community that I represent? Why is history to be treated under one heading for Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent and an entirely different heading for Montgomeryshire? The suspicion exists strongly in my constituency that Montgomeryshire is being sacrificed to a mistake—the Secretary of State's mistaken belief that what he is currently proposing will serve the interests of his political party—rather than to any valid consideration of the merits.
  The people of Montgomeryshire, a mere 16 per cent. of whom expressed a preference for a unitary Powys according to an NOP poll taken last summer, want to know why their opinions have been rejected in the face of the clearest possible governmental and electoral commitments. That is not just my view; it crosses political party lines. Indeed, I pay especial respect to the support that the Campaign for Montgomeryshire has received from the Montgomeryshire Conservative association, the leading members of whom are entirely opposed to the current proposals.
  Chief among those Tory opponents is the former chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales, Mr. Leslie Morgan, CBE. Mr. Morgan, former Tory candidate for Montgomeryshire and president of the local association, is no namby-pamby sentimentalist. He is a hard-headed local business man, head of a now fourth-generation business straddling the English and Welsh heartlands of the county, with a wide grasp of the social and economic structure and needs of the area. He is not only convinced of the merits of the case for a unitary Montgomeryshire, but has also told the Secretary of State, in my presence, and in the clearest possible terms, of the damage that he believes that the current proposals will do to the Conservative party locally.
  Nor can that be claimed as the view of only the older members of our community. Recently, I was given the opportunity to make a short film on the issue for BBC Wales. As part of it, I interviewed a young woman called Gillian Plume. She is Welsh speaking and comes from Bont Dolgadfan, near Llanbrynmair. She is articulate, intelligent and successful, working in a responsible position for a significant inward investor in Newtown. Hers is a representative view to be given credence. When I asked her for that view, she revealed that, to her generation, Llandrindod Wells, the county town of Powys, seems remote and irrelevant. When we pondered in detail how often she had been there, it became apparent that her only visits were several years ago for a schoolgirl hockey match. That is but a single illustration—one of many—of how Powys has failed to become a natural part of community life, even for young people.
  In his speech in the House on 3 March 1994, the Secretary of State spoke of his plans for Welsh roads. His strategy can be summarised tidily as taking as its emphasis an east-west-east axis. He was right in relation to Montgomeryshire. The natural swing of communications is not between the north of Montgomeryshire and the south of Breconshire, but between ourselves and Shropshire to the east and Aberystwyth to the west, and, to an extent, north-eastwards towards Wrexham and Chester. Little trade or travel has Powys as its natural sway.
  788
  Of course, the provision of the functions of local government must be sound and efficient in any changed system. There is plenty of evidence that Montgomeryshire could provide good and efficient service. The existing district council has discharged its functions without the need to impose high levels of tax on residents. Naturally, the question has arisen whether it would be able to discharge the heavy burden of administering education—so long as the Government leaves education in the hands of local authorities. All I ask the Secretary of State to do is look at the record of one of the best education authorities that Wales, indeed, I say confidently, the United Kingdom, has ever had—the old Montgomeryshire county council. It provided an estate of schools of which we are still proud. It had at times the highest academic achievements of any education authority. The morale of teachers and the quality of the directors was second to none.
  I turn now briefly to the organisation proposed in the Bill for what is currently, and unfortunately in my view, perpetuated under the name of Powys in the amended text. The proposed arrangements for a partly devolved system, in which an attempt is made to perpetuate vestiges of the old county, are simply unsatisfactory. Whether one calls these arrangements "Powys pudding" or a muddle in the middle, one has a clear picture of the view held of them in mid Wales. Even partial devolution would not be guaranteed under the Bill, but would remain at the discretion of the Secretary of State. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) pointed out, there would be no real financial independence. It would he less efficient, less accountable, less acceptable than the current two-tier system.
  If the Secretary of State insists on having a two-tier system and remains convinced that he cannot trust the people of Montgomeryshire to run their affairs, I suggest that he excludes Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire from this reorganisation altogether and avoids the upheaval, uncertainty and expense that is being caused.
  One of the finest sights in Montgomeryshire is a great avenue of redwood trees. They were planted late in the last century, shortly before the reorganisation that created in its statutory form the efficient Montgomeryshire county council of which I spoke a little earlier. They were planted for a great Montgomeryshire man who became one of the county's Members of Parliament. They stand for the stability, solidity, honesty and determination of our community. It would be an irony if those trees were now to stand as a reminder of the destruction of our community's local government tie by their namesake, especially as they dominate the ground of my noble and learned Friend Lord Hooson, who represented the county for 17 years from 1962 with such distinction.
  I ask the Secretary of State to read with great care the speeches of my noble and learned Friend in the debates on the Bill in another place. I tell the Secretary of State sincerely that my noble and learned Friend and I will be the first to praise him if he feels able to respond to our advice. We give it in the authentic voice of our county.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: I am pleased to follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—[Interruption.]—because I want to make some comments that relate very much to his speech.

  789
  I am sorry to hear sedentary murmurs from the Opposition Benches, perhaps suggesting that it is inappropriate for an hon. Member representing an English constituency to speak in the debate. Hon. Members who have attended debates on the subject will have observed that I have been present for all of them, since the moment when the Bill was first mentioned in the House. It is regrettable that the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) do not welcome the fact that people from outside Wales show an interest in the legislation. In doing so, they risk unduly fragmenting the House into regional areas. That does no good to the House, and I argue that, ultimately, it does no good to Wales.
  As I have said, I have attended all the debates on this subject. When the Secretary of State's predecessor first mentioned the Bill, I asked him a few questions about the status of smaller counties such as Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire. Clearly, there is a coincidence of interests between people in those counties—which will be affected by the Welsh local government reorganization—and myself, representing the ancient county of Rutland. On the basis of that coincidence—but concentrating, of course, on Wales—I wish to make some observations, which I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider.
  When we were in government in the early 1970s, we made a big mistake in setting local government reform as we did. There was a drive for managerial efficiency; in redrawing the map, supposedly to serve the interests of that efficiency, we trampled over historic boundaries, creating artificial counties that have been unpopular from the day of their introduction. Now, after 20 years of complaints and unsatisfactory arrangements, we are having to "unbundle" those rather silly artificial creations.
  This debate deals mainly with the question of size. What is a suitable size for the system of local government administration, enabling it both to pay attention to community identity and to deliver services efficiently? I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) will not object too strongly if I take him to task for having advanced the least persuasive argument. He said that we must pay attention to the career structure provided for officers in local government administration; I do not see why the career structure for local government officials should be the strongest argument on which to determine the size of any local authority. If that argument reached my hon. Friend from any other source, I detect an ill-considered influence.
  My hon. Friend said that a population of 25,000 might be all right, but then argued that, for career-structure reasons, it would not be. Local government administration is there for local people: it is there primarily for those who elect local government members. We must consider what is a sensible number to represent the interests of the electors.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan: Of course I will.
  Mr. Flynn rose—
  Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just returned to the Chamber; I apologise
  790
  for having left it. I now find that yet another English Member is speaking. I know the problems involved, Madam Deputy Speaker, but—like other Front Benchers—I registered my wish to speak in a debate that affects our constituencies, and, like them, have not been allowed to do so. I understood that Parliament was a body in which we could speak on behalf of our constituents. I know that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is an expert on council houses, but I cannot see that he has any locus in this debate. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a matter for the Chair to determine. The best way to ensure that all who wish to speak will be called is for the earlier speakers to speak briefly.
  Mr. Duncan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of regret to me that an attempt to contribute to the debate—and, indeed, to express opinions that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) might find that he shared, if he only had the courtesy to listen—has been treated in such a facile way.
  As I was saying, we should consider the size of local government administration. It should work for those who elect the councillors and wish the councils to deliver services. We may have risked being unduly carried away in our wish to make some local authorities too large, and failed to appreciate that small units of local government administration can deliver services in an efficient way that has not been recognised in the past by those who have shaped Welsh local government administration, and who are now embarking on the same process in England.
  If we returned to what I understand to be truly Conservative principles of local government reform, we would want diversity rather than uniformity. We wish to preserve historic identity. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that his county was created in 1542. If I may say so, he is rather nouveau: Rutland can beat that by the best part of 450 years.
  Mr. Flynn: Is the hon. Gentleman going to inform us of the benefits to be obtained from profiteering in council houses, from the benefit of his personal experience?
  Mr. Duncan: I think that the best service I can do the House is to ignore comments of that kind.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: May I say that I welcome the constructive contribution that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has made to the debate? Hon. Members representing small counties would very much like to hear that contribution. I ask others to listen to the hon. Gentleman with patience; I know that, on this matter at least, he has a valuable contribution to make.
  Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, if only for his slightly qualified endorsement of what I have been saying.
  Let me make a simple point, to which I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will listen carefully. I raised it at the outset, when his predecessor introduced the legislation. I asked him a specific question about Powys, which results from an amalgamation of smaller counties creating a larger county. That question was this: did he not appreciate that smaller counties—smaller units of government—could, if they wished, combine with their neighbours when they saw fit to do so, for the purpose of delivering a service? By the same token, a larger unit of

  791
  government containing parts with a strong sense of community identity cannot declare unilateral independence for the purposes of local government administration.
  When it comes to constructing a sensible arrangement for local government, it makes sense to preserve smaller units, leaving them a measure of flexibility to combine with their neighbours when they see fit in order to make the delivery of services as efficient as possible. I urge the Secretary of State to present us with the arguments that he considers strong—that he thinks will really work—"for the supposed economies of scale that attach to the larger units of government proposed in the Bill, which I fear will be proposed for England later. I hope that he will see fit to value the ability of smaller units, with a strong historical identity, a community interest and an understanding of the services needed within their small communities, to deliver those services efficiently—while being able to combine with their neighbours to meet any necessary economies of scale and serve the best interests of those who elected them.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I have particular expertise in this subject as one of the few Opposition Members—indeed, one of the few Members of the House —who took part in the Committee stage of the Local Government Act 1972. I remember well the two Ministers who were in charge. Lord Walker has been mentioned. The person who was then his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment is now a president—President of the Board of Trade. Indeed, I know a good deal about Conservative principles of local government, about which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) waxed so lyrical.
  The 1972 reorganisation was not worth the candle, and I suspect that this one is worth not very much more. Having participated in debates on this subject for more than 20 years, I tend to think that local government reorganisation is very often a matter for the professionals, who enjoy discussing and debating size and so on. But the public are pretty fed up with these reorganisations, which—certainly in the case of Conservative changes—end up in far greater expenditure, more concentration of power and very little increase in the accountability of those who provide the services.
  It has been rumoured that the current Secretary of State would have been quite pleased to withdraw the Bill. I do not know whether he ever made such a promise to the Cabinet or to a Cabinet Committee, but I suspect that his heart is not fully in the legislation. After all, he had to take it over from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who had a very obsessive attitude towards unitary authorities. What deep psychological reason there might have been, I do not know. I cannot divine whether it was the right hon. Gentleman's Liverpool youth or the fact that he was in charge of the poll tax. Ministers who are fellows of All Souls do not have a very high reputation. Certainly this Bill does not have the mark of what I consider to be a fellow of All Souls.
  The legislation is not worth the candle. It will result in much higher expenditure, and it will not create the kind of democratic accountability that we want. If the Secretary of State wants to do something for democracy in Wales, he could start by making more democratic not just the quangos in general but, for example, the hospital trusts.
  792
  Why does not he announce that, to begin with, 50 per cent. of the members of hospital trusts are to be elected? Let us have an election—and I say so to members of my own party too.
  Let us have a ballot paper such as is used in the United States of America. Let us have an arrangement that will enable local people to be really involved. That would be an advance for democracy. This legislation does very little except shuffle matters around.
  As usual, the Tory party is completely out of touch with popular feeling in Wales, especially in respect of a Welsh assembly or parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made very clearly the point that if the Bill contained a proposal for a Welsh parliament or assembly we could support it. My hon. Friend argued that such an arrangement would make it possible to have more unitary authorities. We could have a Llanelli unitary authority, and we could have similar arrangements for Port Talbot and Neath. Now, indeed, we do have Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent as separate authorities. Like other hon. Members, I ask the Secretary of State what is the difference, in terms of the Bill, between Llanelli and Port Talbot, between Llanelli and Neath, between Llanelli and Merthyr Tydfil and between Llanelli and Blaenau Gwent.
  The Secretary of State has conceded that all logic, the entire intellectual basis for the legislation—if it has an intellectual basis—has gone. All of us shall now quite properly press the case for our own areas, as there is no longer any logic or any understanding as to correct size or the reasons for the figure of 22.
  I return to the question of a Welsh assembly. Whenever the matter is raised, Tory Members, as happened yesterday, talk about a high-taxing, high-spending body. I am sorry to tell those people that they are completely out of touch with the mood in Wales. I do not fear another referendum. I have little doubt that, if one were held, there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of a Welsh parliament or assembly. As we are debating local government in Wales, I do not want to dwell on the question of an assembly, although the amendment refers to the matter. However, I want to make the point that there are many reasons for the shift in opinion that has taken place.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will be very interested in one of the reasons—the ever closer union in the European Community. That is one of the reasons for the ever greater consciousness of identity in Wales. People are beginning to ask why on earth we should look towards London when power is passing more and more to an ever closer union of European states. We have not yet reached that point, but this is one of the reasons that we may very well see gradually a demand not only for a Welsh parliament or assembly but for representation in the Council of Ministers for such a body or for the Welsh nation. I do not know whether that will happen, but I suspect that if the London Government, of whichever party, are bent on moving towards a single currency and a central bank and on transferring economic power to Brussels, people in Wales, as they are doing now, will ask what is the point of talking to the Secretary of State for Wales or to other Ministers in London when the thing to do is to talk to the people in Brussels. That is just one reason for the change in the mood in Wales about an assembly. The Tory party is making a very big mistake if it thinks that matters have stood still since the referendum of 1979.
  Mr. Richards: I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. It is always worth hearing what he has to say. Does he think that if a Welsh parliament were established, a Welsh currency would be a good thing for the Welsh economy?
  Mr. Davies: I can see that the hon. Gentleman is a bit concerned about my remarks. He obviously remembers the debates on the Maastricht treaty. As I do not want to return to those matters, I shall not pursue the point that he has raised. Indeed, there will not be an English currency if we have ever closer union. The Minister of State likes to talk about the ecu, although I do not think that he, any more than any of the rest of us, has ever seen one.
  I should like to turn to the question of what this Bill will do for my constituency—indeed, for west Wales. In many ways, Llanelli's natural area is west Wales. Everybody knows that Llanelli is the cultural and industrial capital of the region. It is the sporting capital of west Wales and may be the sporting capital of Wales as a whole after 4.30 pm on Saturday of the coming week. Dyfed, although it is an artificial creation, has been able to provide certain strategic planning services for the area of west Wales stretching from Llanelli all the way down to Pembrokeshire. If the Bill becomes law, Dyfed will go. Who will then provide the strategic planning for that area? Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire or Carmarthenshire? Or can we hope that it will be a Llanelli unitary authority? It will not be possible to provide the sort of strategic planning that Dyfed has tried to provide.
  At Question Time yesterday I referred to the problem of transport and communications from west Wales to continental Europe. The Minister of State dismissed my point. He was not very concerned. He said that responsibility for roads and railways lies with his Department. There is very little co-ordination, and the situation will worsen if Dyfed as a strategic area is abolished.
  When I became the Member of Parliament for Llanelli in 1970, there was a Llanelli borough council—the old borough council—and a Llanelli rural council, which took into account the fact that the villages in my area are different from Merthyr Tydfil and some of the other valley communities. The rural council took in all the old anthracite mining villages. Those bodies were amalgamated. We had one council, but at least we shared power with Dyfed. Previously, we had shared power with the Carmarthenshire county council. Now we are to lose it all. We shall not have the old Llanelli borough council or the new Llanelli borough council, and we shall not have a Llanelli rural council. In the whole of my constituency there will be no local government with real power or power sharing. Everything will be transferred to the new Carmarthenshire county council. My constituents find this quite extraordinary—a point that will be pressed in Committee.
  The Lord Advocate in the other place and the Secretary of State here have mentioned the decentralisation initiative. Some people have called it the "Powys pudding". It is the Tower Hamlets neighbourhood council idea. It is no good the Secretary of State shaking his head. I say it neither in praise nor in condemnation but merely from my observation. It is the Tower Hamlets neighbourhood council idea.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: They have found out the hard way.
  Mr. Davies: I do not know about that. It may suit London areas such as Bow and Poplar and Stepney, but the whole concept of a local area committee is quite alien to the traditions of local government in the part of Wales that I represent. How are these area committees, if they were to come about, to dovetail, if at all, with community councils? In my area the community council is very important. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) said that he did not understand why they were not called parish councils. I will not go into it; I will merely tell him to read the speech by Lord Tonypandy, who led for the Opposition in that famous 1972 local government debate. He will find out why they were not called parish councils. The reasons are obvious to those who know Welsh history.
  Leaving that aside, however, how are these area committees supposed to dovetail in? If the Secretary of State is going down that road, I would prefer the emphasis to be placed on the community council; the town council. The town council can perform the function of the neighbourhood council or of the area committee, and it is there; it exists; it is elected. How on earth this hotch-potch will work out in practice, I do not know.
  One of the disappointments of the Bill is that, although they have done a little, the Government have not tried to strengthen the basis of the community council which in Wales is extremely important, certainly in the part of Wales that I represent.
  This is a hotch-potch of a Bill. It will do no good. It deprives my constituency of democratically accountable local government. It takes it and puts it somewhere else. We shall come back to this argument in Committee. All I can say now is that the sooner the Bill is thrown out, the better.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: When I read the Labour amendment, I was surprised because, although it started well by recognising, rightly, that there was a broad measure of support for the principle of unitary authorities, it went on to criticise every conceivable aspect of unitary authorities. My surprise diminished when I heard from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that he was the draftsman. What does not dim my surprise is the fact that all Opposition Members from Wales have signed the amendment, the various aspects of which I would like to deal with one by one.
  First, the Opposition claim that the Bill fails to establish a directly elected, all-Wales tier of government. That is pretty clear. What it does not say is what it would cost were any such tier of government to be provided. That is rather strange because the last point in the Opposition's long list of criticisms is that the reorganisation of local government in Wales will cost the Welsh people at least £100 million. If the Opposition are so worried about expenditure on reorganising local authorities, how is it that they can face with equanimity the costs of setting up and running a directly elected, all-Wales tier of government?
  Mr. David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman intimates that he is worried about cost. Opposition Members make the point that the cost of the quango system currently in operation exists day in, day out and that the cost of a Welsh assembly would be no more, and probably less, than the cost of quangos. The difference, however, is

  795
  that the services would come under some form of democratic accountability. The hon. Gentleman fails to grasp that point.
  Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point that I was making, which is that setting up and running a directly elected, all-Wales tier of government would cost money, whereas the cost of reorganising local government is a one-off cost that will ultimately lead to savings.
  The second point on which the Opposition belabour the Government is that the Bill concentrates power in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales. My first response to that is that the reforms will increase the accountability of local councillors. Presumably that is why the Opposition began by welcoming the principle of unitary authorities, because they realised that benefits will accrue from having a single tier of local government and that it will enhance rather than diminish the power of locally elected representatives.
  Perhaps the real reason why they are concerned about the possibility of power residing in the hands of the Secretary of State is that, after 15 years in opposition, they have come to the reluctant conclusion that they will never be in the position of fielding a Secretary of State for Wales and therefore they resent any power that the office-holder may have.
  Mr. Redwood: I wonder whether my hon. Friend noticed that, when I challenged Labour Members to say where the Bill was going to centralise, they chose to give as an example clauses whereby I would be strengthening local power at the request of the local authority and its elected members—the complete opposite of centralising power.
  Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making the point.
  The third criticism in the amendment is that the Government will abolish a democratic tier of local government in favour of joint boards and other joint arrangements. If the Opposition accept the principle of setting up a unitary authority, how on earth can they criticise us for wanting to abolish a democratic tier? One cannot achieve single-tier local government without abolishing a democratic tier. It follows that if there are more unitary authorities than there have been county councils hitherto, it makes sense to set up some sort of joint arrangements, crossing the boundaries of the new unitary authorities, for certain purposes where it seems appropriate.
  The fourth criticism is that the Bill undermines the viability of local services. That is a bit rich, coming from an Opposition who have today called for more unitary authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred to 22 unitary authorities. The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked why there should not be 24. Why not 26 or 28, if that is the sort of reasoning that Opposition Members apply? Other things being equal, the smaller the local authorities are, the less viable local services will be. The proposals in the Bill serve to ensure the viability of local services by achieving a sensible compromise between size of authority and genuine accountability to the public.
  Mr. Ainger: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned in his list of criteria a community of interest. Both the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the
  796
  hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) have mentioned it. Does he not accept that as an important point as well as the scale or the size of the operation?
  Mr. Sweeney: I recognise the importance of a community of interest; it is a considerable factor. It is also why I have urged the Government to create a unitary authority based on Vale of Glamorgan.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman and I were at a meeting on Friday night which was attended by about 200 people, only one of whom wanted to belong to Vale of Glamorgan. Does he recognise the fact that the community of interest in Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick is to be with the Bridgend unitary authority, not with the Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority?
  Mr. Sweeney: I was certainly pleased to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency last Friday at the invitation of the people of Ewenny, Wick and St. Bride's Major. It is fair to say that almost all the people in the hall—about 175 from those communities—were opposed to joining Vale of Glamorgan. I shall deal with that issue later, but I feel that their interests will be best served by joining Vale of Glamorgan because they will benefit from lower local government costs and will, in all probability, receive a better service.
  Mr. Peter Hain: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sweeney: I shall not give way as I must make progress.
  The fifth criticism in the Opposition's amendment is that they fear that
  "further privatisation and … even more Welsh quangos"
  will result from the Bill. I expect that knee-jerk reaction to the possibility of further privatisation, and I shall be interested to hear about the Opposition's new-found interest in keeping down the number of civil servants and bureaucrats. I hope that in future the Conservatives will have more support from the Opposition when we try to reduce, rather than increase, the amount of red tape.
  The sixth criticism in the amendment is that the Bill will do nothing
  "to improve the system of Welsh local government finance".
  I strongly repudiate that notion. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to ensure more democratic accountability. People will no longer be confused about whether to go to councillor Bloggs or councillor Snooks to deal with a housing or education problem. If it is a matter for local government, they will know who their councillor is and who is responsible.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Some will go to their Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Sweeney: Indeed, some will still go to see their Member of Parliament, as I discover every Saturday morning at my two surgeries.
  The Opposition's seventh criticism is that the Bill
  "ignores important traditional and historic Welsh local government boundaries".
  Members may have something to say about their boundaries, but I am delighted that that of Vale of Glamorgan is to continue to exist. There is a great deal of local pride in the area and I am sure that it will be strengthened by the addition of the three communities that have already been mentioned.

  797
  The Opposition's final criticism of the Bill relates to costs. The amendment states that the Bill
  "will cost the Welsh people at least £100 million which could be better used in improving … services."
  Labour Members have missed the point. The Bill will improve public services not only in two years' time but for every year thereafter, which is why I support it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already explained how the initial investment will be financed, and it will be money extremely well spent.
  I told the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that I would speak of the boundary between his constituency and mine. What particularly prompts me to do so were the remarks made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, who is not in his seat at the moment but who suggested that a number of boundaries were being determined in the political interests of the Conservative party. He singled out my constituency for special mention.
  I should like to set the record straight by pointing out that my constituency already has 67,000 electors. In other words, it has about 8,000 electors too many for the typical Welsh seat. In its provisional recommendation based on the existing local government boundaries, the Boundary Commission said that my seat—or Vale of Glamorgan seat—was on the large side and that it was a matter of concern but that it was inclined to leave matters as they were, for the time being at any rate.
  It is certainly not a foregone conclusion that the Bill would be of any benefit to me. Indeed, one possibility is that the Cardiff boundaries might be altered and the existing Vale of Glamorgan seat could disappear. I do not know what final recommendation the commission will make, but it is important to set the record straight and stress that the reason for the inclusion of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick is in order to benefit the people of Vale of Glamorgan, including those who live in the three communities. [Hon. Members: "None of them believes that".] It is interesting that Labour Members interrupt from a sedentary position to say that local people will not believe it. The fact is that—
  Mr. Ray Powell rose—
  Mr. Sweeney: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  I outlined the arguments to a public meeting at which about 175 constituents of the hon. Member for Bridgend were present. None of them refuted what I had said. With a population of about 120,000 after reorganisation—
  Mr. Powell rose—
  Mr. Sweeney: I am sorry; I did say that I would give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Powell: I represented Bridgend from 1979 to 1983 when Ewenny, Wick and that part of the vale were part of the Ogmore constituency. I was secretary and agent to Walter Padley, my predecessor, who served the Ogmore constituency for 28 years during which time the area now in dispute was included in it and for 10 years before that. The area has a history of belonging to the Ogmore constituency and there is no doubt that it should now join Bridgend. All the people whom I represented there and whom I still know have said to me, not once but many times, that they should not become part of a different
  798
  constituency when they have always been oriented towards the market town of Bridgend where they do their shopping. They can also walk from Ewenny to the town of Bridgend and it would be a disgrace if the area were included in Vale of Glamorgan.
  Mr. Sweeney: Constituency boundaries are wholly irrelevant in this context. Changes to constituency boundaries are a matter for the Boundary Commission, not for the House.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The hon. Gentleman mentioned them.
  Mr. Sweeney: I mentioned them because an accusation was made against me earlier in the Chamber and I was anxious to refute it.
  With a population of about 120,000 once the reorganisation proposals are in place, the vale will be big enough to achieve economies of scale and to manage major services effectively while remaining small enough to maintain its existing character, foster pride in the community and delivering high quality services at a competitive cost.
  The people of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick will benefit financially from joining the vale. In 11 of the past 12 years, people living in the vale have had lower council tax, community charge and rate bills than in Ogwr. The strong likelihood is that, just as the total council tax bill now imposed by South Glamorgan county council and the Vale of Glamorgan borough council is substantially lower than the total bill imposed by Mid Glamorgan county council and Ogwr borough council, everyone living in the new vale unitary authority will pay less than those living in Ogwr.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, when he was making that point at the public meeting on Friday, people shouted that they might have to pay a bit more, but that the convenience of being in the Bridgend unitary authority would far overcome any slight reduction in cost from being in the Vale of Glamorgan? They laughed at that point, and when the vote was taken at the end of the meeting, only one person was persuaded to follow the hon. Gentleman's line.
  Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Member is quite right to say that I was interrupted at that stage of my speech before I had a chance to develop the other aspects of my argument.
  Mr. Griffiths: What about the vote at the end?
  Mr. Sweeney: The vote at the end reflected the fact that some 175 people turned up at a meeting and clearly almost all those individuals had made up their minds beforehand. [Laughter.] The meeting was distorted by a 20-minute speech by the chairman, who introduced the debate in such a way that, in effect, doubled the time spent on the platform by speakers who opposed the communities coming into the vale.
  With regard to the services, I believe that the people living in Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick will receive a better quality of service in the vale. There has been a lot of misinformation flying about. For example, some people in Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick believe that after they join the vale they will have to go to hospital in Cardiff if they are ill, instead of going to Bridgend. That is nonsense.
  Mr. Griffiths: They do not believe that.
  Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Member interrupts from a sedentary position to say that they do not believe that. I have had letters from people claiming that, I have heard people saying it, and that is why I am dealing with it. People living in places such as Cowbridge, Colwinston and Treoes in my constituency already go to hospital in Bridgend and it will be no different for the people who join the Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority. Under the recent reforms of the national health service, the money follows the patient. That will not be changed by local government reorganisation.
  There are excellent schools on both sides of the present western boundary of the vale. I freely acknowledge that Bryn Teg, the comprehensive school which children from the three communities currently attend, is excellent. Cowbridge school, which has the fourth best academic record in Wales, is heavily oversubscribed; and Llantwit Major school, which is in the process of being rebuilt to a very high standard, is also expected to be full in the near future. The sensible course is therefore for the new vale unitary authority to purchase places at Bryn Teg to avoid disrupting the education of children from the three communities.
  I acknowledge that there may well be some difficulties for people who live close to Bridgend in travelling to Barry, but the need to do so has been grossly exaggerated. People who live in the three communities will doubtless continue to shop, for example, in Bridgend. If the people who live in Llantwit Major and Cowbridge, who all live in the existing Vale of Glamorgan, find that they cannot get what they want in the local shops, they often shop in Bridgend. The new local authority boundary will not affect that.
  The increase in population in the western vale will tend to improve access to services. The new council is more likely to delegate certain administrative functions to the western vale if the population balance shifts westwards. For example, it is already possible to pay council tax and council house rent in Cowbridge and Llantwit Major. The new unitary authority will make its own decisions, but, when planning the local services, it is bound to take into account the wishes and needs of the population that it will serve.
  The population of the three communities have a lot more in common with Treoes, Llangan and Colwinston in my constituency than they do with Bridgend. There is no natural boundary between the vale and the three communities. Part of Ewenny is physically separated from the vale and joined to Bridgend. That problem can be overcome by the local government Boundary Commission, which will have power to recommend detailed amendments, as it has already successfully done for the eastern vale boundary. The addition of the new communities to the Vale of Glamorgan will provide an extra rural councillor and give more clout to rural points of view.
  In essence, the proposals are in the interests of the whole of the Vale of Glamorgan. They are certainly in the interests of my constituents, whose interests I must represent today, in that the Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority will be significantly larger than the existing vale borough council area. The new authority will be in a position to deliver a high level of services at a lower cost than is being experienced at present by people living in Ogwr.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Opposition realise that the Secretary of State is in a predicament because he has effectively inherited a rather unfortunate Bill. I am sure that Opposition Members would be more than willing to discuss and to rework the Bill with him. The Secretary of State is laughing. I had always thought that the whole point of the Bill was to bring some consensus in the matter. If there is to be consensus—he may not understand this—there has to be discussion. That is why the Secretary of State is typical of the Government. He does not listen and he will not listen. I should be obliged if he would listen during the few minutes in which I shall speak.
  Mr. Redwood: I was smiling because, as I explained to the House, that is exactly what I have been doing for months since taking the job. I entirely agree with the need to discuss, think it through and see whether we can reach agreement. That is what I have been doing.
  Mr. Llwyd: May I take that as an indication that discussion on the Bill has not yet ended and that there will be some give and take in Committee on various important amendments that may seem necessary?
  Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am obliged to the Secretary of State for that indication. None the less, I appeal to him to recognise that there are aspects of the Bill which worry many Members on both sides of the House. No doubt the Secretary of State will have seen the recent amendment and will have noticed that every Opposition Member has put his or her name to it.
  I believe, as others have said, that the fatal flaw in the Bill is the absence of an all-Wales tier of government. Members of my party make no secret of the wish to see a full tax-raising and legislative Welsh parliament. Colleagues in other parties have a Welsh assembly firmly set in their manifestos, and I need not remind the Secretary of State that no fewer than 72 per cent. of the Welsh electorate voted at the last general election for parties to include various forms of devolution in their manifestos. So important was that issue that every party had a most definite view on it.
  The vote on the amendment moved by Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos in another place sent a true and honest signal to the Government of the need for an all-Wales tier. The amendment was lost by eight votes only and the fact that the other place came that near to such a substantial constitutional change tells its own story.
  Mr. Morgan: A moral victory.
  Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Member chips in with the right phrase. I would have used it, but he used it first.
  No lasting and meaningful review of government in Wales can take place without dealing with the all-important need for an elected all-Wales tier of government. The so-called democratic deficit in Wales is huge, and even as I speak it is dividing the people of Wales from this place. A Welsh parliament is absolutely necessary, and in addressing the need for a Welsh assembly pro tem, I say that it is not only desirable but vital that such a body be set up. It, and it alone, could exercise truly democratic control over the executive functions of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  801
  The case for an assembly is now overwhelming, if only because of the recent revelations about the Welsh Development Agency and other non-departmental public bodies in Wales. Such organisations must be made thoroughly accountable to a fully democratically elected all-Wales body. The non-departmental public bodies have a huge budget—£1.8 billion per annum—and a staff of 50,000. They are peopled by about 1,400 members, the overwhelming majority of whom are Tory placemen and placewomen. Under the proposals in the Bill there will be about 200 fewer councillors than quango members in Wales. Democratic accountability is lacking, and I am afraid that the system is in disrepute.
  The answer is clear. In a recent public opinion poll 45 per cent. of respondents favoured a Welsh assembly, and only 22 per cent. were against; the "don't know" element was 33 per cent. If we eliminate the "don't knows", 67 per cent. of the people tested were in favour and only 33 per cent. against. The same poll revealed that there is no support in Wales for the current proposals for reorganising local government. Only 20 per cent. of the people of Wales support them. No reorganisation of local government should be implemented until the new structure has been considered and approved by a democratically elected Welsh assembly or parliament.
  Any reasonable or acceptable form of local government should act as a counterweight to the centralist direction and tendencies of central Government. For that to work, local government must be returned to the people. Professor Ivor Jennings, in his excellent book "Principles of Local Government Law", puts it thus:
  "Local government may have a wide variety of meanings. Since it is 'government', the system of local government which a country adopts must be part of its governmental or constitutional structure. Since it is 'local', it relates to specific portions of the country defined by locality. The institutions of local government are thus governmental organs having jurisdiction not over the whole of a country hut over specific portions of it".
  The words "defined by locality" need further emphasis, and I shall talk briefly about them later.
  As I have said, local government's role is as a counterweight to the state. It is vital that it should so act, because so long as the Government retain their financial stranglehold through charge capping and the like, councils are dangerously near to becoming mere agents or rubber stamps for Westminster rule. For good or bad, the system that we have relies on a healthy balance between local and central Government. That balance is now heavily weighted towards central Government, and that all-important balance in our democracy is under serious threat.
  As though to further that damaging process, the Bill adds considerably to the Secretary of State's powers over local government. It is a centralising measure, transferring powers from democratically elected councils to the Welsh Office. It weakens democracy yet further, and does not address the serious problem of accountability in Wales. The draconian and far-reaching powers to be conferred on the Secretary of State must be brought under full democratic control.
  The European aspect is interesting. The concept of subsidiarity means in essence that decisions best reached at a local level should be made at a local level. That applies not only to the relationship between the European mainland and Westminster, but to the relationship between
  802
  Westminster and Wales. The need for that link is obvious, as is the need for a proper division of decision taking to be enshrined in any measure that purports to review local government law in Wales.
  Mr. Redwood: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that I have explained that I want many choices, responsibilities and decisions to be dealt with locally? It is Opposition Members who say that I must specify in each case what the answer should be. The argument on local accountability is the other way round from what the hon. Gentleman has described.
  Mr. Llwyd: With the greatest respect, I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman's attention has already been drawn to various parts of the Bill, such as clauses 29 to 33. We know of the many reserve powers throughout the Bill. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman said that those powers were a last resort, and that he would not wish to use them—but I am sure that he would not wish to use his power of rate capping either. None the less, those powers are there, and they were nearly used recently against a borough council in north Wales.
  When one dissects the Bill carefully, one finds numerous areas in which the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office have a firm grip on everything that goes on. The powers might not be used—but they are there, and I call attention to them.
  Mr. Redwood: The powers are either transitional or enabling. They do not take functions and duties from local government.
  Mr. Llwyd: But with various bits of work being farmed out—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are having a laugh about this argument, but I do not believe that it is all that funny. Inevitably, various directly provided local government services will now go out to tender. We know that that will happen; compulsory competitive tendering may have been postponed, but it is coming in the next few months, as sure as eggs are eggs. I therefore question the Secretary of State's assertion.
  I was talking about the relationship between Westminster and Wales, and I still say that the Bill will deliver the reverse of subsidiarity. It flies in the face of mainstream political and constitutional thinking in mainland Europe.
  While we are on that subject, let us remember another fact. Only 15 per cent. of local government funding will come from council tax; 85 per cent. will come from central Government. That will perpetuate the financial stranglehold. The Audit Commission, referring to the European dimension, recently said that the absence of forums in which local authorities can meet to represent the interests of a broader region was beginning to disadvantage the United Kingdom local government system in its representations to the European Commission.
  We know about that in Wales, because we have often failed to obtain structural funds for various areas of our country. We cannot allow our local authorities to operate under such a disadvantage. A democratic assembly for Wales is essential to safeguard and promote the interests of Welsh local authorities in Europe. Aberconwy, in my constituency, lost out and was denied assistance under the assisted area schemes because the local authority did not have a suitable voice in Europe.

  803
  One of the justifications for the Bill is the Government's belief that the public are confused about the role of county, district and borough councils. If there was such obvious confusion, why has it taken 20 years for the Government to notice it? The alleged duplication is also a bad point.
  What of the alternative structures now being produced to clear up the confusion? The Bill purports to replace the existing structure of two tiers—besides the community councils, that is—with a single tier of unitary authorities. However, in Committee in another place, Lord Elis-Thomas said:
  "Let us not mislead ourselves. We are not talking about a simple scheme to create unitary local government; we are talking about a very complex multi-tiered structure".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 1994; Vol. 551, c. 360.]
  Although local government functions will initially be vested in the new principal authorities, there will be substantial delegation to area committees, especially in rural areas such as Powys, Caernarfonshire and Meirionnydd. Other functions will be discharged jointly, either voluntarily or by joint authorities or statutory joint bodies. Moreover, police, fire and other services will be arranged on a combined authority basis. The new structure will be more confusing to the citizen than the present one. The reference to area committees shows that the Bill is bad.
  If one of my constituents wishes to set up a business in the region, perhaps after being made redundant as a result of the decommissioning of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station, he or she will need planning permission for the business premises. Which authority will that person approach? Will it be the area committee or the new principal authority? It will probably be neither. He will have to seek planning permission from the new national park authority, with its headquarters in Penrhyndeudraeth. He will need building regulation consent, which may be available from the area committee's office in Dolgellau. As a prudent business person, he will seek advice from the local authority's economic development department. He might require technical advice from the professional officers of the trading standards service.
  Will those functions be discharged by the local area committee, the new principal authority or through joint arrangements'? Which authority should he approach'? Where will he receive his advice'? He may need advice on fire precautions for the new premises. For that, he will have to approach the new combined fire authority, with its headquarters at heaven knows where. Will the new system cause less confusion or make life simpler'? I doubt whether it will be the latter.
  There is also great concern about staffing. I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the likely loss of staff will amount to only 5 per cent.
  Mr. Redwood: I said not that there would be a 5 per cent. loss of staff, but that 95 per cent. of staff were almost certain to be transferred over. I wanted to reassure all those people, but that does not mean that the other 5 per cent. will lose their jobs.
  Mr. Liwyd: I make no issue about that matter. I apologise for misreading the position.
  Mr. Ainger: But there is no guarantee.
  Mr. Llwyd: No. I shall come to that.
  There is considerable concern in my region about the potential loss of well-paid jobs in Dolgellau, which will deprive the economy of the spending power of many
  804
  people and families and will weaken the social fabric in Meirionnydd. That is a major concern in my constituency, which has already suffered heavy blows in recent months, especially as a result of the decommissioning of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station.
  There is also deep concern among members of staff, many of whom will be unable to transfer to Caernarfon even if jobs are offered there, for family and other reasons. They must at least be entitled to generous compensation. When will the Secretary of State make an announcement on that issue?
  There is also great concern about the Government's view that those employees whose contracts of employment end on 31 March 1996 will not be made redundant but will have their contracts terminated by frustration of contract. That view is unacceptable. Employees who end up without a job must be entitled to all the protection afforded by the relevant employment legislation. Those matters must be considered in great detail in Committee.
  The Secretary of State will recall addressing a meeting of the Wales Trades Union Congress in January at which he said that there was need for a substantial contribution on the issue of staffing during the Second Reading debate. With great respect, I have not heard him say much about that matter today. I invite him to develop his theme since he advanced it in January.
  It would be worthwhile to mention what the Staff Commission for England recently said on the subject, and I invite the Secretary of State to comment on it. It advised the Department of Environment that the reorganisation compensation scheme should be mandatory, include age and length of service banding, and have a lump sum upper limit of 82 weeks for the under-50s and a 30-week maximum for the over-50s. It said that it should also give maximum added pension years for the over-50s, come into force with the reorganisation order and last for a year after the reorganisation day.
  Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will accept those points as minimum criteria and that the matter will be considered in great depth during the passage of the Bill'? Such matters are more vital in Wales. A recent survey by Manpower Watch shows that a disproportionate number of employees in Wales are over 50 years of age compared with their counterparts in England. It is even more important for Wales that we are able to reach an early conclusion on the matter, and that it is satisfactory and fair to staff. The subject has naturally caused great worry throughout local government in Wales.
  I am sure that the Government are aware of the recent study that was carried out by a team of top local government finance officers. It showed that the transitional costs of creating 21 unitary authorities would amount to £202.3 million at 1995–96 prices over a 15-year period. It also found that running the new authorities will cost another £6.2 million per annum more than at present. Does the Secretary of State agree with those figures? If not, what are his estimates of the transitional and annual running costs of the new authorities compared with those of the existing structures? Will the Secretary of State guarantee that all such additional costs are financed by the Treasury and will not result in any further squeezing of local government services or other Government-financed activity in Wales?
  The debates in the other place began to expose the cracks in the Bill. For instance, great concern has been expressed about the restrictions that the Secretary of State

  805
  intends to impose in clause 25, which allows authorities to provide services for each other. The Secretary of State has made it clear, however, that he will take away the powers conferred by clause 25 in respect of all services that are subject to compulsory competitive tendering. Those will soon include not only basic services, such as school meals and roads maintenance, but white-collar services, such as information technology, construction-related services and legal work. Does not the Secretary of State's intention to impose those restrictions militate against the lead authority's provisions and the joint working arrangements that he has advocated so strongly? What is the relationship between clause 25 and the working arrangements in clauses 29 to 31? Those provisions must be examined carefully and in great detail in Committee.
  The Bill is being rushed through and implemented without sufficient consideration. Also, the timetable does not add up. The election of members to the new councils will take place in April 1995. The chief executives will be appointed in June or July and the other chief officers will probably not be in post until September or October 1995. Service delivery plans, however, are to be prepared in draft form by 1 November 1995 and finalised by 1 February 1996.
  The Secretary of State can issue a direction to a local authority to prepare a decentralisation scheme as late as 1 July 1996. Once the scheme is submitted, therefore, he has up to 12 months in which to approve it. A decentralisation scheme might, therefore, not be approved until late 1997.
  Mr. Ron Davies: They will all be gone by then.
  Mr. Llwyd: That may be the case. If the scheme is not approved until late 1997, that will be about 18 months after the new authorities have come into operation. Whether or not a decentralisation scheme is implemented is crucial to the arrangements for service delivery and for local government democratic control. The Secretary of State must allow more time for those matters to be considered properly by the new authorities and brought into effect in a rational and orderly fashion.
  Hitherto I have talked about the generality of the Bill. I shall identify some further areas which will undoubtedly concern me in Committee. I heard the powerful speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on behalf of Montgomery. Of course, I add my voice to what he said, as I have done consistently. I hope that he will succeed in his difficult and arduous task of reinstating that honourable county status.
  I ask the Secretary of State to think again about the excellent case for unitary status put forward by Meirionnydd. Meirionnydd has been a unit of local government since 1284, and was an excellent county council until 1974. Lately, the district council has been an excellent deliverer of local services. No fewer than 12,500 people signed a petition presented to Parliament last July calling for a unitary authority for Meirionnydd. Not one of the detailed reports prepared by Meirionnydd district council and the Meirionnydd campaign received a reasoned response. That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable for the Under-Secretary merely to say, as he did yesterday at Welsh questions, that matters relating to the Bill are for Parliament to decide. We know what that means.
  806
  I ask the Secretary of State again to give further consideration to the Meirionnydd case. Some weeks ago, during a meeting I had with the Under-Secretary, he admitted that only two campaigns had been mounted in Wales for unitary status of the nature of those run by Meirionnydd and Montgomery, so the argument that floodgates would be opened because some concessions had been given today does not add up. I am pleased for the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). However, merely not to respond in any detailed way to the arguments put forward by my authority and, indeed, the Montgomery authority, and to disallow them out of hand, would be wrong, undemocratic and totally unacceptable to the people in those areas.
  Does the Secretary of State further accept that communities such as Bro Garmon, Bro Machno, Dolgarrog, Llanrwst, Maenan and Llanddoget, Trefriw, Ysbyty Ifan and Eglwysbach have all indicated a preference for joining—that list will ensure that the Hansard reporters send me a note. If they send me the book down, I shall take the time to write it all out. I apologise —I should have taken it a bit slower; it comes as second nature to a Welsh speaker. Indeed, those communities are listed in the Official Report of the House of Lords as a result of an amendment moved by a noble Lord in Committee.
  Those communities have indicated that they want to join with Caernarfon, as indeed have Penmaenmawr and Llanfairfechan. They want to move in with the Caernarfon set-up. We are talking about a large number of people and a large number of councils. I ask the Secretary of State to consider the matter because it is important across all shades of political opinion. Later, I intend to table an amendment to that effect, but I shall be grateful if the Government will consider the matter in the meantime.
  As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said earlier, the borough of Taff-Ely is an excellent deliverer of services—it may be because it is run by Plaid Cymru. In any event, that authority has made a very strong case for unitary status. I ask the Government to re-examine that particular aspect. I join the hon. Member for Pontypridd in his arguments on behalf of that authority.
  We are dealing with the every-day lives of our citizens. Their aspirations must be taken into account because the Bill will mean nothing unless it carries with it the consensus of Welsh opinion. I welcome the concession on archive services and their provision. I ask whether there will be a similar approach to trading standards departments. Earlier, the Secretary of State said that that service could also be provided by smaller authorities. Therefore, I ask him to develop that aspect further, if not in this debate then obviously in Committee.
  I also ask the Secretary of State, who has just left his seat, whether he can give an assurance that council employees will not be ineligible to stand for office. Undoubtedly, amendments will be tabled in Committee, but an indication at this stage would assist. Failure to allow employees to stand for office would, of course, deprive thousands of citizens of their basic democratic rights.
  I shall refer briefly to the question of a Welsh assembly. I remind hon. Members that a vote was taken on the amendment tabled by Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. Although the House of Lords is not noted for radical decision

  807
  making, the amendment failed unfortunately by only eight votes. Surely that must be a telling point that the Government will have to bear in mind.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I appreciate that he is reaching the end of his speech. Surely he is not telling the House that the form of assembly which was proposed in another place is a form of assembly that would satisfy the hon. Gentleman or any of his parliamentary colleagues.
  Mr. Llwyd: It is an indication of principle. Earlier, I said that I did not want a Welsh assembly; I want a Welsh parliament. In the meantime, and on a pro tern basis, I shall fight hard for a Welsh assembly, which has been requested by other Opposition Members.
  I reiterate that Opposition Members sympathise with the Secretary of State. He has been saddled with his predecessor's proposals, for which he has no enthusiasm. Moreover, as a former local government Minister in the Department of the Environment, he knows that the proposals in the Bill will not lead to effective and efficient local government in Wales. He should have the honesty and integrity to express his true feelings about the Bill and consign the proposals to the wastepaper basket, where they belong. He should consult widely in Wales across the political spectrum and bring forward new proposals for the government of Wales which will be acceptable to our people; otherwise the Bill will only give rise only to resentment and dismay. Surely that must be avoided if the process is not to be utterly discredited.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I contratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on his achievement in getting such a large number of signatures for the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. In view of the confusion and divisions that pervade the Opposition Benches, it was no mean achievement to gain all those signatures. However, having read the Order Paper, I note that the names are arranged in alphabetical order and therefore I have no doubt that all the names owe more credit to the skills of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) than those of the hon. Member for Caerphilly.
  Like a music hall conjurer, as it were, the amendment is a conjuring trick by the hon. Gentleman, which Tory Members can see through. The perception that the hon. Gentleman wishes us to gain from the Order Paper is that there is some unanimity that binds Opposition Members. However, we know about the manifest divisions in the hon. Gentleman's and between his party and the nationalist and Liberal parties in Wales. Those divisions exist with regard to the assembly itself.
  Mr. Ron Davies: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) does my bidding on such matters, I can assure him that he grossly misreads the relationships within the parliamentary Labour party.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: You do his bidding.
  Mr. Davies: I certainly do not. I hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) is not impugning the integrity of the hon. Members who signed the amendment. It is a fact that all 32 Opposition Members agree that the Government's proposals are fundamentally
  808
  flawed and that the system of unitary authorities is not acceptable without a Welsh assembly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is an accurate reflection of the views of the 32 hon. Members who signed the amendment.
  Mr. Evans: It is common knowledge that there are some among the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary party in Wales who are far less enthusiastic about the idea of a Welsh parliament than he would have us believe. More importantly, the amendment condemns the Government proposal because it
  "abolishes a democratic tier of local Government".
  The democratic tier to which the amendment refers presumably is the county councils. Yet Opposition Members—including the hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), for Blaneau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) —have demanded that further action be taken to place local government unitary powers in the hands of those at the district level, and that the new unitary authorities should be based on the districts rather than on the counties. The amendment derides and attacks the Government because they are moving away from county councils.
  Dr. Howells: My difficulty in the matter is in trying to understand why, when there are local authorities and district councils that are exactly the same size, which have the same population and offer the same services—which are twins, in many ways—one becomes a unitary authority and the other is linked with neighbouring authorities. I am looking for the logic in it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give me a better idea of where it derives from than the Secretary of State did.
  Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman remains for all of my speech, he will find that I shall ask certain questions along those lines in relation to my area. I have not noticed the hon. Gentleman saying that we need to retain the two-tier system, or that we need a unitary authority based upon Mid Glamorgan county council. I have not heard those claims from Opposition Members, but I have heard claims that we need more unitary authorities, rather than fewer.
  Mr. Rogers: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman understandably shows a complete lack of knowledge of local government. He ought to realise that services are provided at different levels. It is a matter not of drawing boundaries on a map, but of delivering services. The Opposition are anxious to ensure that there is an optimum size for the delivery of the best services. Our argument is that an authority of 240,000 is too big to deliver many of the personal services. On the other hand, such an authority may in some senses be too small to provide all of the support facilities for the delivery of education and social services.
  What is dumbfounding for Opposition Members is the fact that the Secretary of State can propose that an authority bounded by the same mountains and adjacent to our local authority can be big enough when it has a population of 70,000, and yet other authorities which are bigger again are not big enough. Where is the logic in the argument?
  Mr. Evans: I am perfectly happy to debate the issues. In relation to the hon. Member's opening statement, I always find that arguments are not advanced by abuse.
  The hon. Gentleman seems to be proposing that, in certain circumstances, the retention of a two-tier system would be desirable.
  Mr.Rogers rose—
  Mr. Evans: May I just put a point to the hon. Member which I think is of fundamental importance? We must look at the basis from which the Bill springs. It springs from a consultation exercise undertaken by the Secretary of State's predecessor in which he asked authorities within Wales at both county and district level whether there was a case to justify retaining a two-tier structure, or whether we should move to unitary authorities. I know about that because I was involved in the debate with each of the local authorities in my area.
  Mr. Rogers: I did not mean to be abusive to the hon. Gentleman in a personal sense. I was commenting simply on the problems of deciding on the correct size for local government. Some of my hon. Friends do not agree with me, and it is not my party's policy, but I believe in two-tier local government. Frankly, the Secretary of State's proposals will create two-tier local government, because unitary authorities will have to combine to provide bigger services. In effect, there will then be two-tier local government. Why on earth must the county councils be abolished to start with?
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman will find as my speech develops that there is much which, perhaps surprisingly, unites us in the matter.
  I feel strongly that we should not base local government on some desired percentage, or a gross number which is the desirable figure upon which every local authority should be based. The basis of my argument is that there are different circumstances in different parts of Wales. The proposals in the Bill that govern the situation within Powys create the retention of a form of two-tier structure.
  I shall return to the thrust of my speech, rather than just responding to interventions from the Opposition. It is important that the debate should be seen to be about the initial step taken by the Secretary of State in asking whether there should be unitary authorities or the retention of the two-tier structure. The response from virtually throughout Wales was in favour of unitary authorities, and there can be no ducking that.
  The response from the counties was that we must have unitary authorities, but they must be based on the counties. The response from the districts was that we must have unitary authorities, but they must be based on the districts. The problem identified by the Secretary of State, and which we have heard about during the debate, is that there has been confusion in the roles of the authorities.
  There has been confusion in terms of the delivery of services. The counties and districts have agreed on that; otherwise, they would not have proposed creating unitary authorities in the first place. Sadly, I do not think that the authorities have looked in as much detail as they might at some of the difficulties that might arise if we went for one desirable size for a local authority area. For instance, I understand that the desirable population for a local authority within Wales must be 70, 000. However, I know that the English local government commission has argued that 150,000 is the desirable population. Why should the appropriate population be twice as big in England as it is in Wales?
  Within Wales, a number of authorities proposed in the Bill have a population significantly lower than 70,000. In the Government's proposal for Scotland there are two authorities that are smaller than Radnorshire. Those
  810
  authorities are proposed in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, which is being debated in Committee, and the Government recognise that a proper level of local government service can be delivered by an authority based on a population as small as in those areas.
  I am sure that that is anathema to some of those who advise the Secretary of State, and to the Assembly of Welsh Counties. They see things very much in the context of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason), who said that one important consideration has to be the career structure of those who work in local government. I am not unsympathetic to the concerns of those who work in local government, and we should provide proper terms and conditions for them. However, our fundamental and primary role must be to ensure that we create a structure of local government that is right for local council tax payers and the local population.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that smaller district councils have been able to attract a high quality of officer? Some have been brilliant young officers who have moved on, and some have been slightly older officers who were looking to work in a rural authority.
  Mr. Evans: I agree entirely, and the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that, in my constituency, Radnorshire district council has a chief executive, Mr. Geoff Read, who is widely respected. He has also created a structure within the district council in which it is not the perception that whoever fills a council role must only perform that job and no other. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that in career structures it is desirable to bring in people who train in one environment and move on to other local authorities.
  To say that we must all conform to one template for the structure of local government and the desired size of population, with the lines then being drawn over Wales accordingly, runs entirely contrary to local sensitivities and does not produce the best form of local government reorganisation.
  Another caveat in respect of the Local Government Commission has been referred to in the debate. Proposals are being made for the retention of a two-tier structure in certain parts of England. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) suggested such an arrangement as a backstop position for Montgomeryshire. People in Montgomeryshire may have said to him that they want their own unitary authority, but certainly do not want to lose control over local services. We should ponder hard before we create a structure in a year or so of unitary and two-tier authorities over England, but only unitary authorities across Wales, created in the face of local opposition. That would not be in anyone's interests.
  At the time of the debate about whether it was helpful to move towards unitary authorities, I discussed with the authorities in my area whether they believed that Powys uniquely had reasons for retaining a two-tier structure. The hon. Member for Rhondda spent a good deal of time interrupting me and I gave way to him. I see that he did not choose to remain for the rest of my speech. It is rather a shame. I accept entirely the point that he made in this regard. Some services need to be delivered to a much larger population; other services need to be delivered much closer to the people. How are we to deal with that key problem?

  811
  I see no reason why we should not have a structure of unitary authorities based on small populations. I am sure that the authorities in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and those in my area would work together constructively to deliver strategic services over a wider area. Furthermore, that might even involve some councillors from the area of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I know that his authority has discussed the matter within the mid-Wales context with other authorities. That is a constructive debate.
  However, I was a little disappointed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly. He said that he was committed to voting in Committee for Montgomeryshire or a Brecon and Radnor authority, but had not yet decided whether he was prepared to support a Radnorshire authority in its own right. One aspect of the debate in another place that particularly disappointed me was that it was proposed that Brecon and Radnor should be merged, against the wishes of the people of Radnorshire and in the teeth of the opposition of those people. Such proposals are not helpful in developing the best form of local relations.
  The authorities in my constituency are fundamentally independent. Most of the councils are under independent control. Yet we have Labour representation in Radnorshire. I know from speaking to the Radnorshire Labour councillors last week that they intend to urge the hon. Member for Caerphilly to change the position that he outlined tonight.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I said that we had taken a view on Montgomeryshire. The spokesman for the Labour party in the House of Lords said that that was the policy which we would be prepared to support officially. The problem that we now face is that the hon. Gentleman is engaging in a tortured approach to his county of Powys. He obviously cannot make up his mind whether to argue the case for a unitary authority in Radnorshire and/or a unitary authority in Breconshire. As soon as he decides which side of the fence to come down on, we can consider whether to support his argument.
  Mr. EvansI am surprised to hear that remark from the hon. Gentleman. He clearly cannot have listened to any of my speeches in the House on the matter in the past two years. If he had, he would know my position.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman will stop seeking to intervene and allow me to develop my argument, he will understand clearly. If he had listened on previous occasions, he would understand.
  Mr. Griffiths: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument that Radnorshire should not be drawn into a combined Breconshire and Radnorshire unitary authority. He said that if they were combined, they would be dragged kicking and screaming into the new structure and he would not approve it. Is he prepared to support our amendment? The communities of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick have shown that they do not want to be part of the Vale of Glamorgan, but want to stay with the Bridgend unitary authority.
  Mr. Evans: I am prepared to listen to any arguments advanced by particular communities. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that I met representatives from Blaenau
  812
  Gwent and Merthyr. The hon. Member for Caerphilly knows that I expressed some sympathy with the observations that they made. I was pleased to hear the announcement that by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made about those authorities. I am certainly prepared to listen to the arguments on those matters, although I cannot give a definitive response at this point.
  I return to my theme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made his proposals. The somewhat surprising proposal for a unitary authority based on Powys was not one which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery expected or one which I expected. The consultation paper referred to the creation of either a Brecon and Radnor joint authority or separate authorities. We in mid-Wales well remember the dotted line between the two district areas. I pay credit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to his predecessor for what they have done since that time. It is churlish of some Opposition Members to suggest that there has been any lack of consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have been to see him on four or five occasions with representatives of the local councils to discuss the issues.
  The Government clearly must recognise that the proposal for a unitary authority based on Powys in its own right is a major problem. That is why the area committees proposal is in the Bill. In fairness to the Government, that is a recognition of many of the points that we have made. However, there are dangers in the proposal for area committees. If the area committees are to have real autonomy, they must have financial control. That is a fundamental aspect which I have argued privately with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in meetings when representatives of the local councils have been present, and on other occasions. That is one of the reasons why I have raised the matter yet again in the House.
  Again, in fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he went much further in his response today than he did on a previous occasion on the issue of financial autonomy. As yet, all we know is that my right hon. Friend recognises the problem and we must examine what he proposes as the solution. The problem is not limited to financial autonomy. One of the problems that have arisen from the way in which the debate has been conducted is some difficulty in the relationship between the councils in mid-Wales. That is unhelpful and those of us who have a parliamentary role in the area should do our best to resolve it.
  I am greatly displeased by suggestions that I have heard that, if ultimately there should be a Powys authority, the stronger authorities to the north or to the south of Radnorshire may choose to operate Radnorshire on a north-south basis, with disastrous effects on Llandrindod Wells. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that some people in his constituency feel that Llandrindod Wells is remote from them. I recognise that they have that perception, but it is inevitable when one is dealing with a vast geographical area such as Powys.
  Nevertheless, if we had a Powys authority, even with that financial devolution, it would create difficulties for Llandrindod Wells, which depends substantially on being the administrative centre of Powys, because there would be a perception of a north-south split in the county.
  It was surprising that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said that he was sorry that 85 per cent. of the funding for those new authorities is likely to come from

  813
  central Government, as at present. He suggested that that was too much; that we needed to change that balance. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would clarify those remarks.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am invited to intervene. The simple point was that the longer and the firmer is the financial stranglehold on local government by this place, the less likely we are to have any democratic development in local government generally. The point is fairly obvious. I know that the hon. Gentleman wanted to make a point, but it really is a silly point.
  Mr. Evans: The clear thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that, if 85 per cent. central Government funding to local authorities is too much, ultimately there will be a switch in the balance of resources so that more resources are raised locally. Presumably that is the hon. Gentleman's point.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), although he has not spoken in the debate, was present at a Parliament for Wales meeting in my constituency recently. He made it absolutely clear at the meeting that, on instructions from the hon. Member for Caerphilly, he was arguing the case for keeping central funding from this place, that the block grants must still come from the House of Commons, and that we must not get into a debate about there being tax-raising powers for any assembly in Wales. That is yet another of the slight divisions between the position of the hon. Member for Caerphilly and the nationalists on that matter.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to give me reassurance about two aspects of the detail of the Bill. Clause 24 deals with police authorities and gives certain powers to the Secretary of State to bring forward plans in relation to proposed amalgamations. That issue causes great worry in my constituency.
  I was happy to hear today that within the Dyfed-Powys police force in my constituency there have been recorded reductions in crime rates of 48 per cent. in Brecon and 28 per cent. in Llandrindod Wells—and that from a police force which has the lowest crime rate and the highest clear-up rate in the country. It may be a small police force, but it is an efficient and well-run police force. We must oppose any forced merger with another police force authority such as South Wales, which is formulated on the basis of a much bigger population, but is being run into the ground through poor financial management. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to clarify what may be in the mind of the Government in relation to clause 24.
  Clause 23 includes powers concerning the fire authorities. It is proposed, as the Under-Secretary of State knows, that there should be three fire authorities in Wales. I view that with substantial anxiety. People in my constituency will want reassurance about service delivery if there were to be such a reorganization.
  I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) about the concerns of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children regarding children's services in Wales.
  I conclude by referring to the fundamental part of the Opposition's reasoned amendment. In essence, it proposes that the Bill should not receive a Second Reading because it fails to establish a directly elected all-Wales tier of
  814
  government. That is the fig-leaf covering the hon. Member for Caerphilly. The proposal that there must be a parliament for Wales draws the Opposition together.
  Opposition Members say that 70 per cent. of people in Wales support the policy. That is manifest nonsense. In 1979, more than 80 per cent. of the people in Wales voted against a parliament for Wales; two months later, 67 per cent. of them voted for parties who were committed to it. Does that mean that in two months all the people in Wales changed their minds? No. It means that some of the people who support some of the Opposition parties vehemently oppose a parliament for Wales.
  Several factors lead to people voting for some of the Opposition Members. I wish that we could persuade them to vote otherwise. Be that as it may, the creation of a separate Welsh parliament is not one of the fundamental things that cause people to vote for some of the Opposition parties, save only perhaps in the case of Plaid Cymru.
  In those circumstances, it is manifest nonsense for Opposition Members to claim that vote as evidence for support for a separate parliament for Wales. They had 67 per cent. of the vote in 1979 and 70 per cent. of the vote at the most recent election—a 3 per cent. change in the vote in that period.
  Further, recently a poll recorded that 45 per cent. of people in Wales are in favour of creating some type of assembly. What do those people want? What do they imagine the parliament leading to? It is my case that 82 per cent. of the people who propose the idea of a separate Welsh parliament regard it, as does the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, as a step on the road to an independent and separate Wales.
  Mr. Llwyd indicated assent.
  Mr. Evans: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman nods his support for that, because he spoke of the debate in another place, and said that, during that debate, the Welsh parliament idea had only just failed to get through, but it was not the type of parliament that he wanted. He wanted very much more control over a wide range of matters in Wales. So we are concerned with people who wish to be on the road to an independent, separatist Wales, and who view the establishment of a separate Welsh parliament as a step on that road.
  Mr. Llwyd: I have no embarrassment about wanting a Welsh parliament—obviously not—and I wonder why the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) should suddenly be surprised when I nod my head. My argument was that a Welsh assembly is necessary now to sweep away the quango system, or at least to bring some scrutiny to bear on the quangos, because the system is in complete disrepute. We waste £1.8 billion per annum on running quangos in Wales without any proper scrutiny. A Welsh assembly could start by considering that.
  Mr. Evans: Every public organisation that has been set up by the Secretary of State for Wales is answerable, through him, to Parliament. That is why we have questions on the Order Paper about them every day—most of them tabled by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent.
  I am very pleased to see the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) in his place. I was sorry that he, not discourteously, would not allow me to intervene earlier because he was keen to keep his remarks short. He said that his views about a Welsh assembly had

  815
  not really changed since the 1970s. As he said that, I remembered those famous remarks that he made in 1979: when an elephant is on your doorstep you know it for what it is. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was most eloquent on that occasion. He was saying, in essence, that, whatever his own views may have been, the people of Wales had a totally different view.
  As regards the current situation and the bankruptcy of the approach of so many Opposition Members, we know that the Labour party is not prepared, as part of its policy for a separate Welsh parliament, to put it to a vote of the people of Wales. The assiduous response of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), during the Parliament for Wales campaign meeting, was that he had the authority of the hon. Member for Caerphilly to say, "We will have a separate Welsh Parliament and we will bring that Parliament about within 12 months of an incoming Labour Government, but there will be no referendum on it." Those were the reported words of the hon. Member for Neath. I was with him when he said that and he did so with the authority of the hon. Member for Caerphilly.
  Mr. Ron Davies: For the sake of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is in favour of a referendum for an assembly or parliament for Wales?
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman pays too little attention to my remarks. I have consistently said that anybody who proposes a separate Welsh parliament should, in the context of the 1979 referendum, be prepared to put it to a vote by the people of Wales. Were the hon. Gentleman to do that, I should be delighted to take him on at the hustings, because I have no doubt that the outcome would be exactly the same as that of the previous referendum.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Peter Hain: Given that unitary authorities have such widespread support in principle across the country and the consensus that local government should be reorganised on the principle of unitary authorities, how has such a popular policy become so unpopular in Wales? The answers are self-evident.
  First, the Conservatives are riding roughshod over the interests and democratic wishes of the Welsh people. That is the background against which they are introducing the Bill and why it is meeting such opposition and criticism. My constituents describe the Secretary of State by all sorts of names, some of which are too unparliamentary to repeat here. One of the nicer ones is Dr. Strangelove because of his approach to Welsh politics and the fact that his single greatest achievement has been to reduce Conservative support in Wales to its lowest level ever.
  The second reason why the Bill is so heavily criticised and greeted with such suspicion is that the Government are defying the electorate. They are seeking to overturn the democratic results of general and local county council elections by instituting a new tier of quangos to replace elected representatives with a new elite. The "quangie are exercising great powers but are not accountable.
  The Bill runs alongside and encourages that development because it sets up new quangos that will be less democratically accountable than the local authorities that they replace. Despite the welcome increase in the number of councils, there will be fewer elected local councillors than members of the various quangos in Wales.
  816
  That will encourage elitism and toadying, which is now such a feature of public life in Wales. Tory placepersons are put on quangos when they cannot get directly elected. It will also produce what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) appropriately described as a loss of democratic legitimacy.
  When elected councillors are taken out of their communities, a vacuum is left. The whole system of politics and democracy rests on legitimacy. Whatever their imperfections, local councillors are an important part of creating building blocks for that legitimacy, but they are being replaced by an unelected elite throughout the system of government in Wales.
  Combined with the economic and social policies that the Government are pursuing to disastrous effect in Wales, there will be increasing problems of ungovernability, not just in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom. We shall certainly see that in communities such as those that I represent, with a strong democratic tradition and sense of community. If those features are destroyed, the traditional sense of legitimacy and respect that the communities in the valleys of south Wales have for the democratic process will also be destroyed. That is a serious consequence of the Government's open defiance of democratic wishes.
  The third reason why the Bill is so unpopular is that it entrenches the fragmentation of government, the problem of quangos to which I have already referred, and the associated process of opting out which some local hospitals and schools are forced to adopt. The parallel developments of contracting out, market testing and privatisation also contribute to the fragmentation of government. The result is a system of politics in which voters no longer achieve their true role as citizens whose place in the democracy exists by virtue of exercising their democratic rights. They become mere customers of services that have been opted out, contracted out, quangoised, market tested or privatised.
  That result is the destruction of local policies, and the Bill entrenches that process. Ultimately, local policies are the cement that binds local communities together. Unless people are involved in local policies, their respect for priorities cannot be attained. Moreover, the process by which cohesion can be sustained and priorities set within a community cannot be attained. The essence of politics is to set priorities, which will advantage some people and disadvantage others. One retains the respect of those who have been disadvantaged only if they feel that they have participated in the democratic process of arriving at those priorities.
  However one looks at this remorseless, systematic fragmentation of politics, democracy and local government, it is a serious phenomenon that will be one of the Conservative regime's principal legacies when the Conservatives are finally driven from office. They intend to turn local authorities from democratic agencies, for which socialists have always argued, into mere administrative outposts of Whitehall. That is what the Bill is about. It seeks not to empower local citizens or local democracies but to reconstitute local authorities as administrative agencies for central Government, a process that is entrenched by the fact that some 90 per cent. of local authority finance is now provided centrally. Coupled with the capping of local authorities' scope to allow local autonomy and democracy to flower and reflect local wishes, that power is virtually extinguished. It is a

  817
  top-down version of democracy—if we can still call it democracy. It is certainly a top-down version of government, as opposed to an empowering bottom-up one.
  The other key consequence of the fragmentation and destruction of local government is that the strategy and mechanism for determining the strategic approaches to policy matters and for developing policies with strategic consequences no longer exist. A cluster of competing fragmented units are responsible for carrying out services or deciding on policies. The ability to determine an overall strategic approach to Wales' future is lost, which is why the biggest gap in this process of reform of government in Wales is the absence of an all-Welsh tier of government —a Welsh assembly or parliament, whatever it is called when it is brought in, as I believe that it will be in the end, despite Conservative resistance.
  The biggest hole in this reform of local government is the ability to have an agency capable of taking a Wales-wide strategic approach to policy. The Secretary of State has all but recognised that by conceding the case for establishing an economic council. Why is such a council to be established? That is an interesting question for a Government who reject the idea of an all-Wales tier of government. At least in respect of economic policy, the Conservative Government recognise that there is a hole in their policy and that they need a Wales-wide approach. Therefore, instead of conceding the case for a Welsh assembly or a Welsh parliament, they are setting up a puppet quango in the proposed economic council. They have at least recognised the need for an overall strategy on economic policy development.
  Another concession that is even less acceptable is the Secretary of State's proposed forum, which he is trying to cobble together without co-operation from the Labour party, at least in terms of the forum's composition. Why did he make that suggestion? Because he sees a gap in his approach to government. Associated with that policy is the encouragement and promotion of joint boards and consortia that do irreparable damage to the democratic process and the lines of local accountability.
  What will a local citizen in Neath be voting for in education and social services or the fire service if those vital emergency and general services are run by joint boards or consortia? How will his or her vote determine the policies of those new quangos, consortia and boards? How can they be held accountable when they are fragmented and dispersed into parallel bodies working alongside elected local authorities? As a consequence, we have a real dog's breakfast of local government reform.
  That is why, relatively late in the day, the Secretary of State has come upon the wheeze of decentralisation. It is not really decentralisation; if it were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has pointed out, the Government would need to devolve real power, not least over finance. That is not proposed. The consequence will not be real decentralisation, but the danger of reconstituting old districts in their parochial sense without being empowering agencies. That could lead to the paralysis of the new unitary authorities rather than to their being genuinely powerful and dynamic in implementing their policies and reflecting local wishes.
  That brings me to the future of Neath. The borough of Neath has been in existence for some 900 years. The town
  818
  dates back to Roman times. To defend the legitimacy of its existence is not simply to indulge in a local whim or some parochial self-interest; it is not the reaction of local politicians who want to cling to office.
  Neath borough council employed independent consul-tants, Touche Ross, a company of which the Government normally take considerable notice—but in this case they have not. Touche Ross looked carefully and in detail into the case for Neath remaining on its own and took the view that it could meet all the criteria required for successfully functioning as a unitary authority.
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hain: I am not taking any interventions from the hon. Gentleman, who is known in my constituency as Rod Gwenwn.
  Neath borough council has put together detailed proposals for Neath to remain a unitary authority. The Minister might at least note that even local Conservatives have enthusiastically backed them. It is not simply the Labour party that has put the case for Neath; a broad section of the community, from the Churches to the trade unions, has endorsed virtually unanimously the case for Neath to remain on its own.
  My right hon. and learned friend the Member for Aberavon pointed out that, in an independent ballot conducted for the local authority, only about 135 of the 6,000 or so votes cast were actually in favour of the Government's proposals.
  The Touche Ross report pointed out that a Neath unitary authority would offer real benefits
  "for social services, where the model of working together currently applied most successfully between housing and social services in Neath is capable of extension to include local health service professionals and will provide a sound basis for strategic planning".
  It also pointed out:
  "a Neath local education authority would be small enough for the chief education officer to have immediate personal contact with head teachers through the appraisal system".
  It set out the benefits
  "for highways and transportation, where the benefits of unitary status in Neath could offer better coordination between highways and planning departments without involving the difficulties of merging two district planning departments",
  as is proposed for Neath and Port Talbot and half the planning authority for the upper Clwyd valley.
  The report, which was delivered in May 1992, stated:
  "a Neath authority would have a much clearer community focus than a combined Neath/Port Talbot authority could achieve."
  It argued
  "The lack of community links between Neath and Port Talbot reflects the topography and shows through in patterns of shopping and personal mobility. Neath's vibrant pattern of sporting, leisure and cultural activities is largely independent from Port Talbot. There are significant differences in the transport focus and industrial character of the two boroughs".
  It concluded:
  "We believe that Neath is well placed to operate as a unitary authority in own right, meeting the criteria set out in the Welsh Office Consultation Paper of being able to deliver high quality services while meeting the financial objectives set out in Section 7 of the paper".
  I need not rely simply on Labour advocates or independent consultants for that view; those opinions were voiced in another place recently. In the debate on the Local Government (Wales) Bill, Lord Howe of Aberavon said:
  "We like people from Neath as long as they keep their distance and t hope they take the same view of we people from Aberavon, but that there could not be two more distinct communities. It

  819
  would be a mistake to merge them".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1740.]
  Viscount Tonypandy, a former Speaker of the House, speaking of Neath and Port Talbot, said:
  "I was going to say that they are like salt and sugar, but I do not wish to offend one side or the other. Those two have a fierce rivalry … I am afraid that the Government could not be making a bigger mistake."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1993; Vol. 550, c. 1287.]
  Those are the views of two eminent and experienced former Members of the House whose views should be taken into account by the Government but clearly are not.
  The Secretary of State has conceded the case for Neath's existence as a separate unitary authority without implementing the necessary changes to the Bill but by conceding the case for Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent to go their own way. I do not quarrel with that; I congratulate those areas on their achievement and my hon. Friends on having secured it.
  What criteria were used in the Secretary of State's decision that could not be applied to Neath or Port Talbot? It cannot be size, because Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent are of similar size. It cannot be geographical convenience, because the journey between Glyncorrwg in Aberavon and Cwmllynfell at the top of my constituency takes perhaps an hour and a half through tortuous, winding, traffic-ridden roads.
  There is no common community interest between those villages and it is not a question of geographical convenience or civic pride; there is tremendous civic pride in Neath and Port Talbot which will be extinguished as a result of the reform. It is not a matter of history, as that is being ignored. It is not a question of community, because that is being defied. It is not a question of functions, because no logical explanation is given for Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent being single local authorities that could not be applied to Neath or Port Talbot.
  It is not a question of service delivery. No criterion has been given for the optimum level at which different services are to be delivered in Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr, which have been given their own opportunity, that could not equally be applied to Neath and Port Talbot. It is not a question of finance either, because, as the Touche Ross report showed; the Neath-going-alone option would be cheaper.
  None of those principal criteria is the reason chosen for the Bill's final form; it is a question of expediency, of what the Secretary of State feels that he has been able to get away with. The Bill will be bulldozed through with the votes of Conservative Members of Parliament sitting in English constituencies. I am delighted that the constituencies of my hon. Friends have achieved unitary status, but I believe that that decision has stripped the Secretary of State of all his defences.
  There is no logic, conviction or honesty in the Bill. It does not have credibility. For those reasons, there will be widespread opposition to it throughout Wales, and certainly in my constituency. We will fight it every inch of the way in Committee, and will do so from a principled basis, opposing the Government's unprincipled expediency.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Rod Richards: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your eagle eye and for calling me.
  As I listened to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), I was reminded of a recent opinion survey conducted by the
  820
  Labour party in Ystradgynlais, when the boundary between his constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) was in dispute, or under discussion. The Labour party conducted a survey asking the good people there whether they wished to be included in the constituency of Neath or stay in the constituency of Brecon and Radnor. It showed that 97 per cent. of the people surveyed wished to stay with my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor rather than go to the hon. Member for Neath.
  There is general agreement in the House that local government in Wales is in need of reform. The debate, however, is about how best to achieve that. The reasons for the divisions between Conservative Members and Labour Members are quite easy to understand. Conservative Members believe that the purpose of local government is to provide quality services at minimum cost to council taxpayers. One would have thought that that would be a common primary objective. Unfortunately, to the Labour party, local government is about creating employment first and delivering services second.
  Since the Government announced their reform proposals, the two boroughs that cover my constituency have got on with the job of making reform work—would that that were true everywhere in Wales. Colwyn borough got together at an early stage with neighbouring Aberconwy, with which it will form a new unitary authority, and has co-operated well since. When I recently asked Colwyn borough how it was progressing, it expressed pleasure at the latest Welsh Office consultation paper under which it will have equality of numbers with Aberconwy in the new unitary authority and at the fact that the rural wards in Colwyn will be preserved.
  What has not yet been announced, but which I am sure will be widely debated, is the name of the new authority. I do not intend to get involved in that debate. The other borough authority, Rhuddlan borough council, is reasonably content with my right hon. Friend's proposals but will make representations on a few matters. Given that boundaries are intended to reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties, Rhuddlan borough council argues that it is illogical to exclude certain communities from the new Denbighshire. In my constituency—the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) will have views on this—that would affect Kinmel bay and Towyn. The only other matter on which the authority feels strongly is its name; it would prefer the new authority to be called Vale of Clwyd, or Dyffryn Clwyd. If all the local authorities in Wales were as well organised and progressive as the two with which I have to deal, the debate would have been over in next to no time. That is all I want to say about the Government's proposals.
  Members from each of the Opposition parties in Wales are signatories to the Labour party motion. I shall devote the bulk of my comments to the issue on which there is a clear and unmistakable distinction between Conservative Members and Opposition Members. Opposition Members want a Welsh assembly or parliament; Conservative Members want neither. The Labour party wants this so-called "devolution" because it now realises that it is the natural party of opposition in the United Kingdom. It knows that the only chance it has of power is by dividing up the United Kingdom in a way that, in my view, would surely lead to its break-up.
  In a television debate with me this morning for "Westminster Live", the hon. Member for Rhondda

  821
  (Mr. Rogers)—I notice that he is not in his place, although he was active earlier—said that he wanted to see an independent Wales. I took that to be the policy of the Labour party. It is significant that the hon. Gentleman is an Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs. The Labour party lives in fear of the nationalists. After years of the Labour party dominating local government in south Wales, the ordinary people who voted for socialist principles now realise that they were sold short by the Labour party. The Labour party knows that the electorate are gradually being won over by the compelling case for Conservatism. In the meantime, there is the real risk to the Labour party that those people will defect in droves to the nationalists.
  Mr. Dafis: How many Conservative members are there on local authorities in the Rhondda area?
  Mr. Richards: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a tradition in Wales that members stand as independents. Very often they are Conservatives, very often they are nationalists, very often they are Liberals, but in my experience, most of the independents whom I know—there are many in Wales—are Conservatives.
  Labour Members who campaigned ardently against an assembly in 1979 now say cynically that they are in favour of devolution. They call it devolution—the setting up of unitary authorities with an elected body to oversee them. Surely such a body would have powers of its own, thereby weakening the powers of the unitary authorities. That is not devolution of power, but centralising of power in Cardiff.
  Labour would do that, although the only real test of public opinion was a referendum in 1979, when the people of Wales voted against devolution by 4:1. I do not believe that the people would vote differently now. The truth is, neither does Labour—which is why it has ruled out a referendum on this issue. Even if the Labour party formed a Government, it would have to implement its current policy, because it has ruled out a referendum.
  One of the reasons why the people of Wales would reject, in a referendum, the assembly proposed by Labour is that—as Labour has made clear—such an assembly would have tax-raising powers. "No representation without taxation": that is the slogan of the Welsh Labour party conference. Perhaps the party should stick to the word "parliament", as opposed to "assembly"—as, of course, some do. I understand that the hon. Member for Neath, who seems to have left the Chamber, is one such person.
  Is it any wonder that Labour Members have rejected the idea of a referendum? Imagine the question on the ballot paper: "Do you want to pay more tax—yes or no?" I suspect that the answer would be a resounding no. The other question is, what would the good people of Wales receive in recompense for that additional tax burden? One thing is certain—they would get a parliament costing an additional £50 million a year. What else would they get? No-redundancy guarantees, which would smother the free flow of workers, protection for lame-duck industries, and probably the opportunity to fund a few of them. A minimum wage, perhaps—now, there is the ultimate guarantee of greater unemployment. Legislation to give trade unions more power—why not? Labour has done it before, and will do it again.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Very subtle.
  Mr. Richards: Absolutely. The hon. and learned Gentleman is listening for a change—and, indeed, he is present.
  The unions would be given more power, so the flood of inward investment would dry up in Wales and emerge elsewhere. There would be more unemployment.
  It is already possible to paint a picture of Wales under such a Labour Government and with such a parliament. The people would migrate to neighbouring England to escape the tax burden and find jobs; there would be a migration of talent such as we have not seen since the 1930s. In those days, when young men and their families boarded the trains at Cardiff, Swansea or Carmarthen, the cry would go out as the train left the station, "Never forget your Welsh." Well, the next generation of migrants will be able to call back, "Never forget your Welsh tax."
  As if what I have already said were not enough to make people reject the concept of a tax-levying Welsh parliament, my constituents have even, more to fear. A parliament in Cardiff would care little or nothing for north Wales—just as Labour cares little or nothing for it now. Labour cares only for its stronghold in the valleys. Seldom, if ever, does it venture into the north.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Has the hon. Gentleman been to Bridgend?
  Mr. Richards: Will Opposition Members be quiet for a moment?
  When we debated Welsh affairs on 3 March, I challenged the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to tell us who and what he had visited in north Wales in his capacity as an Opposition spokesman on Wales. I note that he is not present now; I am sure, however, that my comments will be relayed to him. What was his response to my challenge? He scuttled across the Floor to huddle with his hon. Friends at the Bar of the House, like a frightened lamb. They were all gathered there like sheep in a thunderstorm, lacking leadership and lacking direction—all because of the truth about Labour party lackeys. Since that day, the hon. Members who gathered at the Bar of the House have been known throughout Wales as "the Bar-Baas".
  It must be said that the nationalists are more honest about their demand for a Welsh parliament. They have at least been consistent. For them, the Welsh parliament is a stepping stone towards an independent Welsh republic. I understand from Plaid Cymru literature that that republic's head of state—its president—will be invested, or inaugurated, by the arch-druid himself. I have no doubt that that ceremonial occasion will bring tears to the eyes.
  What would such a republican utopia hold for the people of Wales? Even more of the same, I fear. Inward investors and key workers might be required to learn Welsh by statute; the housing market might collapse because of planning restrictions and residential qualifications. I note that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) is present; perhaps he would like to comment. I envisage an economy yearning for the good things of the 21st century, but not allowed to engage in any activity more robust or imaginative than the production of love spoons and trinkets. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on that? I see an economy managed by people who believe in seeking out subsidy and support from others, now and for ever, without the vision to perceive the productive potential and talent that we have in Wales.

  823
  Fortunately for the people of Wales, the Government have woken them from Labour's pipe dreams. The Government will create a structure of local government that will promote local democracy, reduce costs and duplication and deliver cost-effective local services, while retaining Wales's voice at Westminster and the integrity of the United Kingdom.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I believe that I am the only former councillor to have spoken so far. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) will speak later; he, too, used to be a councillor. I bring a certain amount of experience to the debate—experience that was clearly lacking in the speech of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards).
  Although many people in Pembrokeshire will welcome the fact that unitary authorities are on the horizon, the Bill contains an enormous flaw, or gulf, in that it includes no proposals for either an assembly or a parliament in Wales. I am interested to observe that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is not present—the reason being, of course, that he is out meeting his opposite number in not the Spanish but the Catalonian government. That is a regional government, to which—along with Alpes-Rhone, Lombardy and Baden-Wurttemberg, the Minister of State referred on 25 February, in an interview with Vincent Kane on "Welsh Lobby".
  Let me quote from that interview. I am not being selective; the Minister made it very clear that he thought the four "motor regions" in Europe were operating wonderfully. He said that we should try to create a skilled work force in Wales and learn and benefit from the experience of those regional governments. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "We should rub shoulders with our betters, and we might get somewhere."
  In the opinion of the Minister of State, regional government in Europe is an obvious success. I was interested in the comment of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), who claimed that the quangos in Wales are accountable to the Welsh Office. The sad fact is that had it not been for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), as well as the Audit Commission and the Public Accounts Committee—not the Welsh Office—all the sleaze and corruption that has gone on in the quangos of Wales would not have been discovered. What faith can we have in the present regime in the Welsh Office when it cannot account for £200 million of public money? The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor talks about how wonderful the Welsh Office is and about forcing quangos to be accountable, but we cannot accept what he says.
  Recently we had the so-called St. David's day debate on St. Winwaloe's day, which is two days after St. David's day. A great deal of that debate—in particular, the speech of the Secretary of State—concerned roads in Wales. This House is not the proper forum for such a discussion. Regional functions, such as a transport system, should be the responsibility of a regional government. Conservative Members refer constantly to the 1979 referendum. They say that there has been no real change in the political feelings of the Welsh people on the question of a Welsh assembly or parliament. That is not my experience—
  824
  certainly not of Pembrokeshire, which is not known for particularly radical views and was fundamentally opposed in 1979 to the idea of a Welsh assembly.
  Recently the Western Telegraph, which is the largest-selling weekly paper in Wales, carried an editorial referring to the Interreg funding, on which Dyfed is currently losing out. It said:
  "The parts of Europe which have benefited most from EEC funding are those that have a regional parliament to fight on their behalf. Without our own regional parliament, and with even the small Welsh presence now in Brussels under threat, Wales will become increasingly marginalised, receiving only token representation by the single-minded English lobby."
  That is what is happening at the moment. The Minister of State is talking to his counterpart in Catalonia, rather than lobbying in Brussels on behalf of Dyfed.
  The whole thrust of this proposed legislation causes great concern throughout Wales, particularly when one reads views such as those expressed in another local paper in Pembrokeshire under the heading "The Conservative Column". Referring to Labour's plans for Health 2000, whose intention is to democratise the health service—again the Conservative view of more democracy—this paper said:
  "Labour wants to reintroduce politics into the NHS by having local councillors play a prominent part in the running of the health service. Many of these councils do enough damage already within their own town halls, and they must not be allowed to get their hands on our health service."
  The Minister of State, looking slightly tanned, is now in his place. It is good to see him back. I am sure that he had a very enlightening discussion with the regional government in Catalonia.
  The views put forward in the column to which I have just referred are Conservative Members' true views, which dare not be spoken openly, as those Members know very well that they will never have an opportunity to take control of local government in Wales and will certainly have no opportunity to take control of a Welsh assembly or parliament.
  There are two problems, particularly in relation to this legislation, and other hon. Members have referred to them. I highlight clause 22, which refers to the creation of joint boards for fire brigades. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor mentioned this matter. In fact, he referred to the wrong clause—23 instead of 22—but perhaps Hansard will fix that for him. The present arrangement, under which there are eight fire brigades in Wales, is an excellent one. Dyfed's fire brigade has a worldwide reputation following some of the fires that it fought in the refineries of Milford Haven. The proposal is that the Secretary of State, and not local representatives, may bring forward an order. If that is done before 1 April 1996 there will be no public inquiry.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Clause 23, which I quoted, refers to combination schemes involving fire services. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark.
  Mr. Ainger: Clause 23 refers to the police—[Interruption.] Not in my copy.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor spoke for 34 minutes, but did not give us his view of the plans for Brecon and Radnor. It is unacceptable that he should now interrupt a person who is speaking as quickly as possible so that other hon. Members may participate in the debate.
  Were the Government truly concerned about democracy and local accountability, they would create a fire brigade with an area stretching from Swansea to the north of

  825
  Powys, and from Aberystwyth right across to the English border, but only if the local people believed that that was the best policy for delivery of the service. There is no question but that local representatives totally oppose such a proposal. Not only that, but I am certain that it would be linked with the creation of only three police authorities in Wales. Hon. Members on both sides have mentioned the excellent performance of Dyfed-Powys police and of the Gwent police force, proving that small is efficient as well as beautiful.
  It concerned me when Lord Hooson proposed an amendment in the other place that would give the Secretary of State power to introduce decentralisation proposals. At present in Tower Hamlets, if things go from bad to worse and two more fascist, British National party councillors are elected in the Isle of Dogs, £23 million of public money per annum will be under the control of three fascist councillors. I am not suggesting that fascists would ever be elected in Wales—I am certain that they would not—but trying to solve a problem in Powys by coming up with this concept of decentralisation may open up a can of worms that we may live to regret. It gives a great deal of power to a small number of people. They are not properly accountable and the system is not democratic. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider that matter very seriously.
  8.59 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: I begin by mourning the passing of county councils. We have not heard a great deal about that tonight, but county councils have done a superb job in many respects, and they have had some great officers serving in them. This is especially true of Mid Glamorgan where the officers have had to operate in extremely difficult economic circumstances, with a gross domestic product per capita of 64 in a British index of 100. It would have been an enormous task in any circumstances. Given also that they have had to operate under a flawed model for the past 20 years of overlapping responsibilities, of vague demarcation lines and so on, they have done sterling work, as have the rest of the county authorities in Wales.
  The councils have carried out, in many respects, the strategic planning functions; functions which presumably will now be assumed by the so-called joint arrangements. As far as I can see, these are vague and nebulous bodies and have about as much credibility at the moment as the three-ring circus that met in Brussels last week—the Committee of the Regions. My constituents will ask who is to take the responsibility for strategic decision-making formerly taken by the county councils. They will ask a number of questions about this vagueness. They will want to know on what basis the Secretary of State for Wales decided that it was quite proper for Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent to become unitary authorities and did not allow Cynon valley, Rhondda and Taff-Ely the same right when they have bigger populations.
  Even before today's announcement, there was mystification at the proposition that two authorities which were twins in so many ways, Torfaen and Taff-Ely, should have such different fates. I hate to say, and generosity of spirit prevents me from doing so seriously, that the Secretary of State is keeping Torfaen a separate entity from Monmouth or Monmouthshire because he wants to retain
  826
  some chance of the Conservatives hanging on to that seat or of winning it in the future, whereas he seems to be consigning Taff-Ely, Rhondda valley and Cynon valley to a ghetto where people do not vote Tory anyway and are unlikely to do so in the future. These questions must be asked seriously.
  Let me assume that the Secretary of State believes that Taff-Ely has as much right to remain a unitary authority as any of the others to which he has given independence today. I assume that he understands the logic of that. There can be no reason for it or, if there is, I have no idea what it is. I want to hear what he is going to come up with. I hope that he does not assume that by bolting on a relatively rich authority, Taff-Ely, to two authorities that face great economic and social problems, Rhondda and Cynon Valley, he will somehow ratchet up the GDP of those two local authorities so that their problems do not look as severe as they are at present. Does he think that if he links them with Taff-Ely, with the new industry along the M4 corridor, with the terrific, new, high-tech industries that are coming into Nantgarw and Llantrisant—only this week we learnt of 600 new jobs that may be coming in the Gooding/Grundig electronics venture—this will somehow solve the problems of Cynon valley and Rhondda valley?
  That will not solve the problems any more than it will solve the problems faced at the northern end of Taff-Ely. They are severe structural problems which are being dealt with by district authorities which have a tradition of taking on such tasks and combining with private enterprise, the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Office to transform the local economies. In many ways, they have done a wonderful job and they do not need the kind of artificial arrangement being proposed.
  For the Secretary of State's proposals to gain credibility and acceptance in Wales, people have to believe in the motives behind them. People who, like me, live in a borough such as Taff-Ely will have listened to what has been said today and said that what is good enough for Merthyr, Blaenau Gwent and Torfaen is good enough for Taff-Ely.
  Mr. Rogers: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important for Cynon valley and the Rhondda to have access to areas which, as he said, are likely to offer development opportunities. He talks about bolting on the Rhondda valley and the Cynon valley to Taff-Ely, but I remind him that it was only about 20 years ago that a number of district councils were bolted together to make Taff-Ely. If it has worked for Taff-Ely, there is the possibility that the new authority will work. At any rate, that is what the Secretary of State is gambling on, although I disagree with that gamble.
  Dr. Howells: I am sure that my hon. Friend makes a good point although I am not sure exactly what it is. I know that he believes that Rhondda wants unitary status as much as Taff-Ely, but what he said is true. Twenty years ago Taff-Ely was artificially created. It was the creation of a very rich authority—Llantrisant rural district council—and a traditional valley authority—Pontypridd urban district council. There is no question but that it took a long time for the two authorities to be brought together but they have pulled together very well. All of the indices show that we are making a success of it. I should hate that success to be stymied by a decision that will have long-term effects.

  827
  Taff-Ely is lucky in many ways: we have beautiful countryside and ready access to the M4 and we are on the A470. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is going to give the Pentyrch wards to Cardiff because, in order to attract more industry, we need executive housing and areas into which executives want to move. It is very important that our districts retain such assets but it appears that they are to be filched for whatever reason and given to Cardiff, North, Greater Cardiff or whatever one wants to call it. Incidentally, the House should remember that Labour has just won those wards, so one should not assume that it will be a soft touch for anyone else to win, especially not the present hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), the Under-Secretary of State.
  In the past 20 years, the borough has forged itself into an entity that deserves respect—
  Mr. Morgan: Pontypridd rugby team.
  Dr. Howells: Indeed, Pontypridd is the best rugby team in Wales—
  Mr. Morgan: Does my hon. Friend mean that they are forging tickets as well?
  Dr. Howells: If my hon. Friend will wrap up for five minutes, I shall be able to continue.
  Many mistakes were made in 1974 when the present model of local government was created. One of its strengths was the ability of local councils to provide a degree of strategic planning and service. Presumably, we are now creating a new structure that is supposed to last for at least 20 years, although I should think that the Secretary of State hopes that it will last even longer.
  We cannot afford to make those kinds of mistakes again. They will be very expensive mistakes. I am sure that we shall lose the services of a great many professionals and executives and people who have served the county very well. Let us ensure that, when we create the unitary authorities, they are the right size, they have the right identity and they see themselves as viable entities for creating a new future for Wales.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I shall underline and support the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) about the work of county councils in Wales and especially that of Mid Glamorgan county council, which has done a sterling job under the most difficult of circumstances.
  May I appeal again to the Secretary of State to consider his White Paper—it was not his to start with, but he has taken it over—in the context of the changes proposed for the boundary between Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan. Paragraph 1.4 of the White Paper "Local Government and Local People" said:
  "The Government is committed to the creation of good Local Government which is close to the communities it serves. Its aims are to establish Authorities which, so far as possible, are based on that strong sense of community identity that is such an important feature of Welsh life; which are clearly accountable to local people; … The proposal set out in this White Paper will achieve those aims; they will establish new and innovative local Authorities, firmly-rooted in their communities and enjoying strong local support."
  In paragraph 2.1, the Secretary of State said:
  "Local Government is government for local people by local people. One of the objectives of re-organisation is to establish Authorities which, so far as possible, are based on a strong sense of community, evident in Welsh life."
  828
  In paragraph 3.1, which the Secretary of State repeated in a written answer to my question on 29 April 1993, the White Paper said:
  "Local Authority boundaries should, as far as possible, reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties; and
  local public services should he of high quality, and delivered efficiently, economically and effectively."
  In that context, I want to remind the Secretary of State that there have been several tests of opinion in those three communities. First, there was a postal ballot, organised by Ogwr borough council. The result showed that 80 per cent. of people were in favour of staying with the Bridgend authority, from a turnout of almost 60 per cent.
  There was also a business referendum for which half of the businesses returned their papers and it showed that 84.5 per cent. wanted to stay with Bridgend. There were public meetings in each community, where 93.3 per cent. wanted to stay with Bridgend and only 2.5 per cent, expressed the vale as a preference.
  A ballot was also organised by the Electoral Reform Society, in which almost 80 per cent. of Ewenny residents voted and 89.7 per cent. of them wanted to stay in Bridgend. Almost 75 per cent. of the residents of St. Bride's Major voted and 87.8 per cent. wanted to stay with Bridgend. In Wick, 74.6 per cent. of residents voted and 81.2 per cent. wanted to stay with Bridgend. That is a clear picture of the loyalties of those three communities.
  On top of that, the Vale of Glamorgan borough council, in its own representations to the Secretary of State, said:
  "The council would only support the inclusion of those additional communities if the proposal was supported by the majority of the people concerned."
  They clearly do not support the proposal.
  In letters to constituents and in letters to me, the Secretary of State's civil servants have said that the reason for the change is that the Vale of Glamorgan authority is more used to dealing with small, rural communities.
  When I tabled a question asking the Secretary of State for Wales about the size of the communities in the Vale of Glamorgan, in Ogwr and in other parts of Wales, I was told that the information was not held centrally. So I could not understand how the Government had come to know that there were more small communities in the Vale of Glamorgan than in Ogwr.
  I asked both borough councils to send me the information about their communities, and I found that in the Vale of Glamorgan there were seven communities of fewer than 4,000 people, but that in Ogwr there were 10. There were six small communities of a similar size to St. Bride's Major in Ogwr, but only one in the Vale of Glamorgan. So Ogwr borough council is more used to dealing with small communities than is the Vale of Glamorgan council.
  Next I concentrated on the rural or agrarian nature of each borough. I contacted the planning departments of both the borough councils, and was told that 15.4 per cent. of the borough of Ogwr is designated for planning purposes as "built up", whereas 20 per cent. of the borough of the Vale of Glamorgan is so designated, so there is a greater percentage of rural areas in Ogwr than in the Vale of Glamorgan.
  I accept that there can be different ways of defining rural as opposed to urban communities, but between 20 and 28 per cent. of councillors on the Vale of Glamorgan council and between 20 and 24 per cent. of those on the Ogwr council represent communities which are defined as rural, so there is virtually no difference between the two.

  829
  Employment in farming could also be a measure, and that is just under I per cent. in Ogwr and just over 1 per cent. in the Vale of Glamorgan. On all those criteria, there is little to choose between Ogwr and the Vale of Glamorgan. If anything, on the basis of the number of small communities, Ogwr has the stronger case.
  I cannot understand why on earth the Secretary of State is not prepared to listen to what the local people say. I hope that even at this late stage he will be prepared to accept that the overwhelming majority of people in the three communities concerned, including their two borough councilors—both Conservative party members—are totally committed to keeping those communities in Ogwr.
  In my remaining two minutes I shall deal with some of the general issues and the type of service that the Secretary of State's plans will provide. Some have been mentioned already, so I need not say much about them. First, it is clear that joint arrangements will lead to a second tier of local government that will be neither as clear nor as accountable as the present two-tier system. On that ground alone the proposals should be rejected.
  As for the delivery of services, there are serious doubts everywhere about smaller authorities' ability to provide a comprehensive range of services such as special education services, and trading standards services. The trading standards people have asked for statutory provision to be made for combinations of authorities to deliver services. Organisations such as Children in Wales are concerned about issues in the interface between social services and health, such as reporting schemes for child abuse.
  The reserve powers that the Bill will provide for the Secretary of State for Wales are enormous. That will mean centralisation into the Welsh Office. For all those reasons, it is clear that the Bill should be rejected, so I hope that our amendment will be accepted.
  9.18 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The review of local government in Wales has been a shoddy and undemocratic process which reflects little credit on either the Secretary of State for Wales or his predecessor. It has left many communities perplexed and disillusioned. For a reorganisation to be successful, it must be based on sound principles of good and lasting government, on a cross-party consensus and on community support, not on plucking numbers out of the air, which is clearly what the Secretary of State has done. The Bill fulfils none of those criteria.
  It is perhaps a sign of a dying and obsolete Government that they should choose to exercise their powers in a frantically dogmatic fashion and introduce legislation that puts decisions in the hands not of local people, democratically elected, but of a single Minister, whose governorship of Wales is neither respected nor wanted. The Secretary of State today mentioned the archives. I hope that he will be relegated to the archives of Wales as soon as is humanly possible.
  Since the publication of the Bill, we have seen the Government's true agenda for local authorities in Wales. Far from creating progressive unitary authorities with powers to act, the Government are attempting to belittle the last vestige of democratic government in Wales. Ministers should take note that, despite all the odds, local authorities provide value-for-money services in Wales. We need no
  830
  instructions from those responsible for the waste and inefficiency of unaccountable quangos, and from a Welsh Office that could lose £300 million. The "Charter for the Future", as the Secretary of State's predecessor ineptly called it, is a charter for the private sector and nothing more.
  That a Conservative Secretary of State should seek to limit the powers and tie the hands of local government is no surprise or mystery. Last July, I criticised the lack of an independent commission to determine the issue. Such an organisation might have listened to evidence, undertaken extensive and proper research on opinions, and reached sound and lasting conclusions. Instead, we are faced with a map of Wales which provides neither community identity nor effective units of local government.
  Faced with a lack of any independent organisation, councillors in Cynon Valley commissioned a poll which showed that 66 per cent. of people questioned supported the retention of an authority that was based on current borders. Virtually no one wished there to be an amalgamation with the Rhondda and Taff-Ely authorities —and I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friends.
  In addition to that poll, hundreds of people attended public meetings in Cynon Valley and supported the council's bid to become a unitary authority. I draw the Secretary of State's attention once again to a map produced by his predecessor entitled "Local Government—the way ahead." If he looks at it, he will note that Cynon Valley is clearly marked as a single unitary authority. Only 12 months later, a White Paper proposed the unlikely amalgamation to which I referred. What rationale was employed in making the radical change from a self-contained community of 60,000 people to an authority of 240,000 people?
  Independent academic research by the Centre for Advanced Urban Studies in Bristol emphasised the futility of arranged marriages between distinct valley communities. It stated:
  "Unitary options based on the amalgamation of two or three Valley authorities fail, on the grounds that they lack local responsiveness and do not generate any scale or specialisation advantages in service planning and provision. Such authorities would be characterised by divided, rather than locally united, civic leadership".
  In addition to the evidence of unanimous public meetings and opinion research, a 10,000-signature petition was raised and presented at the Welsh Office by a large delegation from Cynon Valley.
  The Secretary of State is offering us the potential for a confusing two-tier set up and for Welsh Office manipulation and priority setting. The opportunity to give councils the ability to effect social and economic change is denied. Fewer councillors will deliver fewer services in authorities that are dictated to by a central Government bureaucracy that has little knowledge or understanding of local affairs or priorities. I hope that I do not need to remind the Secretary of State that the economy of the Cynon Valley is in a fragile, if not critical, state, thanks to him and his Government.
  The only motor for substantial change—the local council—is to be disbanded and relocated elsewhere. I only hope that the Secretary of State will explain to the people of Cynon Valley his reasons for replacing popular, effective councils with the sort of weak, unwieldy and hamstrung authority that the Bill seeks to create.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, 22 years ago the House considered a Bill to reform local government which then, as now, was imposed by a Conservative Government on an unwilling Wales. What my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said should be repeated: we should remember the county councils, which are by far the losers in this reform, as the providers of education, social services, the fire service and the police. Since those councils were created in 1888, a great number of Welsh people have benefited from what they have done.
  The House should realise that my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) were all members of local authorities 22 years ago when that reform came into operation, as I believe was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales, as a member of the Oxfordshire county council. They will recall that all those years ago the cost and the upheaval of reform, as it was called, was much greater than Ministers predicted.
  This time, the costs for local government reorganisation are grossly underestimated. Anywhere between £100 million and £150 million is the likely cost. The county councils say that the transitional costs will be something like £200 million over the period. When we bear in mind the fact that redundancies alone could cost anywhere between £50 million and £90 million, what will happen to our redundant offices, whether they be county halls or town halls? We already know that the estimate for changes in information technology has doubled to nearly £14 million for the whole of Wales.
  My right hon.and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) rightly asked where the money will come from. How will we pay for the reforms? There is nothing in the White Paper, little in the Bill and nothing in ministerial statements to tell us how the reorganisation will be financed. I suspect, as do many of my hon. Friends, that the reorganisation will be funded by cuts in the services that our local authorities provide for the people of Wales. When we bear it in mind that only a few weeks ago the Secretary of State introduced a revenue support grant settlement which will mean huge cuts in education, housing, roads and other services across Wales, we understand that Wales simply cannot afford the cost of this reorganisation.
  The Bill does not address the problem of Welsh local government finance. It is not a question whether there should be rates. The system of grant allocation clearly needs to be examined, capping is universally unpopular, and there is a gearing problem in local government finance. However, none of those matters is addressed by the Bill. Nor does it address what the districts call the "burgeoning quangocracy" in Wales. The Bill ignores completely the growing concern about the lack of proper accountability of the unelected quangos in Wales. I believe that if the Bill had been called a Quango (Wales) Bill, it would have been much more popular in the hills and the valleys of Wales than the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
  832
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd all mentioned the question of government at an all-Wales level. There is growing support in Wales for a Welsh assembly. That is not just a reaction to 15 years of Conservative government, although it is a good enough reason. There is a genuine need for strategic decisions to be taken on an all-Wales basis. The main difference between what the Bill will do and what the creation of an assembly together with our local authorities would do is that we are talking about more elected representatives of the Welsh people taking decisions. The Bill reduces the number of people who are elected in Wales, and that cannot be good for democracy.
  The absence of an assembly and the abolition of the counties means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd pointed out, that there will be many joint boards and joint arrangements, about which the Bill is unclear. The Council. of Welsh County Councils said recently that the Bill will introduce a second tier, which will be obscure in its operations and unaccountable to the person in the street. Local government will be one step further removed and accountability will be blurred as a consequence of joint arrangements.
  All the services that the counties now provide, together with some which the districts provide, must deal with joint arrangements. Libraries, museums, planning, social services, highways, transport, magistrates courts, fire services and trading standards are to be subject to what the White Paper calls vaguely "joint arrangements".
  The worst affected area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) said, will of course be education. What will happen to county drama services, county youth orchestras, outdoor pursuits, the child psychology service, curriculum advice and special education? We are concerned about those areas, and we are rightly concerned about the creation of 21 local education authorities.
  The Secretary of State has been sent letters from the Welsh Association for the Performing Arts and from Gwent's visually impaired children taking action group. They are concerned about the effects of so-called joint arrangements on the delivery of vital services for the education of our children. Many have doubts whether the Government are really serious about the new unitary authorities becoming education authorities. It was only at the very latest stage in the other place that the Government introduced a new clause which mentioned education at all.
  The Minister of State went around Wales a number of months ago and told schools and head teachers to opt out of local education authority control, because they would not know what the future will bring as a result of unitary authorities. However, these are the Government's unitary authorities. They are their creations and either they believe that the authorities are proper LEAs or they do not.
  What the district councils have said is absolutely right and the Government should suspend the opting out of schools in Wales until the reorganisation is complete.
  One former director of education recently wrote to the Western Mail about the omission of education from the Bill. He said that it was a
  "brutal insult to a century of Welsh tradition. Cllr Ferguson-Jones, the Conservative leader of the city of Cardiff council in the 70s, and always proud of the city's schools, would

  833
  have found a salty, maritime word to describe this arrogant Bill".
  The Government have tried to appease, and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has introduced what has been called the "Powys model". I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman wants for his area, but if it is the status quo he should say so. Opposition Members are concerned about the area committees. They will lead to a confused relationship among health authorities, housing associations, police authorities and, of course, the electorate. The districts have said that they will lead to a confused, inefficient, chaotic, unaccountable, unco-ordinated two-tier system. They are absolutely right.
  It was particularly interesting that when the Secretary of State was asked this afternoon about the financing of the area committees he was not sure, but could come up with something. Like Mr. Micawber, he believed that something would turn up. We have to be much more definite about how the area committees will work, who will pay for them, what money they will control and where the money will come from. There was not a word about that in the White Paper and certainly there has been nothing since. We look forward to the Committee stage so that we can question the Secretary of State and his Ministers about how the committees will be financed.
  The Secretary of State complained that we had argued that he was increasing his powers. But he is increasing them. He will have more powers affecting the direct provision of services, privatisation and joint arrangements. There is no question but that the Bill is a centralising measure. The Prime Minister talked at Question Time this afternoon about the Labour party being a centralising party. Yet the Bill is all about the centralisation of Welsh local government.
  Opposition Members believe that councils should be, as well as enablers, providers of services. The Government see authorities in terms of management and service delivery, but they are more than businesses. They are proper, elected, accountable representatives of com-munities. Local government is a pillar of any democratic system and it should be able to speak out on behalf of a community. We believe that that is right. That is why we are worried that there is little in the Bill or in the White Paper about the role of members of local authorities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly rightly compared the number of councillors, even with the increase, with the number of members of quangos. There will be 1,200 councillors compared with 1,400 members of various quangos and advisory bodies. Not all those 1,400 members are appointed by the Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] No, they will not all be appointed by the Secretary of State—I understand that. Nevertheless, they serve on bodies that are not elected. The purpose of democracy is to elect people to take decisions on one's behalf.
  There is a need to encourage council membership from a wide cross-section of the community. There is nothing in the Bill to review the wholly inadequate system of remuneration for members of local authorities. There is nothing in the Bill to review the restrictions placed on the staff of a council in participating in local democracy. Unless that is altered, after the creation of the unitary authorities, 10 per cent. of the working population of Wales will be debarred from holding local public office.
  834
  There is no real consensus for the Bill in Wales, even though the Government have argued for months that there is. There is a consensus for unitary authorities, but that is a world away from saying that the type of unitary authorities that are encapsulated in the Bill is what people in Wales want. The Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress are together in their opposition to the Bill. Some of the districts, all the counties, all the political parties, except the Conservative party—even it is split in different parts of Wales—and the vast majority of Members of Parliament who represent Welsh constituencies oppose the Bill.
  Wales has a proud history of local democracy. Even Conservative Secretaries of State have said that Welsh local authorities are responsible and proper bodies. The Bill undermines the effectiveness of Welsh local government. Every Act affecting local authorities introduced by the Government in the past few years—there have been 150 of them—has increased the powers of central Government and weakened local government. Every grant settlement in Wales in those 15 years has robbed our councils of necessary resources and tightened the grip of the Welsh Office over all Welsh local authorities. The result has been a scandalous democratic deficit in a country which is proud of its history of fighting for democratic rights. The Bill blurs accountability, with its joint boards and lead authorities. It fails to address the problems of an over-complex and unfair system of local government finance, it does nothing to satisfy the Welsh people's worries about the growing number of quangos in Wales and it ignores the obvious need for an all-Wales democratic body. In fact, it is a bad Bill. It is bad for democracy and bad for Wales. The House should reject it.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) —as he acknowledged, one former councillor following another former councillor—as we debate this great step forward in reorganising local government in Wales.
  We can fairly say that it has been a good debate—an even-tempered one. There have been constructive contributions from my hon. Friends, and even some penetrating questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), to which I shall refer later. A breadth that does not always characterise debates on Welsh affairs was provided by my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
  However, there was a more mixed contribution from Opposition Members. It was no small delight to hear from the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). He again confirms that he is probably the most effective voice on the Opposition Benches, but his anti-European credentials ensure that he stays on the Back Benches.
  It was with nostalgia that I heard the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). Obviously the spectre of the elephant still looms so large in his mind that he, diplomatically, does not want to discuss the Welsh assembly.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made the usual disappointing contribution. He could not take every

  835
  intervention; he could not give answers. Perhaps he had not read his speech—he did not know what had been written for him to say. There were some matters about which he could not give a response to earlier interventions. He had not thought them out. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor pursued him about his attitude towards the county councils; he could not answer. Then, when he was drawn out, he said that he was thinking about 25 to 30 councils. What vagueness to offer at this stage in the debating of the reorganisation of local government in Wales! The closest he can get to it is give or take live or six councils in Wales.
  Inevitably, the hon. Member for Caerphilly made the token references to a Welsh assembly as the answer to everything. Amazingly, there was no reference to the costs that a Welsh assembly would add to the burden of all the taxpayers in Wales, in addition to the costs of the increase to 25 or to 30 councils—however many the hon. Gentleman might conjure up on the back of an envelope. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) mentioned the absence of a reference to that in the reasoned amendment.
  It was no surprise that the hon. Member for Caerphilly confessed that he had written the reasoned amendment. My only surprise was that he managed to obtain the signature of the lone Liberal in Wales and the four Welsh nationalists. We are well aware how apprehensive the Labour party has been, in the valleys in south Wales, about the Welsh nationalist party breathing down its neck. Now that very poorly worded reasoned amendment can be waved at the voters in the forthcoming elections in Wales, and it can be said, "There is no difference between the Opposition parties; they all sign up to the same thing."
  The reasoned amendment says that the Bill will concentrate further power in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales—untrue. It says that the Bill
  "abolishes a democratic tier of local government in favour of joint boards"
  —untrue. It says that the Bill
  "threatens to undermine the viability of local services"
  —untrue. It says that the Bill
  "provides opportunities for further privatisation".
  If competitive tendering means that, local government reorganisation delays that coming about. Then the amendment criticises the
  "creation of even more Welsh quangos,"
  but the hon. Member for Caerphilly welcomed one of those—the Staff Commission for Wales—and I am glad to have his welcome for that. The amendment says that the Government have done nothing to improve local government finance. We did that last year. The amendment suggests that the Welsh people will pay more, in spite of the even greater cost of the unthought-out version of local government reorganisation that the hon. Gentleman would foist on us.
  In all those tensions, I enjoyed the references of the hon. Member for Caerphilly to the discussions that he has had with Councillor Graham Powell of Gwent and Councillor Harry Jones of Newport. It must have been in one of those smoke-filled rooms at a Labour party conference. I hope that I am never drawn into anything like that.
  As well as the hon. Member for Caerphilly's welcome for the Staff Commission, I am grateful for his welcome of the Secretary of State's announcement about new councils
  836
  for Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent and of the reassurance that my right hon. Friend sought to offer staff working for local government in Wales.
  Many hon. Members asked about my right hon. Friend's powers under the Bill. Parts II and III contain no major new centralising powers for the Secretary of State. The reserve powers in clauses 29 to 31 are strictly time-limited to 31 March 1999. A safeguard against a possible breakdown in services is necessary, as was recognised in the debate in another place on archives, for example, but we hope that there will be no need to use them. We have said that we are happy to debate the details in Committee.
  Most of the other new powers of the Secretary of State offer local authorities new opportunities. Clause 25 deals with cross-border trading; clauses 32 and 33 deal with experiments in decision making; and clauses 27 and 28 are about decentralisation schemes. Because of the continuous attempts to suggest that those are centralising powers with the Secretary of State, I shall go through them and show that the contrary is true. Clause 17 simply interprets or makes minor amendments to existing legislation and clause 18 introduces no new powers.
  Clause 19 contains a power to establish joint planning boards. It replicates an existing power and is to be used to establish joint national parks boards. Clause 20 amends the planning legislation to take account of unitary authorities and contains powers comparable to those in existing legislation. Clauses 21 and 22 contain no new powers; clause 23 largely replicates existing powers; and clause 24 deals with the fire and police services.
  Clause 25 provides a new power for local authorities for cross-border trading. My right hon. Friend's powers are designed simply to limit the potential extent of that new power. The clause empowers unitary authorities to provide services to each other. I should have thought that the Opposition would welcome an extension of local authority powers. The clause enables authorities to sell specialist services to each other in areas such as education, trading standards, social services and environmental health.
  Mr. Murphy: Will the Minister give way'?
  Mr. Jones: I am afraid that I do not have time.
  The Government do not think that clause 25 should be available for services subject to compulsory competitive tendering, such as refuse collection or school catering. Nor should it be available for those parts of legal or financial services that are to become subject to competitive tendering. The private sector is available to take on the financial risks of providing those services where authorities do not provide them themselves.
  We should be willing to consider proposals that would enable authorities to trade in the full range of services if they would protect the position of council tax payers in the providing authority's area. That offer remains open. The clause is not about privatisation but about authorities providing services to each other.
  Mr. Murphy: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jones: No. The hon. Gentleman was not interrupted and I must press on.
  Clause 26 merely provides guidance on service delivery plans. Clauses 27 and 28 are about decentralisation schemes. My right hon. Friend's powers there are the minimum required to provide the guarantee. They can be invoked only when enough local members ask him to

  837
  exercise them. Clauses 29 to 31 deal with the reserve powers that I have already described. Clauses 32 and 33 deal with the experimental power that adds to local authorities' existing decision-making procedures following a request from an individual authority. It is right that my right hon. Friend and Parliament should have a role in that.
  I wish to deal with all the questions that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor asked about clause 24 and the police. The clause simply preserves the status quo. A similar provision exists in the 1992 Act. The Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill in the other place may overtake that provision. He also asked about fire authorities, which are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Service delivery will be protected and the proposals are designed to improve services.
  On staffing matters, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) asked us to reconsider our view of frustration of contracts and to announce compensation proposals. My right hon. Friend announced this afternoon that the Government would be looking again at clause 44, which deals with redundancy payments, to reassure staff that they would have full rights under employment protection legislation. So we are doing what the hon. Gentleman asks.
  The Government will finalise their compensation proposals in the autumn and we shall consult before then. We shall consider all the views put to us about compensation, including those of the English Staff Commission and the Local Government Management Board for Wales.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth asked about "Monmouthshire Council". I am certainly prepared to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. He might like to pursue that in Committee.
  As for consultation with community councillors, the power in clause 14 is permissive, enabling my right hon. Friend to intervene if unitary authorities are not consulting communities. If he makes an order, he may make exceptions to permit speedy action.
  As for the experimental powers, it is open to new authorities to come forward with new ideas for the political management of the authority. We retain an open mind on such proposals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth asked about the Welsh Church Act funds. We have no plans to review their purpose outside the scope of the Bill. We are willing to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion about the operative date for control on disposals. Finally, he asked whether the Bill would create new Lord Lieutenancies. Yes, there is a power in clauses 58 and 59 to permit the creation of new Lord Lieutenancies, but we have no plans to use those powers at present.
  There was the warmest of welcomes when my right hon. Friend announced this afternoon that he would amend the proposals to create new councils for Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent. That was welcomed particularly by the hon. Members for those constituencies. However, I fail to understand the construction that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) placed on that announcement. It was more like sour grapes when he tried to allege that our motivation for changing the boundaries
  838
  was gerrymandering. I marvel at the breadth of the hon. and learned Gentleman's imagination if he thinks that the proposals for Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent were made on the basis that we are confident of winning those seats. We have no more than reasonable expectations in those constituencies.
  I acknowledge that good cases have been made today and previously for differing forms of boundaries in Wales. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) cited the support of the local Conservative party in favour of the case that he was advocating. That was also true for Llanelli, where the local Conservative party has been to the fore. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, his noble Friend Lord Hooson said that nobody has been more assiduous in fighting the cause of Montgomeryshire than the Montgomeryshire Conservative association.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon referred to the position of Port Talbot. I rather thought it was an echo of my right hon. Friend Lord Howe, who made the same case in the other place on behalf of Port Talbot.
  I was struck to hear the converse when I met representatives of Llanelli, who were arguing their case for being a unitary authority, but went on to suggest that if they had to be linked with anyone, they did not want to be linked with Carmarthen, but preferred to be linked with Swansea. They advocated as a reason for being linked with Swansea that Llanelli and Swansea rugby teams could be linked as easily as those of Neath and Aberavon. That seemed to substantiate what we are doing there. I rush to agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli in his expectation of victory at Twickenham on Saturday—something which ought to unite us all.
  I wish also to acknowledge the arguments similarly made by the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd and Nant Conwy reminded us, I had the opportunity of meeting him when he brought his council to discuss this matter.
  The arguments of all those Members, not least that of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd and Nant Conwy, are not insubstantial. I recollect that his council said that by first choice it preferred to be a unitary authority, but if it had to be linked with anyone, it wished to be linked with Montgomery.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnor, for Bromsgrove and for Rutland and Melton made the point well that there is no template for a reorganisation of local government in Wales. It is a matter of trying to arrive at the best judgment for each part in Wales, trying to determine councils where, as far as possible, the boundaries strengthen and reflect existing community loyalties, while providing local public services, ideally of the highest possible quality, efficiently, effectively and economically.
  The greatest apprehensions were expressed about Powys and Meirionnydd. Following the statement on 3 March 1992, we listened carefully to the arguments on numbers, most obviously to the view of the Assembly of Welsh Counties that there should be fewer larger authorities. That led us to look closely at all the pre-White Paper proposals for authorities that had particularly small populations. Montgomeryshire, with only 54,000, and Meirionnydd, with only 32,000, failed that test. We could not be satisfied that such a sparsely populated authority could be relied on to manage the provision of local services efficiently. We recognise that Montgomeryshire and a

  839
  number of the other areas mentioned today would have a case for unitary status if community loyalty were the sole criterion. To take account of that, we introduced in the Bill our proposals for the decentralisation schemes.
  I am confident that we have come forward with the right structure, particularly for Powys, Caernarfonshire, Meirionnydd and the other 20 councils that we brought forward, including the three communities in the Vale of Glamorgan that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). I believe that, with the added dimension of the area committees, we will provide exactly the right combination for taking forward local government in Wales.
  We have not only been looking forward in Wales today. Some hon. Members have insisted on living in the past. As my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnor and for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) reminded us, some are harking back to 1979, when Wales voted 4:1 against the setting up of a Welsh assembly. What has changed since then? I know that an opinion poll has claimed that 45 per cent. might now be in favour of a Welsh assembly, but that is fewer than half the people of Wales and, if measured by those who say that they would vote for the Opposition parties, it is only about half the people who would vote for them. The other half are yet to be convinced. I doubt whether they will be.
  It can be no surprise to anyone that the Opposition parties refuse to have a referendum on the subject. But I feel that the line is not holding. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that he would not be opposed, as did the right hon. Member for Llanelli. That proposal would be the first break up in the United Kingdom and no responsible political party could put such a major constitutional change forward without allowing the people of Wales to have a say in a referendum.
  I feel that the time has come for us to press on with this important and right reorganisation of local government in Wales. I feel that this is where I came in, because 25 years ago this year I was elected to Cardiff city council, a pre-reorganisation council. I can even claim that I predate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; mention was made of his being a councillor, but that was of a reorganised council. He was not only a member of his county council but a committee chairman.
  My right hon. Friend described what we are doing here as a renaissance for local government in Wales. I fully endorse what he said. I think that the Second Reading will give us the first stage of real devolution—the way forward. That is what Wales wants, and that is what Wales should have.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 313.

  Division No. 166]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barron, Kevin

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Battle, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Allen, Graham

  Beggs, Roy

  Alton, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bell, Stuart

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Benton, Joe

  Ashton, Joe

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Austin-Walker, John

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Barnes, Harry

  Betts, Clive

  840

  Blair, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  Blunkett, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boateng, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boyes, Roland

  Gould, Bryan

  Bradley, Keith

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gunnell, John

  Burden, Richard

  Hain, Peter

  Byers, Stephen

  Hall, Mike

  Caborn, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Henderson, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heppell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoey, Kate

  Clapham, Michael

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hutton, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Illsley, Eric

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ingram, Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jamieson, David

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, Hdge H'l)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Dewar, Donald

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dixon, Don

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Dobson, Frank

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Enright, Derek

  Loyden, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAllion, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fatchett, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Macdonald, Calum

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McFall, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McKelvey, William

  Flynn, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foulkes, George

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fraser, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fyfe, Maria

  McWilliam, John

  Galloway, George

  Madden, Max

  Gapes, Mike

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Garrett, John

  Mahon, Alice

  George, Bruce

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marek, Dr John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  841

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Martlew, Eric

  Ruddock, Joan

  Maxton, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Meacher, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Meale, Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Michael, Alun

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Short, Clare

  Milburn, Alan

  Simpson, Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Soley, Clive

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mudie, George

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Paul

  Stevenson, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Straw, Jack

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Olner, William

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Trimble, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Turner, Dennis

  Patchett, Terry

  Tyler, Paul

  Pendry, Tom

  Vaz, Keith

  Pickthall, Colin

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Pike, Peter L.

  Walley, Joan

  Pope, Greg

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Watson, Mike

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Purchase, Ken

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wilson, Brian

  Redmond, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Wise, Audrey

  Rendel, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rogers, Allan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rooney, Terry

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. John Spellar.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Booth, Hartley

  Alexander, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Amess, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Ancram, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Graham

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Burt, Alistair

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butcher, John

  Bates, Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butterfill, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carrington, Matthew

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cash, William

  842

  Churchill, Mr

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clappison, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hicks, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Congdon, David

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Eggar, Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Elletson, Harold

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Evennett, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Faber, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lightbown, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Gale, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gallie, Phil

  Malone, Gerald

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mans, Keith

  Gamier, Edward

  Marland, Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Marlow, Tony

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gorst, John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hague, William

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Needham, Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Norris, Steve

  843

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Stern, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stewart, Allan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Paice, James

  Sweeney, Walter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Sykes, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Pickles, Eric

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Richards, Rod

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

  Riddick, Graham

  Tracey, Richard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Trotter, Neville

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Walden, George

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sackville, Tom

  Waller, Gary

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Ward, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Watts, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shersby, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Sims, Roger

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wilkinson, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wilshire, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wood, Timothy

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Sproat, Iain

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Stephen, Michael

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 285.

  Division No. 167]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bates, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ancram, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkins, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bowis, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Baldry, Tony

  Brandreth, Gyles

  844

  Brazier, Julian

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butcher, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butler, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butterfill, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hawksley, Warren

  Churchill, Mr

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clappison, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hicks, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Congdon, David

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Day, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jessel, Toby

  Devlin, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Eggar, Tim

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

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, Sir David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evennett, David

  Legg, Barry

  Faber, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodsphng)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Madel, Sir David

  Gallie, Phil

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malone, Gerald

  Garnier, Edward

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  845

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Merchant, Piers

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mills, Iain

  Spring, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sproat, Iain

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Steen, Anthony

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stephen, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stern, Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Stewart, Allan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thomason, Roy

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Paice, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pawsey, James

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

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tracey, Richard

  Pickles, Eric

  Tredinnick, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Trend, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trotter, Neville

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rathbone, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Richards, Rod

  Walden, George

  Riddick, Graham

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Waller, Gary

  Robathan, Andrew

  Ward, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Watts, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Whitney, Ray

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Willetts, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilshire, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Sims, Roger

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beggs, Roy

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Ainger, Nick

  Bell, Stuart

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Alton, David

  Benton, Joe

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Berts, Clive

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Blair, Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Blunkett, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Boyes, Roland

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradley, Keith

  Battle, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

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

  846

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gunnell, John

  Burden, Richard

  Hain, Peter

  Byers, Stephen

  Hall, Mike

  Caborn, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Henderson, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heppell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoey, Kate

  Clapham, Michael

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hutton, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Illsley, Eric

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ingram, Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jamieson, David

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mori)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Dewar, Donald

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dixon, Don

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Dobson, Frank

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Enright, Derek

  Loyden, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAllion, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fatchett, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Macdonald, Calum

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McFall, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McKelvey, William

  Flynn, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foulkes, George

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fraser, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fyfe, Maria

  McWilliam, John

  Galloway, George

  Madden, Max

  Gapes, Mike

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Garrett, John

  Mahon, Alice

  George, Bruce

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marek, Dr John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Martlew, Eric

  Gordon, Mildred

  Maxton, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Meacher, Michael

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  847

  Milburn, Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Miller, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Short, Clare

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Simpson, Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

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

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Paul

  Spearing, Nigel

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stott, Roger

  Olner, William

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Parry, Robert

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Patchett, Terry

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pendry, Tom

  Trimble, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennis

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tyler, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Vaz, Keith

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Walley, Joan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Purchase, Ken

  Watson, Mike

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Andrew

  Radice, Giles

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Redmond, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Reid, Dr John

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rendel, David

  Wilson, Brian

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Winnick, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wise, Audrey

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Worthington, Tony

  Rogers, Allan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rooney, Terry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. Peter Kilfovle and Mr. John Spellar.

  Salmond, Alex

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and command to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords]

  Money
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government (Wales) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown under that Act;

  (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment; and

  (c) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

  10.27 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: It will be helpful if the Minister accounts to the House for the extraordinary money resolution before us. As a House of Commons we authorise Ministers to make expenditure, and, as usual, the resolution is couched in very general terms.
  I shall link the general resolution with the explanation entitled
  "Financial effects of the Bill"
  in the explanatory and financial memorandum. We are giving the Secretary of State unlimited authorisation, but the limitation—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Will the House settle down? If hon. Members beyond the Bar want to hold committee meetings, will they please do so outside?
  Mr. Cryer: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The money resolution is important because it covers taxation revenue, so we should have a look at it. As I was saying, its terms are unlimited. It simply authorises the Secretary of State to pay money for
  "any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown under that Act;
  … any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act … and … the making of payments"—
  that is, payments received under the terms of the legislation—
  "into the Consolidated Fund."
  The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill qualifies the costs of putting the legislation into action, saying that they are
  "estimated … to be between £65 million and £150 million over 15 years."
  That estimate is based on a report prepared by outside consultants, who often have grand titles but, by and large, are guessing. They call them carefully calculated estimates, but they are guessing the amount of expenditure that will be involved. There are examples of previous Conservative Governments doing similar guesswork.
  I want the Minister to assure me that the costs mentioned in the Bill and authorised by the money resolution will not be as extravagantly inaccurate as they were for the Local Government Act 1972, which applied to the United Kingdom and not to Wales alone.
  I recall that a report, which became known as the Baines report, claimed that, for modest expenditure, local government could make huge savings through efficiency. The report recommended larger, often unitary structures and some two-tier structures in metropolitan areas. High salaries would be paid to chief executives—there would no

  849
  longer be town clerks—and municipal boroughs, urban district councils and rural district councils would all be swept to one side.
  Such arguments are not so far removed from those adduced for the Bill. It is claimed that, because some councils will be swept into oblivion, it will be easier for businesses to deal with the new authorities and they will therefore be cheaper to run. That was the argument contained in the Baines report in 1971. What happened? First, much more compensation had to be paid than was forecast when the 1971 Act was at the same stage as this Bill. Town clerks with years of service were retired with golden handshakes that cost an enormous amount of money. Reorganising local authorities proved much more expensive than had been calculated and the greater efficiencies claimed for the new system did not result. Local government became more expensive and not less.
  The paragraph that details the Bill's effect on public sector manpower implies that there will be savings in public expenditure—a cost related to the money resolution—by virtue of a reduction in staffing levels, due to the abolition of local authorities. That was precisely what was claimed in 1971.
  The Baines report, with all the weight of Government support, was supposed to create a new era of local government efficiency. Hosts of perfectly decent local authorities, which it had taken more than 100 years to build up, were shovelled to one side by larger units—by what the then Government claimed were the new super-efficient, super-organisations, but it was not true. Pay-offs for senior local government officials were highly expensive and the salaries of the new chief executives were astronomical. The system was based on the style of corporations, which were the private enterprise basis for the Baines report and subsequent local government reorganisation.
  The huge, sprawling local authorities, which were often of a unitary pattern, were highly expensive and the claimed savings never materialised. The local government pattern that the Government are changing now is that established by previous Conservative Governments.
  The Government's argument for the need to reorganise is that local authorities are not efficient. If they are not efficient, I point out that it was the Government's claims about efficiency which produced the legislation in the first place. If it is the same people with the same philosophy who are putting the ideas forward now, it is reasonable for hon. Members to say that our experience does not show that the claims—in this case, it is expenditure of between £65 million and £150 million on transitional costs over 15 years—are soundly based.
  I know what the Minister will say. He will say that the Government had consultants. That is the growth area today. The Government do not make any decisions; they get consultants for some astronomical sum—many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: And Tory Members of Parliament on the board.
  Mr. Cryer:—with Tory Members of Parliament on the board. There are Tories with their snouts in the trough, and they call themselves public consultants.
  I want the Minister to accept that, when decisions are made, even on the basis of outside recommendations and
  850
  outside consultancies, he takes the can. He makes the decision and he reads the report to decide whether it is valid. The Government may pay the bill for the consultation, but at the end of the day the Minister makes the decision. It is no answer for him to say, in this modest debate, that the Government employed an independent body to make an assessment. He has enough civil servants in his Department to make his own estimate, which is necessary to judge whether the outside consultants have earned their money. That is our first point. We want to know what estimate his Department has made of the costs of the transitional arrangements being
  "between £65 million and £150 million over 15 years."
  Secondly, in the past there have been so many changes since the Local Government Act 1972, which established the altered system of local government, because of the mistakes that were made then that we cannot be confident that in asking for wide powers in the money resolution the Minister is soundly based in his judgment that we will not go down exactly the same road once again. We have had a change of local government and vast claims about efficiency and savings, and we have got rid of a tier of government, yet at the end of the day we will have more inefficiency because the Government are like some renegade Trotskyist outfit—they cannot leave things alone. They must get their hands on every aspect of life. Even when things are running well, they must get their mad hands on everything in sight.
  Mr. Ray Powell: With my hon. Friend's expertise and knowledge of money resolutions, could he explain whether the Secretary of State—the Secretary of State did not enlighten Welsh Members today as to the financial structure of local government—could impose a poll tax on the people of Wales? The Secretary of State was a great supporter of the poll tax until it was thrown out.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right to raise that important point. Of course, my task tonight is to keep within the terms of the money resolution—to go wider would invite criticism. My experience is that Deputy Speakers wish to allow the proper debate of money resolutions, but to go much wider calls on their patience, so I shall confine my remarks to the terms of the money resolution. I am concerned that Labour Members are the guardians of taxpayers' money. That is the bottom of it.
  The Government are getting their hands on every aspect of our institutions. It is amazing that we are debating a money resolution which gives the Secretary of State the power to spend money on changing institutions in Wales, yet the Chief Secretary made a speech in which he said that there is an attack on institutions in an age of cynicism which is corroding the fabric of social life in the country. There are many criticisms of our existing institutions. That is exactly what the Secretary of State for Wales, and every other Secretary of State, is doing: every institution is under attack—not from the people at large, but from the Government.
  The money resolution in effect gives the Secretary of State authority to spend up to £150 million on changing the local government organisation of Wales, irrespective of the views of the people of Wales as to whether they think it to be of advantage. There will be no local referendums or local polls. I have always taken the view that there should be local consultation on democratic issues. That has always been shrugged off by the Government, just as they shrugged off—this is by way of explanation, Mr. Deputy

  851
  Speaker—the calls for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. We ought to have had such a referendum, but I am not going any further down that road. It is not quite within the terms of the money resolution, and I want to stick to those.
  The Secretary of State has an explanation to give to the House tonight. We are the guardians of the taxpayers' money, and we do not agree with the sum of £150 million. The House must bear in mind that, on experience, it will not be £150 million. There is no legislation, by the way. That £150 million is not the limiting factor on the money resolution, which is unquantified. The £150 million is merely a figure to convince the House that the money resolution should go through.
  The total could be £300 million and, frankly, had the money resolution not been debated, there would have been nothing on the record anyhow. If in 10 years' time the cost was £1 billion and going up, the Secretary of State could not check Hansard to see what claims and assurances he gave to the House.
  I debate the money resolution because it gives an opportunity to the Secretary of State, who claims that he is concerned about public expenditure, to give an assurance to the House that the figure of £150 million is absolutely the top figure which will not be exceeded. We could then hold him to task in a couple of years, because that is all the time he has got until the next general election. He will then be out with a lot more Tories, and we will have a Labour Government who are concerned with controlling and holding to account the revenue from the taxpayer.
  We hold that revenue dear because we represent working people, and we know what it takes for them to raise the funds to pay their tax bills. That is why this debate is important; and I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to speak in this debate. We are holding the Secretary of State to account. Many people in Parliament and outside say that the Executive gets away with too much, and this money resolution is an example of that. There are no figures or limitations—just an indication on the financial effects of the Bill. The figures have no legal binding effect on the Secretary of State, so he can, if he wants, go beyond £150 million without any recourse to the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give the House a comprehensive explanation of the money resolution.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. David Hanson: I did not intend to speak to the money resolution, but having sat through the debate today let me say that there are several questions which need to be raised with regard to the financial effects of the Bill. As an hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency, I remember vividly only a few months ago voting on the rate support grant settlement for Wales. Throughout my constituency and Clwyd, massive cuts had been made in spending by local authorities in Wales. Yet tonight we are debating a money resolution which promises expenditure of between £65 million and £150 million in 15 years.
  That will be offset from April 1996 by continued savings in public spending, presumably from local councils which have already had cuts imposed on them through the rate support grant settlement which came before the House earlier this year. If my county of Clwyd had its share—one eighth of that £65 million to £150
  852
  million—it would find itself in a different situation. Last year, Clwyd's rate support grant was cut by some £12 million, and this year the cut is £11 million.
  It is not possible to continue to reduce rate support grant to councils such as Clwyd without its having a serious effect on services. How can we find £65 million to £150 million for the cost of reorganisation when we cannot find money to provide a decent level of services elsewhere? I could list a thousand and one examples of how the money for reorganisation could be spent more effectively in Clwyd and elsewhere in Wales on promoting services rather than changing the organisation.
  Several examples will suffice; I shall not detain the House by listing many. Only today further news came through from my constituency and county of the potential loss of some 200 teachers from the education system. Only yesterday in my constituency at Ysgol Maes Garmon the pupils staged a demonstration about the loss of six teachers at the school as a result of a loss of rate support grant.
  Can the Minister justify to the House the £65 million to £150 million expenditure in the next 15 years when we face reductions in the level of public spending through rate support grant to local councils such as mine in Clwyd? How does the Minister envisage—this is a serious point—that the savings from April 1996 will be offset by continued savings in public spending? How will the savings be made? Will it be simply a question of losing staff? Will services be lost? How does he anticipate that local government will balance out in Wales in view of the potential in the Bill for further cuts in public spending?
  The precise level of the savings will depend on decisions taken by the new councils on matters such as staffing levels and management structures. I can accept that with the decency with which I am sure it has been put into the Bill, but what strictures will the Secretary of State impose on councils when considering such matters? It is one thing to put in the Bill the bland statement
  "The eventual figure will depend on decisions to be taken by the new councils",
  but we do not know as yet what rate capping regimes will be in place for the new councils, what directions the Secretary of State may give them, or what rate support grant they will have. The £65 million to £150 million transitional cost will have to come from somewhere. Will it come out of next year's rate support grant settlement, or the settlement the year after? Those questions need to be answered this evening.
  There has been a lot of discussion this evening about the establishment of a Welsh assembly or a Welsh parliament. Let us bear it in mind that 32 of the 38 Members of Parliament who represent seats in Wales have argued for a Welsh assembly and signed the amendment that was defeated this evening in the House. One argument that the Secretary of State and Conservative Members have made concerns the cost of implementing the proposal for a Welsh assembly. According to figures which Opposition Members dispute but which the Secretary of State and Conservative Members have suggested this evening, it would cost some £50 million.
  If it is possible to spend £65 million to £150 million on transitional costs, is not it possible to find the resources, if needed, to establish democratic control over the many quangos in Wales which spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money? Already we have said this evening that millions upon millions of pounds are spent on quangos. There are additional costs in the form of salaries for many

  853
  members, including some in my constituency who bring home £60,000 a year plus from serving on quangos. If the money can be found for that activity, cannot the money that is being earmarked today be made available to implement the policy on which the majority of Welsh Members of Parliament were elected—a Welsh assembly and a Welsh parliament?
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Nonsense.
  Mr. Hanson: If the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) had spent the day in the Chamber, as many of my hon. Friends have done, perhaps he would be convinced of the arguments.
  My key argument to the Secretary of State is that, if rate support grant cuts which hit local councils and services are being made in Wales now, how can we afford to spend money on reorganisation when that money can be far better spent on providing teachers and books for schools, and on support for local services that are much needed in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends? Until the Secretary of State gives reasonable examples of why those costs could be incurred, and until we can be sure that those costs are not at the expense of direct money provided for local government services, the House will not support the motion.
  10.49 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) should take note of the fact that revenue support grant has been going up, not down, in recent years. There have not been cuts; there have been increases. He asks where offsetting savings would come from. Perhaps he should ask some of the Labour councils in Wales. The Council of Welsh Districts, with many Labour councils, has estimated that there would be annual savings of £17 million a year, because one council in each area should be cheaper than two as a result of cutting unnecessary administration and duplication.
  The hon. Member for Delyn asks what other controls I would wish to impose on councils. I wish to impose no new controls, but when the year of transition arrives I, with the approval of the House, will have to judge the levels of capital investment and revenue support grant. I will take full account of the transition when approaching those items, and I am sure that the House will debate them vigorously then.
  The hon. Members for Delyn and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) should remember that we are speaking about transitional costs being mainly in the form of one-off capital items, which will be controlled through the capital budgets. They cannot be compared with the annual revenue costs of an assembly, which the hon. Member for Delyn says that he wants, which would be an annual cost on top of the costs of governing Wales already, and well in excess of anything that we are discussing for improved local government.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Will the Secretary of State tell us how he arrived at the estimate of the annual cost of running a Welsh assembly?
  Mr. Redwood: There are several ways of calculating the estimates. We have taken estimates based on our estimate of the number of members, the number of staff and the likely modest costs. On top of that, I think that the assembly would have huge spending programmes, which we have grossly underemphasised in the debate.
  It is a pity that the hon. Member for Bradford, South did not do some preparation or thinking before he intervened in this Welsh debate. Indeed, it was a great pity that he did not attend the debate, because he would have heard many of the answers to his arguments. He should realise that the estimate provisions have been made for 1994–95 and subsequent years and laid before the House in the normal way with the public expenditure review, so that there will be plenty of opportunity to debate them in the years when the spending is incurred.
  The purpose of the money resolution is to authorise modest expenditure in 1994–95, under those estimates, on the Staff Commission for Wales, which was welcomed earlier by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). It was not to authorise the expenditure of large sums of money at which he has been guessing, which will take place in future years, which will require estimates and debates in the House and the revenue support grant and the capital settlement for the authorities. Those items will be settled by local councils elected in Wales. At the moment, much of Welsh local government is Labour controlled, which is why we would look to the Opposition to give us their thoughts about costs. It is interesting that they have presented us with a much wider range of estimates of costs than the range that consultants have come up with—and some of those consultants believe that the introduction of our proposals could result in substantial savings.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South muddled up the costs of potential job losses, new headquarters and the like for the new councils.
  We have debated extensively today and in previous debates and I do not wish to detain the House at length by discussing the details again. Suffice it to say that I believe that the reorganisation can produce good value for the taxpayer. I think that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members are trying to exaggerate the costs. They do not understand the difference between the different types of budget and the difference between a one-off cost to save money and annual costs incurred to bloat and increase the costs of government in Wales in a way that we would find thoroughly reprehensible. I recommend the money resolution to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government (Wales) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown under that Act;

  (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment; and

  (c) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.

  Dental Services (Wales)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: This year, 1994, is supposed to be Worldwide Year of Oral Health. Wales appears to be celebrating the year with the imminent total collapse of the national health dental service. The NHS was conceived in Wales and we have a commitment to sustaining it. In Gwent, Aneurin Bevan's county, there are 154 registered dentists, only 22 of whom offer a full NHS dental service. In Dwyfor, the home of Lloyd George, that other founder of the welfare state, there are now no NHS dentists in the whole district.
  The degree of the collapse was described graphically in last Sunday's edition of Wales on Sunday. I pay tribute to Michael Settle for his report entitled "Crisis in Dental Care", which shows that the total number of dentists in Wales is 857, 316 of whom are already refusing to take new NHS patients. The position is getting worse by the week. Those staying in the NHS find more people turning to them as other dentists go private. An NHS dentist has an average of 2,000 patients on his lists while those taking private patients average 1,200 on their registers. Pressure is therefore increasing on the remaining dentists to go private.
  The Wales on Sunday analysis showed that, of the 64 dentists currently employed in Gwynedd, 59 are refusing NHS patients in various circumstances. Of those 64, 48 are accepting no new adult patients on the NHS. Of the 16 who are accepting new cases, most have long waiting lists—one as long as six months—and some will not accept emergency cases on the NHS. In the Dwyfor area, no dentists are accepting new adult registrations. In Arfon, only three are accepting new adult patients, with 13 not accepting them. There is virtually no emergency cover in Arfon and none at all in Dwyfor.
  In Gwynedd, the Welsh Office has provided for four full-time equivalent salaried dentists, but only one has so far been put in place, working three days a week—one day in Caernarfon, one in Pwllheli and one in Holyhead. A second salaried dentist is about to start on a three-days-a-week basis, but, apparently, it is a temporary appointment that will last for about six months. Those salaried dentists have potentially more than 100,000 patients to cope with.
  I referred to the position in Dwyfor, where the NI-IS dental service in its traditional form has now totally evaporated. May I read from a letter from a constituent, Mrs. Ellen Owen of Rhoshirwaun? It is in Welsh but I shall furnish a translation afterwards. She said:
  "Rwyf yn ysgrifennu' r llythyr yma i chwi oherwydd, ers peth amser rwan, rwyf yn trio cael hyd i ddeintydd sydd yn cymeryd rhywun ar y National Health, ond rwyf yn cael fy ngwrthod gan bob un. Dim ond dau ddeintydd sydd ym Mhwlheli ac maent hwythau wedi mynd yn breifat. Mae'n gywilydd o beth rwy'n meddwl bod rhaid trafeilio mor bell a Bangor hyd yn oed i gael triniaeth. Mae hynny tua deugain milltir o Rhoshirwaun … Mae'n lawn ar bobl sydd a digon o fodd i dalu, ond i rhywun fel ti sydd dim Ilawer o fodd sydd gyda gwr yn gorfod gweithio ar gyflog bach ac yn magu dau o hogiau bach mae'n anodd iawn."
  That translates:
  "I am writing this letter to you because, for a long time now, I have been trying to find a dentist who takes people on the National Health, but I am being refused by everyone. There are only two dentists in Pwllheli, and they have gone private. It's appalling that I may have to travel as far away as Bangor to
  856
  receive treatment. That is about forty miles from Rhoshirwaun … It's fine for people who have sufficient means to pay but for somebody like myself, who hasn't much money, with a husband who has to work on a small wage and bringing up two little boys, it's extremely difficult."
  That message will strike home with honourable Members.
  A letter from another constituent, Mr. Frank Bolton of Borth-y-Gest in Porthmadog, said:
  "My concern is firstly for those people, and Porthmadog is not short of them, who have a cash flow problem and will not be able to meet the costs of dental treatment as they escalate, which they undoubtedly will.
  My concern is secondly that this privatisation of the Health Service has caused no comment except at 'grass roots' level, and not much there. This leaves one worried as to just how much of the system can be whittled away without comment or concerted action by those affected.
  There is also the unfairness whereby one has paid National Insurance for thirty or forty years on the understanding that the National Health Service would provide treatment in return."
  That message chimes home for many people.
  Another constituent of mine wrote:
  "My wife and I have recently been forced to take out a Denplan insurance in order to stay on our present dentist's list at Penrhyndeudraeth."
  Many of my constituents have drawn that experience to my attention.
  Another constituent from Llanrug in the Afon area writes:
  "I am writing on behalf of my two children that have been in terrible agony for over a week. They have tried all dentists locally and no one wants to know."
  That is the suffering that people are going through.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining time for the debate, which obviously reflects the current crisis in Gwynedd? I draw to his attention the astonishing fact that of the 12 dental practices in the borough of Aberconwy, only one is accepting new patients. That, if anything, must reflect the real crisis in the health service.
  Mr. Wigley: Aberconwy in Gwynedd is another example and only last Saturday people in Llandudno drew that fact to my attention. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  The problem is generally summed up by my constituent, Mr. Trevor Haines, who in lives in Llanystumdwy, Lloyd George's home village:
  "I was very concerned when I learned from my dentist last autumn that he was withdrawing from the NHS. Since then every dentist I know in Dwyfor has withdrawn from the NHS. Many of the dentists are trying to persuade patients to insure for treatment with Denplan, a subsidiary of PPP, at a considerable cost for only partial cover. I have also found out that Denplan, and no doubt other medical insurers, have been actively encouraged by the Government to try and push people into taking out dental insurance. Many, if not all, are deprived of NHS dental treatment, and, since they cannot afford the private charges, a large number will be denied dental treatment. I am aware, like most others, of the duplicity of this Government, but I hardly expected them to destroy so quickly and blatantly an important part of the NHS."
  Those letters are unsolicited; they come from my constituents who are facing the problem at the sharp end.
  The problems are happening outside my constituency, too, and the position is deteriorating rapidly in other parts of Wales such as Denbigh and Mold. In Pembroke, it is virtually impossible for adults to get on to dental registers. In 1990 there were 138 dentists providing NHS treatment for adults and children in Mid-Glamorgan. That figure is now down to 69. Since July 1992, no fewer than 65 dentists in Mid-Glamorgan stopped taking on adults as new cases on the NHS.

  857
  In South Glamorgan in the past 18 months, between 20 and 30 dentists have deregistered some of their NHS patients. Of the 138 dentists in south Glamorgan, only 36 are prepared to treat new NHS patients. The figures given to me by the South Glamorgan health officials are even worse than the indications of the Wales on Sunday report.
  Along the Clwyd coastline there is an intriguingly difficult position. In towns such as Colwyn Bay, Abergele and Rhyl another phenomenon has developed—that of dental refugees. They are people from Gwynedd, who are unable to get treatment in their own county, travelling to Clwyd for treatment. They are in danger of overloading those dentists along the Clwyd coast who are still in the NHS.
  The background to the problem is clearly of the Government's own making. In February 1992 the Government proposed to cut NHS fees for dentists by 13.8 per cent. —that figure was later adjusted to 7 per cent. As a direct result, the British Dental Association balloted its members, who voted not to take on new patients until the NHS dispute was totally resolved. We are now witnessing the effect of the working through of this phenomenon. During the past 12 months 500,000 people throughout the United Kingdom have been removed from registers by dentists.
  The position is worse in counties such as Gwynedd, where the Welsh Office is unable to attract dentists to fill established posts, in addition to the failure to retain the remaining NHS dentists in the county. So there is a double factor exacerbating the problem in Gwynedd.
  Over the years, Gwynedd has been below the authorised head count, so it is not a new problem, but it is one which the Welsh Office over the years has failed to rectify. The report on dental remuneration by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield in January 1993 is still awaiting a response from the Government. I find that amazing. The British Dental Association wrote on 9 February 1994:
  "The present uncertainty about the Government's future intentions for dentistry is preventing dentists from making meaningful plans for their practices. Many have moved to the private sector to give themselves this much needed stability. In a recent survey of BDA members, we found that two in five dentists were not accepting new NHS patients and one in five were treating adult patients only on a private basis."
  That is the extent of the problem. I am told that, currently throughout Britain, as many as 25 dentists a month are going bankrupt because of the failure of the Government's funding of this important profession.
  The general position of dental health in Wales is serious. The standard of teeth in Wales is not high. The study by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showed that, in Wales, only 68 per cent. of adults have sound and untreated teeth. That compares with 89 per cent. in the English midlands. In 1992, the condition of the teeth of five-year-old children in Wales was twice as bad as those in the west midlands or the south-west Thames areas. In Great Britain, only Scotland is worse. Forty-nine per cent. of five-year-olds in Wales have active decay in their teeth. In Mid-Glamorgan, the figure is as high as 60 per cent. That compares with only 25 per cent. in the south-west Thames area and only 20 per cent. in east Surrey.
  There is a tremendous opportunity for oral health gain in Wales. The Welsh health planning forum set targets in 1992, including reducing the level of tooth decay in
  858
  five-year-olds in Wales from 2.8 in 1990 to 2.0 in 2002, and to increase the proportion in the 35 to 44 age group in Wales with more than 21 natural teeth from 77 per cent. to 89 per cent. Those targets have no chance of being achieved on the basis of the current collapse in the NHS system.
  This crisis is frustrating not only to patients, but to dentists. I received a letter from dentist in my constituency which says:
  "In my opinion, the only way that the dental profession is going to attain sufficient funding to achieve a good, acceptable standard of dental care is directly from the patients. The Government has to solve the problem of properly funding the dental care of those who cannot afford it, not the dentists. Dentists are trained to fix people's mouths and not socio-economic problems. Having said that, it can be quite heartbreaking to see patients who could have a tooth saved but who decide to have it extracted for financial reasons. And this is happening more and more frequently."
  What can be done about the problem? First, I believe that we must ask what.has happened to the local incentive schemes for dentists, which began in Wales in 1990. They are supposed to help towards the cost of setting up and expanding dental practices in areas where there is a serious shortage of general dental practitioners. How many family health services associations in Wales are participating in the scheme? How much has been spent since 1990 and how many additional dentists have been set up? What are the targets for the scheme in Wales for 1994–95? Is it true that that scheme is on ice while the Government dither on how to act on the Bloomfield report?
  Secondly, what happened to the promise made by the Welsh Office a year ago that we would have four salaried dentists in Gwynedd? Where are they? The Government cannot recruit, because they simply are not paying them enough. It is much more attractive for a young dentist to go to the private sector, where they can earn up to £60,000 treating private patients, rather than the £19,000 at which salaried posts in Gwynedd are being advertised.
  Thirdly, I specifically call today for an immediate comprehensive response by the Government to the Bloomfield report and to the Select Committee recommendations; and for a commitment to substantial additional funding for NHS dental treatment fees. I ask in all seriousness for an immediate change in social security legislation to enable everyone on benefits, pensions, low wages, and for children to have full reimbursement of dental charges if they have to go for private treatment because no NHS dentists are available locally and quickly. That is the sort of self-correcting cash punishment that perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales would understand. If the Welsh Office failed to provide NHS treatment, it would have to pick up the bill for patients going privately, not the patients who cannot afford missing out on dental treatment. Can more dentists be trained and can we have an educational drive to that end? That would take years to work through, but it is needed. Can the salaried dentists' pay scale be increased to help the crisis areas and will the Government consider the ease with which a dentist can build up a practice on the NHS, then abandon ship and turn completely private, using the NHS list as a base?
  Before the last election, the Government made much noise about the NHS being safe in their hands. Today, we see that promise for what it was: worthless, hollow words. The Government's complacency can be interpreted only as tacit approval of the privatisation by stealth that is taking

  859
  place in the NHS sector. The NHS was born in Wales and we have no intention of allowing the Tory regime to kill it off.
  In terms of dental services, the NHS is certainly not safe in Tory hands. The Government must stand up and be counted—and perhaps the Minister can start tonight with a suitable apology.
  11.10 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I assure the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that the Government remain entirely committed to an effective and accessible NHS dental service. The facts speak for themselves. More NHS dentists are practising in Wales than ever before; more NHS patients are being treated than ever before; and more money is being spent on NHS dentistry than at any other time in our history.
  The progress made is obvious to all who examine the figures. The number of general dental practitioners in Wales has risen from 592 in 1979 to 807 in 1993, an increase of more than 36 per cent.; during that time, the population rose by only 3 per cent. Patient registration levels, at more than 1.7 million, are the highest ever, with 67 per cent. of all children and 57 per cent. of all adults currently registered with an NHS dentist. No wonder the number of courses of treatment for adults has risen to nearly 1.4 million in 1993.
  With more patients registered and more treatment provided than ever before, expenditure levels are also at an all-time high. In the last financial year, nearly £74 million was spent on NHS dentistry in Wales, in real terms an increase of 87 per cent. since 1978–79.
  I was disappointed when the hon. Gentleman lapsed into the usual "knock the NHS" conclusion at the end of his speech. He came out with, in effect, the same gross insult to the excellent staff who are working for the NHS in Wales. They are our greatest asset. They continue to achieve record increases in the number of patients being treated in Wales—and, moreover, to achieve improvement in the quality of health care. The most recent survey conducted by. the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts showed that 87 per cent. of the public were satisfied with the NHS in Wales.
  We in Wales are, indeed, fortunate to enjoy a good and productive relationship with the dental profession. Its members talk to my officials and to me. I last met representatives of the British Dental Association and the General Dental Services Committee on 8 December. They know that my door is open if they wish to explore any matter of mutual concern.
  I am pleased to maintain an open door, if only because I recognise the huge strides that have been made, particularly in recent years. The other day, I talked to a constituent who, as a boy in the valleys, had had his teeth ripped out with no thought of conservation or health promotion. Not surprisingly, he took great pleasure in the fact that his two children—who are in their late teens and have grown up under the present Administration—have but one filling between them. That story can be repeated many times, and is an eloquent testimony to standards that the Government are committed to retaining.
  I recognise, however, that if those achievements are to he sustained and improved in the long term, there is an overriding need to tackle the roots of the current problems
  860
  in the dental remuneration system. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of some of those problems, but it may be helpful if I explain the background. Dental remuneration is determined by the Government on the basis of the recommendation of the doctors' and dentists' review body. In 1991–92, the review body recommended that dentists should receive an average net income of some £32,000; in the event, they received an average of about £12,000 more than that.
  A cut in fees of some 23 per cent. would have been necessary if the target pay for dentists were to be brought into line with the review body's recommendation for the following year. We decided, however, to introduce a cut of just 7 per cent., which should still have enabled dentists to receive, on average, about £4,000 more than the net income of nearly £36,000 recommended by their review body. Although their income remained higher, on average, than that recommended, dentists, inevitably and understand-ably, reacted badly to the fee adjustment, and some decided that they would no longer accept new NHS patients or provide emergency treatment for unregistered patients. Others decided to offer only private treatment to patients not exempt from NHS charges. As independent contractors, they are, of course, free to do this if they wish.
  Clearly, the situation was far from satisfactory and needed to be addressed in the interests of all parties. A fundamental review of the dental remuneration system was requested by the pay review body in its 22nd report and that request was repeated by the profession in 1992. The Government met the professions's request for an independent review, and Sir Kenneth Bloomfield was asked to produce a report identifying options for change. The report was published and widely circulated last year. Consultation was drawn to a close five months later, at about the time the Select Committee on Health published the report of its inquiry into dental services.
  Unfortunately, and despite out extensive consultations, there was no consensus about solutions. That had been noted by both Sir Kenneth and the Select Committee in their inquiries. Indeed, it is significant that the Committee noted in its report:
  "there was … more consensus amongst witnesses concerning the problems than concerning solutions".
  Against that background, it was imperative that we should take time to consider all of the many options for change and all the views submitted on them. I am pleased to advise that we are now close to announcing our proposals. We shall, of course, be consulting closely and fully with the profession and others interested in the proposals. In the meantime, we are determined that the profession should be properly rewarded for its work in improving the oral health of the nation. Our commitment is underlined by our recent decisions to increase the level of fees paid to dentists—a 2.9 per cent. increase from 1 January and a further 3 per cent. from 1 April.
  That does not sound to me like a service abandoned by the Government; rather, we see pay recommendations accepted and implemented in full and a willingness to inquire into the universally acknowledged problems in the present system, to consult and listen to the profession and to consider with the greatest care the many representations received. There is no hint here of lack of commitment.
  The general dental service provides the vast majority of dental services, but we should acknowledge also the contribution made by other branches of the profession. The hospital services have an important role to play in dealing

  861
  with the more complex and difficult cases. That sector, too, has seen growth in its activity, with a corresponding increase of 62 per cent. in the number of dental specialists employed since 1979. Wales now has more restorative dental consultants outside teaching hospitals and located in district hospitals than any other part of the United Kingdom.
  However, the Government are not complacent—far from it. It would be misleading for me to imply that all in the garden is rosy. The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly highlighted the difficulties that are experienced in some areas of Wales in obtaining dental treatment in the location of choice. That has been caused largely by the less-than-ideal distribution of the services that are currently available.
  We should recognise that dentists put their own money at risk when they open a new practice, and they may see that risk as greater when the population is sparse or where they feel that it would be difficult to establish a viable practice. But for every area where there is a problem, there are others where no difficulty is experienced in obtaining NHS treatment. Indeed, Gwynedd is the only area in Wales where the family health services authority has reported being unable to arrange NHS treatment for an inquirer. Even there, such treatment would have been available if the patient had been prepared to travel.
  I am happy to report to the House that, as a direct result of the Secretary of State's permission to employ salaried dentists, the situation has improved. No one in Gwynedd should now be denied or totally refused NHS treatment, although I acknowledge that patients may have to travel. I recognise the need to address this problem. Patients should not have to travel long distances or wait for treatment.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of dentists who have closed their books. Those figures need to be interpreted with caution. Before 1990, dentists did not have lists as such. Following the new contract, all practising dentists would have open lists because their remuneration depended in part on the number of registered patients. It was equally inevitable that, in time, some lists would become full and would close. What matters is not the number of open lists but whether treatment is available. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in Pwllheli the salaried dentist is offering two days' cover a week from Monday and that there is one whole-time equivalent community dentist available to provide emergency cover. In Dwyfor there are four dentists, all treating existing registered national health service patients but not accepting new NHS patients. In Pembroke the family health services authority and the profession's representative body advise that NHS dentists are available to new NHS patients.
  Mr. Wigley: The Minister has stated that all four dentists in Dwyfor were accepting people currently on the NHS. That is not true. I have quoted letters from people who have been told that they have to move away from the NHS or go on to a private plan if they wish to remain with their dentist. If 300 of the 850 dentists in Wales have withdrawn from taking on new patients, does the Minister realise that most will continue not to accept them, whatever happens? How on earth will he get the NHS dental service back on the rails?
  Mr. Jones: I am seeking to give the hon. Gentleman the latest information. The advice to me is that the four dentists in Dwyfor are treating existing registered NHS patients but not accepting new NHS patients. That is the latest information.
  The Welsh Office is doing much to assist family health services authorities to attract dentists to the areas of greatest need. We have introduced the highly successful location incentive scheme. Under it, grants are available to dentists who wish to set up or expand their practice in areas where there is a shortfall of dentists. Seven schemes are funded in the current year.
  In addition, the Welsh Office is funding various local initiatives throughout Wales that aim to improve the standards and level of services available. Those initiatives are usually targeted on areas of greatest need, and the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that 50 per cent. of the current funding is directed to the Gwynedd family health services authority to finance initiatives in that area. Further initiatives from Gwynedd and elsewhere are under consideration.
  However, those initiatives and the location incentives that I have already mentioned are not always sufficient in themselves to secure comprehensive general dental services for an area. In those circumstances, the community dental services are providing a valuable safety net function to patients who would otherwise be unable to obtain treatment. We are committed to the continuation of this service, and the health authorities who manage it are charged with keeping the need for such services under review and with making appropriate provision for it.
  My officials are exploring innovative ways of expanding and strengthening the community dental services safety net function in Wales. There have been discussions with the staff side of the profession with a view to identifying arrangements particular to our needs. Those discussions are well advanced and principles are agreed. I hope that the outcome will provide greater flexibility of services and better targeting of resources, particularly in those areas of Wales where general dental services have been weaker.
  It is also open to family health services authorities to apply for approval to appoint salaried dentists if they consider that that is necessary to ensure adequate provision. This scheme can be attractive to dentists who, for whatever reason, do not wish to practise on their own account or as part of a managed service. To date, five authorities have made applications and seven posts have been approved. Three salaried dentists are already in post—two in Gwynedd and one in Dyfed. A further dentist is shortly to commence work in Powys. Other applications are under consideration, and I expect shortly to announce approval of additional posts.
  I have already shown that I support innovation. Family health services authorities bringing forward proposals for new authorities will find that I shall deal with them sympathetically and expeditiously, provided that they demonstrate need. The picture is not one of failure and complacency, such as the hon. Gentleman sought to paint.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what improvements are planned for the system of selecting solicitors and counsel to act for the Legal Aid Board in the future; and what consideration has been given to providing an opportunity for all suitably qualified firms of solicitors and counsel to benefit from the available work which the Legal Aid Board is able to provide.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No changes are planned. Suitably qualified solicitors and counsel are instructed by the board as required. Any suitably qualified firm of solicitors or counsel have the opportunity to be instructed just as they have the opportunity to be instructed by any other client choosing a legal representative.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what directions and other guidance are given to solicitors and counsel acting for the legal aid fund to ensure that costs from unsuccessful non-legally aided litigants are recovered for the benefit of the legal aid fund.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The instructions given by the board will depend on the nature of the particular case. In general terms, the board will seek to recover costs wherever possible.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases have been decided or settled against the Legal Aid Board.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what rates of remuneration have been claimed since the creation of the Legal Aid Board by firms of solicitors acting for the Legal Aid Board in litigation; if he will specify the expense rates and mark-up claimed by such firms of solicitors in their bills and the period or periods to which such charges relate; and what are the comparable rates allowed upon taxation and the proposed civil legal aid rates.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information on the rates of remuneration since the creation of the board claimed by firms of solicitors acting for the board and on the expense rates and mark-up rates claimed by those firms is not available. A prescribed hourly rate for civil non-matrimonial cases came into force on 25 February 1994. Details of the rates and their application are given in the following statutory instruments which are available from HMSO:

  SI 1994/228

  Legal Aid in Civil Proceedings (Remuneration) Regulations 1994

  554

  SI 1994/229

  Civil Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1994

  SI 1994/230

  Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 1994

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many bills submitted by firms of solicitors acting for the Legal Aid Board have been reduced by negotiation or taxation; and what amounts have been saved in real and percentage terms.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many firms of solicitors have been instructed by the Legal Aid Board's head office legal department to conduct litigation on behalf of the Legal Aid Board.

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

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been paid by the Legal Aid Board since its creation to(a) firms of solicitors instructed by the Legal Aid Board to represent the Legal Aid Board in litigation, (b) the firm of Messrs. Collyer-Bristow when instructed to act for the Legal Aid Board in litigation and (c) counsel instructed to act for the Legal Aid Board in litigation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  (a) The information requested is not available. (b) It is not the Legal Aid Board's policy to disclose details of a commercially confidential nature between itself and its suppliers. (c) The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what redundancies are being made at the Liverpool area office of the Legal Aid Board; who is being made redundant; what are their qualifications and experience; how many years service they have had in being employed in dealing with legal aid matters by(a) the Legal Aid Board and (b) the Law Society when it was responsible for administering legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A voluntary redundancy scheme has been introduced and 17 volunteers are being sought. The Legal Aid Board cannot predict with certainty which staff will volunteer.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff have been, are and will be engaged in the Liverpool area office of the Legal Aid Board on franchising; and how much time has been, is being and will be spent on franchising.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Up to now, three senior staff at the Liverpool area office have been engaged on a part-time basis carrying out preliminary audits. Over the next four to six months an additional six quality auditors will be engaged at that office on a part-time basis on the pre-contract audits. Excluding training in the current financial year, the equivalent of one full-time member of staff has been engaged on franchising. In the next financial year, with the commencement of pre-contract audits this figure will increase to approximately four full-time equivalents. This figure will increase if a higher than predicted number of applications is received in this office.
  555
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the staff levels, taking account of qualifications and experience to be employed by the Liverpool area office of the Legal Aid Board will be after the redundancies which are to take place; and what were the comparable staff levels employed prior to(a) the creation of the Legal Aid Board and (b) the redundancies.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Seventy-three staff will be employed in the Liverpool area office post the redundancy programme; 80 staff were employed in the office in 1988 prior to the board's creation. The number of staff employed in March 1994 prior to any staff leaving under the voluntary redundancy programme is 90.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria are used to select solicitors firms and counsel to be instructed by the Legal Aid Board; what are the costs considerations involved; and who is responsible for the selection.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The criteria used for these purposes are value for money, fitness for purpose and delivery against price. The costs considerations are value for money given the nature, complexity and importance of the matter. A number of individual staff are responsible for the selection of solicitors' firms and counsel, depending on the nature of the particular matter.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many court actions have been brought by and against the Legal Aid Board since its creation; in how many cases the Legal Aid Board has conducted such litigation by solicitors(a) employed at the Legal Aid Board area offices, (b) employed by at the legal aid head office and (c) in private practice.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what volumes of work have been received by the legal aid area office in Liverpool immediately prior to its creation and in each year thereafter; and how the volume of work is calculated and recorded.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In 1988–89, immediately prior to the Legal Aid Board's creation, the Liverpool area office handled 51,041·9 units of work. The table shows work volumes for each full year since then.

  Units

  1989–90

  53,199·2

  1990–91

  51,975·4

  1991–92

  57,485·8

  1992–93

  65,706·2

  Units of work are calculated using a series of weighted calculations derived from the standard times necessary to complete specific transactions. The volume of work is calculated and recorded by computer.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much the Legal Aid Board's administration and the legal aid fund, respectively, has had to pay by way of(a) damages and (b) costs in respect of litigation in which the Legal Aid Board has been unsuccessful.
  556
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how quickly bills submitted to the Legal Aid Board by firms of solicitors acting on its behalf have been paid; and what scrutiny, including referring the matter for taxation, takes place before such bills are paid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested on the speed with which the board pays firms of solicitors which have acted for it is not available. Bills received from solicitors instructed to act for the board are scrutinised by the Department which has been responsible for issuing the instructions. If necessary, the board would apply for a solicitor and own client taxation in respect of a bill submitted by a solicitor instructed to act for it.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases have been brought by or against the Legal Aid Board since its creation by a party who is legally aided.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many sets of counsels' chambers and individual counsel have been instructed to represent the Legal Aid Board in litigation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what fees have been paid directly by the Legal Aid Board to counsel who have been instructed by firms of solicitors acting for the Legal Aid Board.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what staff will be left in the Liverpool legal aid area office following the redundancies; and what are the qualifications and experience of the remaining staff.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Seventy-three staff will be employed in the Liverpool area office after the redundancy programme. It is not possible to say what the mix of staff will be after the redundancy exercise. The redundancy exercise is a voluntary arrangement and the Legal Aid Board cannot predict with any certainty which staff will volunteer.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what cost has been involved in franchising at the Liverpool area office of the Legal Aid Board to date; what further costs are envisaged; what savings have been made as a result of franchising in real terms; and how such savings have been calculated.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost of establishing franchising in the Liverpool area office has been the cost of training four existing staff and of recruiting and training five additional staff. Excluding salaries this is estimated to be £42,500. The cost of running franchising in the Liverpool office on an on-going basis is £100,000 per annum.
  557
  Franchising has been introduced to ensure the delivery of a quality assured, value for money legal aid service from the board's suppliers, mainly solicitors. Franchising has not been introduced to achieve savings in the administration costs of legal aid.

  Judges
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in each year since 1987 his Department has written to individual judges regarding their interpretation of the workings of the legal system; if he will list each such occasion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department conducts a great deal of correspondence with the judiciary on a wide variety of topics which is usually conducted on a confidential basis. Information on the precise volume and nature of correspondence is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the contribution of prescribing practice and limitation to the change of life expectancy and infant mortality.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Life expectancy has improved steadily and the rate of infant mortality has improved markedly over the past 10 years. Prescribing is only one part of clinical care; increased health screening, promotion and vaccination and the availability of new medicines will all have contributed to these improvements.

  Toxoplasmosis
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish information from the Public Health Laboratory Service showing the number with toxoplasmosis in pregnancy; and if she will give the results why testing for toxoplasmosis is not a standard procedure in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Public Health Laboratory Service communicable disease surveillance centre is currently reviewing laboratory reports of human toxoplasma infections in England and Wales from 1981 to 1992. Submission for scientific publication of this analysis is expected later this year. This review will contain information on laboratory reported human infections in pregnant women, although the incidence of toxoplasmosis in pregnant women is unknown due to unrecognised or undiagnosed asymptomatic infections or individuals with non-specific symptoms that may go undetected.

  Screening for toxoplasmosis in pregnancy is not a standard procedure in the United Kingdom because the significance of the test, the natural history of the disease and the efficacy of the treatment are all surrounded by uncertainty. For any screening programme, the benefits conferred by screening must clearly outweigh the risks.

  Health Care Staff, London
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the numbers of (i) health visitors, (ii) school nurses, (iii) district nurses and (iv) community psychiatric nurses should be in London.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department makes no recommendations as to local staffing levels in the groups listed. Decisions concerning staffing are the responsibility of local managers who, with advice from professional colleagues, are in the best position to consider the amount and type of work to be done, and therefore the work force they require.

  Private Practice Consultations
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of the charges made to consultants for the use of NHS premises, staff and facilities for private practice consultations.

  Mr. Sackville
  Charges which are intended to cover the cost to the hospital of providing facilities for consultation purposes are made direct by the hospital to the patient.

  Health Care Premises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the system of inspection in respect of the suitability and adequacy of premises from which NHS services are provided by(a) medical general practitioners, (b) dental general practitioners, (c) pharmacists and (d) opticians.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Through their management responsibility for primary health care services, family health services authorities are required to be satisfied that premises used by doctors, dentists and opticians are suitable and adequate. In the case of pharmacists, responsibility rests with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society inspectorate. On-site inspection of the premises used by each type of practitioner can be made to ensure that the appropriate standards are met.

  John Radcliffe Hospital
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times the hospital complaints procedure for the John Radcliffe hospital, Headington, Oxfordshire, has been invoked in the last two years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for Oxfordshire health authority. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Dr. Peter Iredale, the chairman, for details.

  Surrogacy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to review surrogacy arrangements; what inquiries she makes as to the expenses paid for surrogate pregnancies; how many children were born to surrogate parents in 1993; what counselling and information is given to surrogate and natural parents prior to insemination; whether the surrogacy parenting centre was approved by her Department; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 prohibits the negotiation of surrogacy arrangements on a
  559
  commercial basis and advertising of or for surrogacy services. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 amended the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 so as to make clear that surrogacy arrangements are unenforceable by or against any persons making them.

  There is no requirement for voluntary organisations concerned with surrogacy to be approved by the Department. Where treatment is being undertaken by a centre licensed under by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority surrogates and couples will be assessed and offered counselling in accordance with the HFEA's code of practice. Copies of the code of practice are available in the Library.

  Information on the number of children born to surrogate parents in 1993 is not available.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to bring within the regulations governing inspection of nursing and residential homes with three or fewer residents(a) in all cases or (b) in all cases where the funding of a resident is from public funds.

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities are required to inspect all nursing homes, whatever their size, at least twice a year. Since April 1993 local authorities have had powers to inspect independent residential care homes for three or fewer residents.

  Imported Medicines
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is her Department's policy to encourage the parallel importation of medicines in order to save money for the NHS; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Parallel imports are a consequence of substantial price differentials for pharmaceuticals created by a wide variety of national pricing mechanisms across the European Union within a single European market with common licensing criteria. We consider that the parallel importing scheme which has operated since 1984 neither encourages nor discourages parallel imports, but strikes the right balance between ensuring that imported medicines comply with EU standards of safety, quality and efficacy and avoiding placing undue obstacles in the way of importers.

  Asthma
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will initiate a study in Hammersmith in respect of any correlation between heavy traffic use on major roads and asthma, eczema and other related diseases.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. A causal link between air pollutants from traffic and the induction of eczema, asthma and other diseases has not been proven. However, high levels of air pollutants may exacerbate pre-existing respiratory illness.

  The Department is advised on these matters by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants and by the Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes. The latter's three reports are available in the Library; they are on ozone; on sulphur dioxide, acid aerosols and particulates; and on oxides of nitrogen. The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants has formed a sub-group specifically to consider the relationship between air pollution and asthma.
  560
  Advice and information for the public is provided on the freephone helpline: 0800 556677.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will require NHS health trusts to open their meetings to the public.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. In accordance with the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, NHS trusts are required to have one public meeting per year. Many NHS trusts have developed substantial programmes of public meetings and regular meetings with community health councils.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those English national health service trusts which in 1992–93 exceeded their external financing limit; and by how much in each case.

  Mr. Sackville
  The NHS trusts which exceeded their external financing limit in 1992–93, and the amount by which they did so, are shown in the table. These trusts have had their 1993–94 EFL reduced by the amount of the 1992–93 excess.

  Trust

  Amount by which EFL exceeded £'000

  Airedale NHS Trust

  4

  Bath Mental Health Care NHS Trust

  1

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  6

  Dacorum and St. Albans Community NHS Trust

  141

  Devon Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  4

  Doncaster Healthcare NHS Trust

  2

  Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust

  3

  East Hertfordshire Health NHS Trust

  2

  Epsom Health Care NHS Trust

  2

  First Community NHS Trust

  1

  Guy's and Lewisham NHS Trust

  37

  Homewood NHS Trust

  3

  Milton Keynes Community Health NHS Trust

  47

  Mulberry NHS Trust

  4

  Northern General Hospital NHS Trust

  4

  North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  4

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  1

  Optimum Health Services NHS Trust

  161

  Ravensbourne Priority Health NHS Trust

  30

  Royal United Hospital, Bath NHS Trust

  27

  South Downs Health NHS Trust

  35

  The Cardiothoracic Centre Liverpool NHS Trust

  1

  The Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery NHS Trust

  1

  Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust

  4

  Walsgrave Hospital NHS Trust

  5

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  22

  West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust

  20

  Weston Area Health NHS Trust

  2

  Weybourne Community NHS Trust

  2

  Source: NHS Trust Annual Accounts.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those English national health service trusts which in 1992–93 failed to achieve a 6 per cent. return on capital in(a) percentage terms and (b) cash terms.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is as follows.
  561

  Return on capital employed

  Trust

  Amount £ thousands

  Percentage

  Airedale NHS Trust

  2,128

  4·00

  Allington NHS Trust

  127

  2·40

  Anglian Harbours Health NHS Trust

  979

  5·90

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services NHS Trust

  1,512

  5·70

  Bedford Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,633

  5·80

  Bradford Community Health NHS Trust

  1,635

  5·20

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,392

  5·67

  Broadgreen Hospital NHS Trust1

  -3,783

  -6·20

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  7,723

  5·80

  Chester and Halton Community NHS Trust

  205

  5·70

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  531

  3·00

  Devon Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  77

  1·50

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  914

  2·80

  East Hertfordshire Health NHS Trust

  2,319

  5·10

  Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,025

  4·80

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  1,601

  5·85

  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecology Services NHS Trust

  -925

  -14·40

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  482

  3·30

  Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  881

  2·80

  Milton Keynes General Hospital NHS Trust

  2,846

  5·75

  Mount Vernon Hospital NHS Trust

  1,594

  4·60

  North East Essex Mental Health NHS Trust

  1,059

  5·60

  Newcastle Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  1,369

  4·70

  Norfolk Ambulance NHS Trust

  224

  4·50

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,817

  5·00

  North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  2,572

  4·40

  North Tees Health NHS Trust

  2,493

  5·60

  Northumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  555

  5·30

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  4,620

  4·80

  Nottingham Community Health NHS Trust

  563

  4·40

  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital NHS Trust

  630

  5·10

  Royal United Hospital, Bath NHS Trust

  2,864

  4·00

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance and Paramedic Service NHS Trust

  333

  5·00

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,641

  3·70

  South Bedfordshire Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  46

  0·50

  Southend Health Care NHS Trust

  2,744

  5·10

  Southport and Formby NHS Trust

  2,107

  4·60

  St. Helen's and Knowsley Hospital NHS Trust

  332

  5·20

  St. James's University Hospital NHS Trust

  2,778

  4·60

  St. Peter's Hospital NHS Trust

  2,053

  4·80

  The Poole Hospital NHS Trust

  2,245

  5·80

  The Royal Cornwall Hospitals and West Cornwall Hospital NHS Trust

  3,322

  5·68

  The Royal Liverpool University Hospital NHS Trust

  2,100

  2·20

  The Royal Surrey County and St. Luke's NHS Trust

  806

  1·78

  The United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  5,870

  5·50

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  6,673

  4·40

  Walsgrave Hospital NHS Trust

  2,615

  4·50

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  2,089

  2·47

  West Dorset Community Health NHS Trust

  691

  4·60

  West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,042

  5·60

  West Dorset Mental Health NHS Trust

  407

  5·00

  1 I regret that this trust was omitted in error from the list supplied in the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 8 March at columns 163–64.

  Source: NHS trust annual accounts.
  562
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those NHS trusts which in 1992–93 failed to break even; and by how much in each case.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service trusts which had a deficit of income over expenditure in 1992–93 and the amounts of those deficits are:

  £000

  Trust

  Amount of deficit

  Airedale NHS Trust

  577

  Allington NHS Trust

  82

  Anglian Harbours Health NHS Trust

  165

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,312

  Broadgreen Hospital NHS Trust

  3,783

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  321

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Mental Handicap NHS Trust

  186

  Cleveland Ambulance NHS Trust

  141

  Devon Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  134

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  594

  Hillingdon Community Health NHS Trust

  32

  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecology Services NHS Trust

  1,006

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  153

  North East Essex Mental Health NHS Trust

  264

  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital NHS Trust

  113

  Royal United Hospital, Bath NHS Trust

  767

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  528

  South Bedfordshire Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  18

  Southport and Formby NHS Trust

  347

  St. James's University Hospital NHS Trust

  521

  St. Peters Hospital NHS Trust

  119

  The Royal Liverpool University Hospital NHS Trust

  2,097

  The Royal Surrey County and St. Lukes NHS Trust

  1,215

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  1,735

  West Dorset Mental Health NHS Trust

  22

  Source:

  NHS trust annual accounts.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts were operating in the 1992–93 financial year.

  Mr. Sackville
  One hundred and fifty-six.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts(a) met and (b) failed to achieve a 6 per cent. return on assets.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 November 1993, c. 305]: I regret that my previous reply contained an error. The number of trusts which have made a pre-interest rate of return of less than 6 per cent. is 51.

  Laryngectomy
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding is available for health authorities to supply artificial larynx equipment to those who have undergone a laryngectomy operation; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if the supply of artificial larynx equipment is available free of charge under the NHS to all laryngectomy patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  Funding for health authorities to supply artificial larynx equipment to those who have undergone a laryngectomy operation is provided through resources made available to the national health service.

  It is for individual health authorities to determine the level of service provision required to meet the needs of people needing these operations in their area. Priorities are determined in the light of local circumstances.
  563
  National health service consultants may prescribe artificial larynx equipment as part of NHS treatment and when they do so no charge is made. As for all other services, supply is dependent on resources, with decisions being made on the basis of clinical priorities and local needs.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if sterile tracheostomy dressings are available on prescription to patients who have undergone laryngectomy surgery, once discharged from hospital; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Sterile tracheostomy dressings are not available on general practitioner prescription, but they continue to be available to discharged patients through the hospital service.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was her Department's response to the request from the Home Office to provide NHS hospital beds for nine Algerian and one Indian political asylum seekers who were on hunger strike at Campsfield detention centre in Oxfordshire in the first week in March; and for what reasons that response was given.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Officials in the immigration department were advised that assessment of patient health care needs and appropriate hospital placement were matters for the local health authorities. Officials in the National Health Service Management Executive approached Oxford regional health authority to help identify suitable facilities in the region.

  Medicines (Side-effects)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the incidence of side-effects on patients, as a result of allergies or other reasons, when taking more than one brand or form of a particular medicine for a specific ailment.

  Mr. Sackville
  A product licence in the United Kingdom for a generic medicine is granted on provision of evidence to demonstrate that the product is equivalent to the branded form. Since formulation and manufacturing methods may vary among all the different proprietary and generic forms of a particular medicine, it must be demonstrated that any differences do not produce untoward effects.

  The yellow card system for monitoring adverse reactions to drugs is a voluntary system whereby doctors send reports of suspected adverse reactions to the Medicines Control Agency. There have been occasional reports of adverse reactions apparently associated with generic substitution. However, a report of an adverse reaction in association with a drug does not necessarily mean that the drug caused the reaction.

  Leadership Award Scheme
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS leadership award scheme was established; how many recipients there have been during each year; what criteria are used in deciding an award; who nominates candidates for the award; who determines each recipient;564
  what an individual award comprises; what has been the budget for the award for each year; and who paid for the advertisement in the South London Press of 8 March concerning the receipt of such an award by the chief executive of Lewisham hospital trust.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The scheme was introduced last autumn by Sir Duncan Nichol as part of his strategy for improving the quality of management within the national health service. Staff were invited to nominate their chief executives or general managers for awards if, as a result of their leadership, improvements in local services had been achieved. On 8 March Sir Duncan presented plaques to the nine awards recipients he had selected in the light of assessments made by senior executives from major public companies. There was no budget specifically for the scheme; costs were met from within existing management executive budgets for non-staff expenditure. The advertisement to which the hon. Member refers was paid for by private individuals who wanted to celebrate the fact that Mrs. Val Martin was one of the nine awards recipients.

  King's Fund Health Policy Institute
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has made to the report published on 24 February by the King's Fund Health Policy Institute; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government welcome this contribution to the debate over the achievements and directions of the national health service reforms and in particular the report's confirmation that the reforms offer potential for real gains to patients.

  Emergency Services, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current ratio of accident and emergency units to district general hospitals in South Yorkshire; and what the ratio was(a) two, (b) five and (c) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Trent regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to meet employees of the South Yorkshire ambulance trust and the hon. Member for Don Valley to discuss patient transport services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I met the hon. Member on 16 February to discuss the South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance and Paramedic Service National Health Service Trust.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered disabled people are employed in her Department; and what percentage this is of the total employed.

  Mr. Sackville
  In February 1994, 1·4 per cent. or 68 members of the total work force were registered disabled. In addition, a number of staff have a disability but are not registered.

  Drugs Prescriptions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish her estimate for each year since 1985 of the proportion of generic, non-branded drugs as a percentage of the total amount of drugs prescribed by general practitioners; and what was the total estimated cost in constant prices for both categories for each year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available is shown in the table.

  The percentage of prescription items and the net ingredient cost of drugs prescribed generically: England

  Year

  Percentage prescribed generically1

  Net ingredient cost for items prescribed generically at 1992 prices2(£ million)

  Net ingredient cost for all items at 1992 prices2 (£ million)

  1985

  35·0

  359·7

  1,877·2

  1986

  39·0

  423·1

  2,010·1

  1987

  39·0

  443·8

  2,131·2

  1988

  40·0

  478·3

  2,248·5

  1989

  42·0

  560·5

  2,287·0

  1990

  44·0

  643·0

  2,328·6

  31991

  43·0

  641·1

  2,423·2

  41991

  41·0

  654·4

  2,616·5

  1992

  43·0

  786·0

  2,858·0

  1 Prescription items for dressings and appliances are excluded from the totals in calculating generic prescribing. Items generically prescribed include those written as a generic but dispensed as a proprietary because a generic is not available.

  2 The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of drugs before discount and excludes dispensing costs or fees. The net ingredient cost figures at 1992 prices are calculated using the GDP deflator. The net ingredient cost of dressings and appliances is excluded.

  3 1991 data are based on items and have the same coverage as 1985 to 1990 data.

  4 1991 and 1992 data are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, arid through direct administration to patients by GPs. These include not only prescriptions originating from general practitioners in England but also from hospital doctors, dentists, and armed services doctors and dentists.

  Note: 1985 to 1990 data are based on fees and cover prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only.

  Source: Prescription cost analysis statistics.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new measures she proposes to relieve the work pressure and work load on general practitioners in the light of the recent report by the Audit Commission; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We continue to take forward, in consultation with the profession, ways of reducing pressures in general practitioners' work load.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been removed from the lists of(a) non-fundholding general practitioners and (b) fundholding general practitioners, for each family health service authority in Merseyside, in each year since 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Family health services authorities are not required to record the fundholding status of general practitioners when dealing with a request to remove a patient's name from a doctor's list.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are issued to general practitioners 566
  concerning the removal of patients from their lists; and what rights of redress patients have who have been removed from their general practitioner's list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she will take to ensure that a private out-patient cannot bypass existing national health service waiting lists; and what steps she has taken to determine the extent to which such patients are currently able to receive priority over NHS patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Any private work a consultant does is additional to his duties and is carried out in his own time, sometimes using resources bought from the health service. As a result more treatments are given, pressure on the national health service is relieved, and the generality of waiting times is not adversely affected.

  Agensic-Anosmic
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has concerning Agensic-Anosmic; and what research is being undertaken into the loss of sense of smell.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department is aware that Ageusic-Anosmic helps people who have lost their sense of taste and smell. Ageusic-Anosmic has campaigned since 1992 to draw attention to the plight of sufferers. Research into the condition is primarily a matter for the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Internationally there is research work being undertaken into the possible affects of environmental pollution on the senses of taste and smell and the Department keeps this under review.

  Wakefield Health Authority
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons Wakefield health authority has blocked extra-contractual referrals by general practitioners within its area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for Wakefield district health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Brian Hayward, the chairman, for details.

  Health Authorities (Mergers)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list health authorities as of 1 April with details of new health authorities formed by merger listing the former health authorities merged.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Tobacco Companies
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance or guidelines have been issued by her Department regarding the appropriateness of investment in tobacco companies by NHS trusts or health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Trusts and health authorities cannot invest Exchequer funds in tobacco companies.
  567
  Paragraph 7 of schedule 3 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 limits the manner in which trusts can invest any money held to securities of the Government of the United Kingdom, or such other manner as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, approve. Approval has been given for investment in certain United Kingdom public sector institutions, banks which are authorised institutions under part I of the Banking Act 1987, and building societies authorised under the Building Societies Act 1986. Trusts are therefore unable to invest in tobacco companies.

  There is no provision in the National Health Service Act 1977 which would allow health authorities to invest funds.

  Stage Hypnotism
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to initiate research into the health hazards of stage hypnotism.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 31 January at columns 598–99.

  Doctors (Free Speech)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether doctors employed by NHS trusts are guaranteed the same rights of free speech as apply under paragraph 330 of the Whitley council agreement for doctors employed by health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Doctors have rights specified in their contracts.

  Public Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public interest immunity certificates she has signed in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  Two. One was signed in relation to confidential policy formation documents relevant to listeria litigation and the other was to protect a confidential report into a maternal death which was requested by a solicitor in medical negligence litigation against a health authority. In the first case the court allowed the other party to see the documents and in the second case the application has been withdrawn for the time being following receipt by the solicitors of the signed certificate.

  Blood Supplies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of blood supplies in each region were supplied to private hospitals in each of the last five years; and how many units this represented.

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

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 167, if she will publish for the last two years the quarterly information by regional health authority on (a) forecast outturn spend on extra-contractual referrals and (b) planned level of spend.
  568
  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is estimated and unaudited; it is collected, and is only appropriate for, internal performance management purposes.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private patients received treatment in national health service hospitals in each medical discipline for each year since 1990 in each regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 4 March 1994]: Figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 will be placed in the Library. Data for both years are subject to deficiencies in overall coverage and episodes with a valid diagnosis. Because of this, some specialties and regions show wide year-on-year variation, and the data should therefore be regarded as an estimate only.

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will produce tables showing(a) the proportion of Government and social contribution income coming from indirect taxation and (b) the top rates of income tax in each other European Union member state.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is as follows:

  Indirect taxes as a proportion of total taxes and social security contributions, 19911(per cent.)

  Top rate of income tax (per cent.)

  Belgium

  27·0

  355

  Denmark

  35·9

  65

  France

  33·4

  56·8

  Germany

  31·7

  453

  Greece

  51·8

  40

  Ireland

  43·9

  48

  Italy

  30·1

  551

  Luxembourg

  n.a.

  50

  Netherlands

  26·7

  660

  Portugal

  n.a.

  40

  Spain

  231·8

  56

  United Kingdom

  39·4

  40

  1 Source: Data derived from OECD statistics. Includes some taxes within OECD classification, 4,000, property. For details see "Economic Trends", February 1994.

  2 In 1990.

  3 At present, increased by a surcharge taking the effective rate to 56·5 per cent. Local authorities levy a further surcharge on top, taking the effective rate to around an average 60 per cent.

  4 For business income, can be up to 58 per cent.

  5 In addition, a local income tax at a nationwide rate of 16·2 per cent. is levied on income from business activities and investments.

  6 In addition, a municipal income tax is imposed on income from business activities. The rate varies according to municipality, but takes the effective rate to around 55 per cent.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are working in the areas of(a) capital gains tax, (b) schedule D tax, (c) corporation tax, (d) pay as you earn and (e) national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Excluding staff employed on central administration, in other supportive roles and those in certain specialist offices the table sets out the total numbers
  569
  of Inland Revenue staff working within its network of local offices for the most recent year for which data are available—1992–93. The table shows how many were working in the areas of (a) capital gains tax, (b) schedule D tax, (c) corporation tax and (d) schedule E tax. Under (d) figures have been provided for schedule E tax rather than as PAYE as PAYE is simply a mechanism for collecting schedule E tax. Resource usage on national insurance contribution work is incidental to mainstream tax work and not separately recorded.

  Number

  Capital gains tax

  833

  Schedule D

  19,664

  Corporation tax

  3,236

  Schedule E

  27,065

  Total

  50,798

  Fuel and Vehicle Taxes
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield in 1992–93 and what is the latest estimate of yield in 1993–94 from(a) petrol duty, (b) derv duty, (c) vehicle excise duty, (d) value added tax on petrol and DERV sales and (e) value added tax on vehicle sales.

  Sir John Cope
  Information on the outturn yield in 1992–93 and the projected yield in 1993–94 is provided in the table:

  £ billion 1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Forecast

  Petrol duty

  8·2

  9·3

  DERV duty

  3·0

  3·4

  Vehicle excise duty

  3·2

  3·7

  VAT on petrol and derv

  1·6

  n/a

  VAT on vehicle sales

  2·9

  n/a

  No direct figures are available for the VAT yield on petrol and DERV and on vehicle sales. The table contains estimates of the outturn on total VAT yield that can be attributed to these items on the basis of national accounts data on expenditure. For petrol and DERV the estimate covers only consumers' expenditure—the yield from business expenditure is highly uncertain because the majority of businesses can reclaim the VAT paid as input tax. The relevant data are not available for 1993–94.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will require all persons who have benefited from exemption from inheritance tax on works of art to publish details of public access to such works of art in the previous year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 28 January,Official Report, column 454. Records are not kept centrally of how many members of the public exercise their rights to view works of art which are conditionally exempt from inheritance tax.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to publish, at least annually in 570
  each county, a schedule of all works of art granted exemption from inheritance tax in a form which will enable citizens to exercise their rights of access.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 28 January 1994,Official Report, column 454. The register of conditionally exempt works of art, which can be consulted at the Victoria and Albert museum in London, the national library of Scotland in Edinburgh, the national museum of Wales in Cardiff and the Ulster museum in Belfast, can be used to pick out items by broad location, usually the county, in which each object is available for viewing. The register is updated quarterly. Copies of the register in computer-readable format may also be purchased from the capital taxes office of the Inland Revenue at £10 each.

  Indonesia (Visit)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the purpose of his visit to Indonesia in December; and what benefits have accrued to the United Kingdom from his visit.

  Mr. Nelson
  The purpose of the visit was to enable the Chancellor to see at first hand the rapid developments in the Indonesian economy, and to raise the profile of United Kingdom banks and investment houses in top level Indonesian government and business circles. The benefits of the visit will arise over the longer term through the encouragement to Indonesia to look to United Kingdom financial expertise to assist its development programme.

  Money Supply
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish in table form the change in the money supply for each year since 1976 and the change in the rate of inflation two years later;

  (2) what was the change in the broad money supply for each year since 1972; what is his estimate of the proportion of that change directly attributable to (a) the banks, (b) the building societies and (c) the balance of payments;

  (3) what figures he has for the supply of broad money in the United Kingdom and the rate of inflation for each year since 1979; and what assessment he has made of the degree of correlation between them;

  (4) if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1976 the percentage change in the money supply in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) West Germany;

  (5) what was the increase in the money supply, broadly defined, since May 1979; and how much of it was created by Government and how much by other agencies.

  Mr. Nelson
  Monetary policy is conducted so as to deliver low inflation. Monetary policy decisions are based on an assessment of a range of monetary and other indicators, including narrow and broad money. However, the Government do not rely on any single indicator.

  The Treasury published a detailed assessment of broad money in the autumn 1991 edition of the "Treasury Bulletin". The Government have also set a monitoring range for M4. But experience indicates that the relationship with future inflation is not sufficiently close to justify establishing M4 as a formal target.

  Figures for retail price inflation, narrow and broad money in the United Kingdom since 1972 can be found in the Central Statistical Office's Economic Trends. More

  571
  detailed figures for the money supply—and its components and counterparts—can be found in the Bank of England's "Statistical Abstract" and in its "Quarterly Bulletin". West German money supply figures are available in the International Monetary Fund's "International Financial Statistics". Copies of all these publications are in the House Library. The relationship between the balance of payments and the overseas contribution to broad money growth is described in special articles in the Bank of England's "Quarterly Bulletin" December 1978 and December 1983 editions and in the Central Statistical Office's "Financial Statistics" explanatory handbook.

  Cuba
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the next meeting of the Paris Club is scheduled to take place; whether the question of Cuba's public sector indebtedness will be on the agenda; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The next meeting of the Paris Club is scheduled to take place during the week beginning 21 March 1994. Cuba is not on the agenda.

  Cuba's debt position was last discussed by the Paris Club in January. Creditors agreed to consider an application for rescheduling for Cuba during the course of 1994, subject to there being a genuine balance of payments need.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of Cuba's public sector indebtedness to the United Kingdom, including interest.

  Mr. Nelson
  Cuba's current outstanding debts with the United Kingdom total £69·82 million, all of which are owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of employees in the United Kingdom have their income linked to Inland Revenue approved profit-related pay schemes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that about 5 per cent. of employees in the United Kingdom were covered by registered profit-related pay schemes at the end of March 1993.

  Insurance
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table setting out a breakdown of the total revenue he expects to raise from insurance premium tax in 1994–95 and 1995–96 by principal type of insurance risk, including motor insurance, home building insurance, home contents insurance and private medical insurance.

  Sir John Cope
  The following table shows the estimated breakdown of the expected revenue yield from insurance premium tax.

  1994–95 £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  Motor (business)

  25

  110

  Motor (private)

  35

  150

  Building (household)

  20

  85

  572

  1994–95 £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  Home contents

  15

  60

  Medical and other

  5

  25

  Other business

  75

  330

  Charities (VAT)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated cost to the Treasury in 1994–95 of a scheme to allow registered charities to reclaim 25 per cent. of their value added tax liability; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The Charities Tax Reform Group has estimated that such a scheme would cost £80 million a year.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many public interest immunity certificates he has signed in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No public interest immunity certificates have been signed by Treasury Ministers since 1990.

  Council Tenants (Domestic Fuel)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether councils which provide unmetered supplies of gas and electricity to council tenants through district heating schemes will be able to claim back VAT incurred under section 20 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983; whether council tenants receiving unmetred supplies of gas and elecricity through district heating schemes will be effectively exempt from VAT on gas and electricity; if he will provide an estimate of the number of council tenants receiving unmetered supplies of gas and electricity through district heating schemes; and how many council tenants receive metered supplies of gas and electricity through district heating schemes.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: A local authority can recover the VAT incurred in pursuance of its statutory, non-business activities under section 20 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983. This includes the provision of council housing. Council tenants paying rents which include a flate rate element for heat supplied under an unmetred district heating scheme will, in VAT terms, be receiving only a single supply of heated accommodation and will be unaffected by the extension of VAT to domestic fuel. The number of council tenants receiving unmetred supplies is estimated to be less than half of one per cent. of total United Kingdom households.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electric Car Project (Coventry)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requests he had for assistance to the City of Coventry Peugeot electric car project.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None.

  Engine Emissions
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department is giving to the reduction of emissions from engines.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department is currently supporting some early work on fuel cells which, if successful, could find application in the transport market in the long term. The Department is also considering with other Government Departments a possible programme of field trials for selected vans and buses to assess, among other things, their emissions performance when using a number of alternative road transport fuels.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what study he has undertaken between the relative emissions between diesel engines and petrol engines with catalytic converters in normal urban driving conditions.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Transport have jointly commissioned the energy technology support unit to quantify the implications of a further switch from petrol to diesel in the United Kingdom passenger car market in terms of energy use, emissions and refinery investment. The Departments are currently consulting industry representatives on technical aspects of this work. The completed study will be published in the next few months.

  Engine Development
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what direct financial assistance his Department is providing for the development of(a) petrol engines, (b) diesel engines and (c) electric motors for vehicles; and what research it is sponsoring in each case.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The only current research project is the Drives Club II. This involves DTI financial support of up to £790,102 to ERA Technology Ltd. for innovative, pre-competitive research in the field of electric variable speed drives under the research and technology initiative. Although the project is not specifically targeted at motor vehicles, the research is relevant to electric vehicles. Rover Group, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd. and Lucas Industries are involved in the research.

  Excessive Interest Rates
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is his assessment of the potential effect of the Office of Fair 'Trading's recommendations on the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on lenders who charge extortionate rates of interest;

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of people who have encountered financial difficulties through their dealings with lenders charging extortionate rates of interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have made no estimate of the number of people encountering financial difficulties as a consequence of such dealings. In his report "Unjust Credit Transactions", the Director General of Fair Trading said that his recommendations were intended to deter socially harmful lending more strongly and to improve the ability of borrowers who are its victims to gain redress.

  Ice Cream
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he received the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of ice cream; and when he will publish it.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I received the report on 14 January. It will be published as soon as possible.

  Watt Committee
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the secretariat of the Watt Committee on Energy in relation to the proposed publication of the final report of the working group on methane emissions as regards(a) the date of the publication, (b) the inclusion or exclusion of the annex submitted by the dissenting member in the published version and (c) representations concerning the publication of the dissenting member's annex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The Watt committee on energy has undertaken as a project commissioned by my Department, a review of United Kingdom methane emissions, in particular in support of the development of the United Kingdom's climate change programme. The working group, under the chairmanship of Professor Alan Williams of Leeds university's department of fuel and energy, brought together relevant experts from industry, academia and Government.

  A number of the findings of the group have already been published as part of "Climate Change, The UK Programme."

  Publication of the working group's full report is expected in May.

  One of the members of the working group has raised concerns over some matters in the report. The chairman has advised my Department that these are under consideration by the group as a whole.

  Beer (Short Measures)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints he has received about short measures in the sale of beer for each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 8 March 1994]: The numbers of letters about short measure beer or about not receiving a full liquid pint of beer for each year from 1989 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1989

  4

  1990

  11

  1991

  31

  1992

  13

  1993

  716

  11994

  20

  1 1 January to 8 March.

  These figures include letters from trading standards departments reporting surveys of pubs selling draught beer. They do not include replies to consultations. The figures for 1993 include 601 letters from people who had inserted their name and address in a preprinted form.
  575
  Information for the years 1979 to 1988 could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the organisations that have complained to him about short measures in the sale of beer for each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 8 March 1994]: My Department has received letters from the following organisations about short measure beer or about less than a full liquid pint of beer being served.

  1989

  Barnsley metropolitan borough council

  1990

  Bedfordshire county council

  Tayside regional council

  LACOTS

  South Tyneside metropolitan borough council

  Walsall metropolitan borough council

  1991

  Surrey county council

  Association of Greater Manchester Authorities

  Tomporcon Ltd. (on behalf of the Allied Brewery Traders Association)

  St. Helens metropolitan borough council

  North Yorkshire county council

  1992

  London borough of Southwark

  Strathclyde regional council

  1993

  Association of Greater Manchester Authorities

  CAMRA (Portsmouth and South East Hampshire branch)

  Tomporcon Ltd. (on behalf of the Allied Brewery Traders Association)

  CAMRA

  Consumers Association

  Hereford and Worcester county council

  John Glover (Wholesale) Ltd.

  Birmingham city council

  Cleveland county council

  North Yorkshire county council

  Shropshire county council

  Leeds city council

  Oldham metropolitan borough council

  Durham county council

  Barnsley metropolitan borough council

  CAMRA (Grimsdyke branch)

  CAMRA (West Middlesex branch)

  1994 (1 January to 8 March)

  Trafford metropolitan borough council

  Birmingham city council

  Consumers Association

  CAMRA

  In addition to the organisations listed above, a number of others have written to my Department in response to consultations.

  Business Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what general conclusions have been reached by the study into business attitudes to the contractorisation of business statistics; and if he will place a copy of the results of the inquiry in the Library.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 14 January at column 308.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General if it is his policy to instruct counsel to advise judges that it is a matter of judicial discretion as to whether documents protected by public interest immunity certificates should be disclosed; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The test to be applied by judges is a matter of general law. Judges are required to order disclosure in any case where, in the judgment of the court, the case for disclosure in the interests of justice outweighs the public interest considerations in favour of non-disclosure. Prosecuting counsel are expected to assist the judge as to all relevant law.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to restrict the discretion of judges to inspect documents in respect of which public interest immunity certificates have been issued and decide upon their disclosure on the basis of the interests of justice; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The extent of judges' discretion to inspect documents is a matter of law. I have no power to impose any restrictions, nor would I wish to do so.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Attorney-General how many public interest immunity certificates he has signed in each year since 1990.

  The Attorney-General
  I have signed none. My predecessor signed two certificates:

  (i) In 1991 relating to the civil case of Dorrian v. Chief Constable of the RUC.

  (ii) In 1992 relating to the criminal case of Latimer, Hegan, Bell and Allen which was before the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have been taken out under the Widlife and Countryside Act 1981 in England in each year since 1982 for(a) carrying out a potentially damaging operation to a site of special scientific interest and (b) contravening a nature conservation order under section 29; how may of these were successful; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, since 1984 prosecutions for damage to sites of speical scientific interest under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 have been taken on 10 occasions. Prosecution is taken only in the last resort. Where a site has been damaged, the usual practice is to seek the co-operation of the landowner in restoring it.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many outstanding management agreements for English Nature for sites of special scientific interest protection there have been in 1993–94; what is the estimate of their cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  At 28 February 1994 there were 1,964 management agreements in force under section 15 of the
  577
  Countryside Act 1968. The estimated cost of these agreements in 1993–94 is £7·9 million. Further details will be published in due course in the third annual report of English Nature.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if this month's edition of "Countywide", published by East Sussex county council conforms with the guidelines issued by the Audit Commission in connection with local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  I cannot comment on individual publications. We have, however, had in operation since 1988 a code of recommended practice on local authority publicity. The code make it clear that authorities should not use public funds to mount publicity campaigns to persuade the public to hold a particular view on a question of policy.

  Local Government Review, Cleveland
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library all submissions relating to the local government review of Cleveland that he has received since the final report of the commission was published on 8 November.

  Mr. Baldry
  When we lay an implementation order for Cleveland we will place in the Library a summary of all representations received by the Secretary of State about the Commission's final recommendations. Individual representations will be made available if requested unless the writers intended their views to be treated in confidence.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library all submissions relating to the local government review of Cleveland that have been received by the commission since the publication of its final report on 8 November.

  Mr. Baldry
  All such representations have been forwarded to my Department, as the commission has no further role once its review is complete.

  Council Tax Banding Appeals
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against council tax banding in the London borough of Lewisham were lodged in each month since April 1993; how many were processed and concluded in each month; and what is the current backlog.

  Mr. Baldry
  The numbers of proposals to alter the valuation list which were received from the London borough of Lewisham area are as follows:

  Month

  Received

  Settled

  April 93

  712

  0

  May

  545

  0

  June

  356

  1

  July

  281

  20

  August

  276

  25

  September

  210

  215

  October

  167

  60

  November

  546

  50

  December

  19

  37

  January 94

  36

  94

  February

  22

  192

  578

  Month

  Received

  Settled

  Total

  3,170

  694

  There are therefore 2,476 cases outstanding.

  Birch Coppice
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he sought legal advice on the validity of his decision to refuse planning permission to opencast at Birch Coppice announced on 2 August 1993 before the announcement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Once a decision has been taken by the Secretary of State, it is not his practice to comment on the merits of the decision or the process by which the decision was reached.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much(a) Warwickshire county council and (b) North Warwickshire borough council spent on the Birch Coppice public inquiry on 30 July to 23 August 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on the basis of which mineral planning guidance he proposes to make the decision on opencasting at Birch Coppice in Warwickshire.

  Mr. Baldry
  The decision on the Birch Coppice case will be based on the version of mineral planning guidance notes which is in force at the time the decision is made.

  Wandsworth Rent Assessment Panel
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of the members of the Wandsworth rent assessment panel and when they were appointed.

  Sir George Young
  Wandsworth falls within the area of the London rent assessment panel. I have placed in the Library a list showing the names of the 84 members of this panel, together with the year of first appointment.

  Landfill Sites
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce a tax on waste disposal for those who use landfill sites.

  Mr. Atkins
  In order to inform our decision about whether to introduce a landfill levy, my Department commissioned a report on "Externalities from Landfill and Incineration" from the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, Warren Spring Laboratory and the Economics for the Environment Consultancy. We are currently considering comments on that report and will announce our conclusions in due course.

  UN Environment Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much financial support was given to the United Nations environment programme in each year since 1989–90.
  579
  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom contributed £3 million to the United Nations Environment Programme's environment fund in 1989–90; in 1990–91, £3 million; in 1991–92, £4 million; in 1992–93, £4·5 million; and in 1993–94, £4·5 million. In 1993–94 this represented the third largest national contribution.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he has taken of recent resolutions of the Dail, relating to environmental risks posed by THORP; and what meetings or communications he has had with his Irish counterpart on THORP and Sellafield.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my answers given to him on Thursday 20 January,Official Report, column 827; Wednesday 2 February, Official Report, column 794; Friday 11 February 1994, Official Report, column 508; and to my answer given to the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on Monday 29 November, Official Report, columns 385–86.

  I have noted the motion of the Dail of 2 March 1994.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) of 15 December,Official Report, column 1098, if all contracts to reprocess foreign spent fuel in THORP at Sellafield contain stipulations requiring the return of all radioactive wastes to countries of origin.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend was referring to BNFL's proposals for waste substitution in respect of those contracts with overseas customers which include options for the return of waste to the country of origin.

  As was made clear in the "Statement of Government Policy on Reprocessing and Operation of the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant at Sellafield", published in August last year, BNFL has such options in respect of all overseas spent fuel contracted for since 1976. The

  Rent assessment committee decisions in appeal cases in Wandsworth

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Number of cases

  304

  631

  559

  339

  13

  39

  25

  31

  Number of cases where rent was decreased

  (4 per cent.)

  (6 per cent.)

  (4 per cent.)

  (9 per cent.)

  53

  124

  76

  24

  Number of cases where rent remained the same

  (17 per cent.)

  (20 per cent.)

  (14 per cent.)

  (7 per cent.)

  238

  468

  458

  284

  Number of cases where rent was increased

  (78 per cent.)

  (74 per cent.)

  (82 per cent.)

  (84 per cent.)

  Mean rent officer's current rent (£pa)

  1,442

  1,911

  1,8,771

  2,234

  Mean rent assessment committee's determined rent (£pa)

  1,573

  2,059

  1,941

  2,442

  Mean change to rent officer's rent

  10 per cent.

  7 per cent.

  10 per cent.

  10 per cent.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) of 7 March,Official Report, column 45, if he will set out the research and monitoring programmes on nuclear waste in Cumbria conducted by Government Departments, to which he makes reference.
  580
  Government intend that these options, which are backed by formal exchanges of letters with the Governments of THORP customer countries, will be exercised. The Government have not yet reached a decision on BNFL's proposals for waste substitution.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the representations he has received from professional lobby organisations on behalf of local authorities concerning their standard spending assessment allocation.

  Mr. Baldry
  We receive numerous representations on standard spending assessments from the local authority associations, trades unions, chambers of commerce and other professional bodies. My right hon. Friend considered carefully all of the representations made to him on standard spending assessments before taking final decisions on the revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95.

  Rents, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the number of objections by local residents living in the London borough of Wandsworth to rents fixed by the Wandsworth rent assessment officers in each of the last five years; and how many of the objections were successful on appeal.

  Sir George Young
  Either a landlord or a tenant may appeal against a rent officer's determination, and the available statistics do not distinguish between these situations. The number of cases referred to the London rent assessment panel from Wandsworth over the last four years is shown in the table. Statistics for earlier years are not available. It should be borne in mind that the rent assessment committee fixes a rent at the time of its hearing, which can be some months later than the rent officer's original determination. Some of the differences between the two determinations may therefore reflect the passage of time.

  Mr. Atkins
  Details of the main Government-sponsored programmes are given in the following documents:Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution Annual Report (Department of the Environment, 1987–88 onwards)
  Monitoring of Radioactivity in the UK Environment: an Annotated Bibliography of Current Programmes (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate of Fisheries Research, Fisheries Research Data Report No. 27, 1992)
  Terrestrial Radioactivity Monitoring Programme (TRAMP) Report for 1992: Radioactivity in Food and Agricultural Products in England and Wales (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, publication PB1468, 1993)

  581
  Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters of the British Isles (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report No. 38, 1992)
  Radiological Protection Research Annual Reports (AEA Technology, editions up to and including 1993)

  Copies of these documents are available in the Library of the House. The National Radiological Protection Board which advises Government on radiological matters, has also undertaken a number of radiological studies of the Cumbria area.

  Water Disconnections
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring he is conducting of the number of people who have had water supplies disconnected in London; how many households in Lewisham had their water disconnected in 1991–92 and 1992–93; and to what socio-economic categories those people belonged.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. Responsibility for the protection of customers' interests rests with the Director General of Water Services who publishes data on the total number of domestic disconnections twice a year, by water company area. Information on disconnections according to socio-economic categories is not available.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the value of MORI opinion polling in informing of the work and recommendations of the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is for the Local Government Commission itself to determine the value of the opinion polling which it has commissioned.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by county and non-metropolitan district in England such information as he has concerning the amount of money spent publicising the local authority's case on the current review of local government.

  Mr. Baldry
  That is a matter for authorities themselves; we do not collect information on these costs.

  Children at Risk
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is used to decide the relative weight given to the different factors used in the estimate of children at risk in respect of the standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The estimate of children at risk used in the personal social services standard spending assessment for children is based on the children in need index. This index is based on four indicators, with the following weightings:

  (i) the proportion of dependent children aged under 18 in lone parent families (weight of 3);

  (ii) the proportion of household residents under 16 years of age living in rented accommodation (weight of 1);

  (iii) the proportion of children who were dependent children of claimants receiving income support (weight of 1);

  (iv) the number of homeless households with dependent children or a pregnant woman accepted as in priority need for permanent accommodation, relative to the number of residents under 18 years of age (weight of 1).

  582
  The selection of indicators and the weights applied were based on detailed statistical analysis and previous research findings. In particular, the personal social services research unit at the university of Kent has carried out detailed research on the factors involved.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, columns 294–95, which London authorities raised the issue of homelessness as a indicator in the 1993 consultation; and when they raised it.

  Mr. Baldry
  The following London authorities made representations to my Department, on the dates shown, on the use of data on homelessness as an indicator in the calculation of standard spending assessments.

  Date

  London borough of Barnet

  27 May 1993

  London borough of Brent

  21 May 1993

  23 September 1993

  London borough of Ealing

  5 May 1993

  London borough of Enfield

  9 July 1993

  10 January 1994

  London borough of Greenwich

  8 June 1993

  London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  14 April 1993

  London borough of Haringey

  23 December 1993

  London borough of Harrow

  7 May 1993

  London borough of Hillingdon

  24 June 1993

  London borough of Lambeth

  21 June 1993

  London borough of Lewisham

  22 December 1993

  London borough of Newham

  16 April 1993

  14 October 1993

  5 January 1994

  London borough of Tower Hamlets

  9 July 1993

  Westminster city council

  8 April 1993

  23 December 1993

  Material Exposure Programme
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what work is being carried out in the national material exposure programme on building decay.

  Mr. Baldry
  The national materials exposure programme was initiated in 1987 as a joint exercise involving the Building Research Establishment of the Department of the Environment, the Central Electricity Generating Board—now Power Gen-National Power— the Warren Spring Laboratory of the Department of Trade and Industry, and British Coal. The aim of the programme is to assess the effects of air pollution on a range of building materials, including metals and stone.

  Results so far indicate that dry deposition of sulphur dioxide on metals and stone is the main cause of attack by pollution. The wet deposition of pollutants on to materials

  583
  is of lesser consequence. The dissolution of calcareous stone by rainwater can be a significant factor, however, even in areas of low pollution.

  Some of the sites used on the national materials exposure programme are also part of an international programme by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide information on the dates on which the member states of the European Union submitted their reports to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.

  Mr. Atkins
  We understand that three member states have submitted their reports. The Netherlands submitted its report in January, and Belgium submitted its in February. The Secretary of State wrote to the chairman of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development on 6 March enclosing the United Kingdom's report. Copies of the United Kingdom's report have been placed in the Library.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present role and remit of(a) the Countryside Commission and (b) English Nature.

  Mr. Atkins
  The role and remit of both the Countryside Commission and English Nature are fully detailed in the public consultation document recently issued as part of the current study into the possible bringing together of the two bodies. The document is available in the Library of the House. I have also arranged for the hon. Member to receive a copy.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what co-ordination of air pollution information is planned following the closure of Warren Spring Laboratory.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced last year the closure of Warren Spring Laboratory and the merging of its business with the environmental business of the Atomic Energy Authority Technology to form the new National Environmental Technology Centre.

  The co-ordination and provision of information to the public on air quality are undertaken by a number of organisations, including Warren Spring Laboratory. We expect the closure to have no significant effect on this activity.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people have been either injured or killed as a result of the operation of wind turbines in the United Kingdom since 1979; and what information he has as to deaths resulting from the operation of wind farms or aerogenerators abroad.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the United Kingdom no deaths or serious injuries have occurred as a result of the operation of wind turbines.
  584
  In the Netherlands one death occurred in 1990 when a machine went out of control during a storm.

  In Denmark two deaths occurred in 1991 in a single incident involving the servicing of a rotor.

  In the United States of America three deaths and a number of injuries have been reported over the past 15 years of operation of the wind turbines.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of his Department's staff are currently engaged on the Government's "back to basics" policy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 March at column 464.

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government on disarming the settler community in the occupied territories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I wrote to the Israeli ambassador on 11 March drawing his attention to the European Foreign Ministers' statement of 7 March noting that Israel is responsible for the safety of all inhabitants in the occupied territories. I welcome moves by the Israeli Government to disarm extremist settlers and outlaw two extremist settler organisations. I recognise that some settlers face risks themselves.

  European Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government expect to be on the agenda of the 1996 intergovernmental conference; and for what changes to the treaty on European union the Government will be pressing.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Maastricht treaty calls for the 1996 intergovernmental conference to look at possible treaty chapters on energy, civil protection and tourism, under article 3(t); the powers of the European Parliament under article 189 b.8; defence, under article J.4.6; the common foreign and security policy, under article J.10; the hierarchy of Community acts, under a declaration on the hierarchy of Community acts made at Maastricht; and the pillared structure of the treaty on European Union under article B. It is too early to say what changes to the treaty on European Union we will press for.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's latest position on the principle of subsidiarity within the European Community.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The principle of subsidiarity remains central to the Government's European policy. We are committed to ensuring that it is fully applied in all areas of Community business. We welcomed the Commission's
  585
  report to the Brussels European Council in December, which must now be translated into appropriate action. Under the inter-institutional agreement of 25 October 1993, the Commission has undertaken to ensure that it will not table new proposals unless they can be justified on subsidiarity grounds.

  Lomé Convention
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the implications of the latest general agreement on tariffs and trade for the future of the Lomé convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 11 January at column 40.

  Seeds
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of the Government, within European Union discussions about the general agreement on tariffs and trade, concerning the potential impact on farmers in India and other Commonwealth countries, of proposals made within the GATT agreement for the enforcement of the intellectual property rights over varieties of seeds.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No such representations have been made. Traditional or well-known seeds cannot be patented because they are not new. The Uruguay round agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights will not alter this, and farmers in India and elsewhere can go on using such seeds without any restrictions.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the impact of recent military activity on the delivery patterns for humanitarian aid of Operation Lifeline Sudan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our information is that the hostilities by the Government of Sudan, factions of the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army and non-aligned groups have continued to impede the delivery and distribution of relief supplies in parts of the south. Eastern and Western Equatoria and Upper Nile are most affected. The Government of Sudan have withheld flight permission to six relief centres in March: Boma, Kajokeji, Maridi, Mundri, Pariang, and Thiet. World Food Programme relief barges along the Nile network have been suspended and clearance for the relief train serving Wau has been withheld by the SPLA.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about crop failure and food shortage in Sudan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Food and Agricultural Organisation-World Food Programme crop assessment report of December 1993 estimated emergency food aid requirements for 1993–94 at 464,000 tonnes. A copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Thailand
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the water supply project in Thailand which is under consideration for support under the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The main purpose of this project would be the improvement of the quality of drinking water supplies in 25 towns in Thailand.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in full the report of the review of the aid and trade provision implemented in June 1993.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. We made the ATP review available as part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee to assist its inquiry into the Pergau hydro-electric project and the aid and trade provision.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Benefit Claims)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Prison Service notifies the Benefits Agency if a claimant is received into custody.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Governors of establishments are asked to complete a form about national insurance in respect of any prisoner admitted to custody for a period of 21 days or more. The form, which includes questions about the receipt of benefits immediately before arrest, is sent to the Contributions Agency. This procedure is being supplemented by sending the Benefits Agency, on request, lists of prisoners.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what incentives exist for remand prisoners to disclose the details of the benefits received.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A form about national insurance, which includes questions about the receipt of benefits, is designed for completion in respect of all prisoners—whether convicted or remand—admitted to custody for a period of 21 days or more. Prisoners—including those on remand and hoping to be granted bail—are encouraged to contact the DSS quickly to sort out their benefit affairs, not least so that families do not lose any benefits to which they may be entitled.

  Mr. Bryan Ruppert
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he was requested to meet an all-party group of hon. Members to discuss the application of Bryan Ruppert for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of his long-term relationship with David Green; what was his response; and what were the reasons for his response.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I declined to meet an all-party group of hon. Members for the reasons set out in my letter of 17 February in reply to the hon. Member's letter of 1 February.

  Colne Police
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time for the police in Colne, Lancashire to respond to an emergency call in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992 and at the current date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No information on emergency response times in Lancashire is available prior to 1993–94. In the current financial year, up to February, on average 86 per cent. of 999 calls were answered within 10 seconds, although no specific figures are available for Colne. During the same period, the average time taken to arrive at the scene of an emergency incident in Colne was four minutes from receiving the call.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the work of the interdepartmental working group on domestic violence;

  (2) which Departments are represented on the interdepartmental working group on domestic violence.

  Mr. Maclean
  The official interdepartmental group on domestic violence considers initiatives designed to ensure that the perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice; that victims and their children receive the necessary practical and emotional support; and that preventive strategies to help reduce violence are identified and promoted. Proposals currently being considered by the group include ways of improving inter-agency co-operation at a national and local level and or raising public awareness of domestic violence. These and other related issues will be considered soon by the ministerial group on domestic violence.

  Both groups are serviced by the Home Office with representation from the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Law Officer's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Departments of Employment, Environment, Health and Social Security, the Department for Education, the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices and the Treasury.

  Immigration
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests he received from hon. Members in(a) 1993, (b) 1992, (c) 1991 and (d) 1990 to exercise ministerial discretion in deportation cases and in refusals to extend the length of visas and in port clearances; in how many in each year the decision of immigration officers was overturned; to how many in each year he replied personally; and to how many the immigration and nationality department replied.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not collected in the form requested. The total numbers of letters and telephone inquiries about immigration matters received from right hon. and hon. Members in the years in question were as follows:588

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Correspondence

  Ministerial replies

  8,587

  9,000

  9,163

  8,356

  Official replies

  677

  1,383

  1,899

  1,928

  Telephone enquiries1

  901

  900

  943

  829

  1 Not including calls to Ministers and private offices.

  How many of these approaches contained requests to exercise discretion in individual cases is not recorded separately. Nor is the number of cases in which decisions were changed following representations from hon. and right hon. Members.

  EC Citizens (Voting Rights)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take to publicise EC voting rights and registration requirements for European citizens of voting age resident in the United Kingdom; and what are the costs of these measures, and the timetable for them in the period before the European parliamentary elections.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 25 February, columns 508–9. All the measures noted in that reply have now been completed. In addition, we have also issued a press release to over 1,300 broadcast and written media, and offered a draft news article to over 100 regional newspapers. The costs of these measures have been met from within existing resources and are not separately identifiable.

  Car Crime Prevention
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 735, what was the cost of (a) the February 1993 phase and (b) the September 1993 phase of the car crime prevention campaign.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The campaign did not run during February 1993. There was a burst of national television advertising during January 1993, which cost £500,000.

  A further burst of national advertising and promotions ran from May to the middle of September 1993 on television, posters, bus-sides, local press and radio at a cost of £3,419,185.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are detained in each prison in Yorkshire; for Humberside, what is the number of prisoners detained; of these how many are(a) serving prison sentences, (b) on remand and (c) awaiting deportation on the latest date for which he has figures available; and what were the figures 12 months ago.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total population in each prison in Humberside and Yorkshire is given in the tables for 31 January 1993 and 1994 and is sub-divided by type of custody.
  589

  Population in Prison Service establishments on 31 January 1994 in Humberside and Yorkshire by type of custody

  County/Establishment

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Fine defaulter

  Immigration act detainee1

  Other non-criminal

  All

  Humberside

  The Wolds

  321

  1

  —

  —

  —

  322

  Hull

  168

  205

  18

  15

  10

  416

  Everthorpe

  —

  223

  —

  —

  1

  224

  Full Sutton

  —

  542

  —

  —

  —

  542

  Yorkshire

  Askam Grange

  —

  94

  —

  —

  1

  95

  Northallerton

  114

  38

  5

  —

  —

  157

  New Hall

  55

  99

  3

  —

  2

  159

  Wakefield

  —

  635

  —

  —

  —

  635

  Leeds

  551

  549

  20

  6

  3

  1,129

  Rudgate

  —

  247

  4

  —

  1

  252

  Thorpe Arch

  —

  165

  —

  —

  —

  165

  Wetherby

  —

  134

  —

  —

  —

  134

  Lindholme

  —

  528

  1

  —

  —

  528

  Moorland

  440

  169

  8

  1

  —

  618

  Hatfield

  —

  174

  2

  —

  —

  176

  1 Detained pending further consideration or removal or deportation under schedule 2 or 3 to the Immigration Act 1991.

  Population in Prison Service establishments on 31 January 1993 in Humberside and Yorkshire by type of custody

  County/Establishment

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Fine defaulter

  Immigration act detainee1

  Other non-criminal

  All

  Humberside

  The Wolds

  304

  —

  —

  —

  —

  304

  Hull

  41

  200

  30

  3

  —

  274

  Everthorpe

  —

  222

  —

  —

  —

  222

  Full Sutton

  —

  427

  —

  —

  —

  427

  Yorkshire

  Askam Grange

  —

  71

  —

  —

  —

  71

  Northallerton

  —

  181

  —

  —

  —

  181

  New Hall

  35

  79

  —

  —

  —

  114

  Wakefield

  —

  654

  —

  —

  —

  654

  Leeds

  397

  332

  22

  1

  3

  755

  Rudgate

  —

  218

  —

  —

  —

  218

  Thorpe Arch

  —

  164

  —

  —

  —

  164

  Wetherby

  —

  119

  —

  —

  —

  119

  Lindholme

  —

  554

  —

  —

  —

  554

  Moorland

  320

  257

  —

  —

  —

  577

  Hatfield

  —

  111

  —

  —

  —

  111

  1 Detained pending further consideration or removal or deportation under schedule 2 or 3 to the Immigration Act 1991.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the procedures for tracing missing persons.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government are providing an extra £90,000 a year for three years to improve the procedures for tracing missing persons and are investing in the technology that will allow the system to be computerised.

  As the first step in this process, on 18 March 1994 a police national missing persons bureau will open at New Scotland Yard, under the control of the national identification bureau. The bureau will be a central clearing house for information on vulnerable missing persons for the use of all police forces in the United Kingdom and overseas agencies.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been reported missing in each of the past five years; and of those reported missing how many are traced within a period of not less than(a) six months, (b) two years and (c) five years.
  590
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Statistics on missing persons are not currently available centrally. With the establishment of the police national missing persons bureau on 18 March statistics will begin to be collected centrally for the first time.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a statutory requirement for people to inform the police if they have not heard from next of kin for over a year so that they can then be registered as missing.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available, and in each of the two preceeding years, were(a) granted temporary admission or (b) detained while their cases were examined; and how many of each group subsequently (i) were granted asylum, (ii) were deported, (iii) left the United Kingdom of their own volition and (iv) absconded.
  591
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The specific information requested is not available.

  Information on total asylum applications, decisions, asylum seekers detained for more than one month and removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants, is, however, contained in tables 2,1, 3.1 to 3.3, 8.1 and 9.1 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin issue 19/93, "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1992", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing how many people seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom who had a decision made on their application last year were detained by the immigration service for(a) up to one month, (b) one to two months, (c) two to three months, (d) three to six months, (e) six to nine months, (f) nine to 12 months, (g) 12 to 15 months, (h) 15 to 18 months and (i) over 18 months before the decision was made.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers currently detained in prison service accommodation by(a) nationality, (b) gender and (c) place of detention.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is as follows:

  Asylum seekers detained in prison service accommodation on11 March 1994 (a) By nationality

  Nationality

  Number

  Algeria

  18

  Angola

  4

  Bangladesh

  1

  Brazil

  1

  Cameroon

  1

  China

  3

  Colombia

  3

  Egypt

  3

  Eritrea

  1

  Ethiopia

  2

  Ghana

  26

  Guinea

  1

  Haiti

  3

  India

  85

  Iran

  2

  Ivory Coast

  2

  Jamaica

  3

  Kenya

  5

  Libya

  1

  Niger

  1

  Nigeria

  32

  Pakistan

  11

  Poland

  1

  Romania

  2

  Sierra Leone

  5

  Singapore

  1

  Slovania

  1

  Somalia

  1

  Sri Lanka

  4

  Thailand

  1

  Tunisia

  1

  Turkey

  30

  Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

  1

  Zaire

  2

  Zimbabwe

  13

  Nationality Unknown

  2

  TOTAL

  274

  592

  (b) By gender

  Number

  Males

  270

  Females

  4

  Total

  274

  (c) by place of detention

  Number

  Armley

  1

  Barlinnie

  1

  Bedford

  2

  Belmarsh

  2

  Birmingham

  33

  Blakenhurst

  23

  Brinsford

  4

  Bristol

  2

  Brixton

  7

  Bullingdon

  1

  Camphill

  1

  Canterbury

  20

  Chelmsford

  1

  Dover YOI

  4

  Dumfries YOI

  1

  Durham

  2

  Elmley

  2

  Exeter

  1

  Feltham YOI

  5

  Gateside

  2

  Glen Parva

  2

  Gloucester

  3

  Greenock

  2

  Haslar1

  85

  Highdown

  15

  Holloway

  5

  Hull

  2

  Isle of Sheppey

  1

  Leeds

  1

  Leicester

  1

  Lewes

  3

  Norwich

  2

  Pentonville

  15

  Reading

  4

  Risley

  1

  Rochester

  2

  Saughton

  1

  Shrewsbury

  2

  Stoke Newington

  2

  Waltham Gaol

  2

  Wandsworth

  2

  Wellingborough

  1

  Winchester

  2

  Wormwood Scrubs

  3

  TOTAL

  274

  1 The Home Office holding centre at Haslar is primarily an immigration service detention centre, although managed by the Prison Service.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown by(a) nationality and (b) gender of the total number of asylum seekers detained pending examination of their asylum claim in (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994 to date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available. General information on the total number of asylum applicants in 1992, including data on nationality and gender, is published in table 2.1 and at paragraph 24 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin issue 1/93 "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1992", a copy of which is in the Library.
  593
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers who failed to comply with the terms of temporary admission and absconded in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994 to date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not available in the form requested. The information available is given in the table.

  Number of passengers at United Kingdom ports of entry

  Passengers granted temporary admission

  1 Passengers who absconded

  1988

  8,692

  401

  1989

  13,744

  475

  1990

  15,357

  561

  1991

  13,220

  601

  1992

  16,947

  530

  1993

  19,066

  667

  1 These figures include passengers who abscond from the control area or from detention as well as those who abscond from temporary admission. Data on the latter are not separately available.

  Drug Prevention Teams
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what towns and cities drugs prevention teams are operating currently.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local teams are operating under the Home Office drugs prevention initiative in the following locations:

  Birmingham

  Liverpool

  Bradford

  Manchester

  Brent

  Newcastle

  Brighton and Hove

  Newham

  Bristol

  Nottingham

  Dundee

  Salford

  Glasgow

  Southwark

  Hackney

  West Glamorgan

  Lambeth

  Wirral

  Lewisham

  Wolverhampton

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of offenders appearing before the courts in the Doncaster area were aged under 21 years in each year since 1988 and this year to date.

  Number of juveniles aged 10 to under 17 years convicted of all offences by police force area and type of offence 1982, 1987 and 1992

  Type of offence/Year

  South Yorkshire

  North Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  Humberside

  England and Wales

  Indictable

  1982

  2,715

  863

  5,383

  2,187

  81,756

  1987

  1,551

  410

  2,055

  914

  41,963

  1992

  692

  191

  1,578

  477

  20,428

  Summary non-motoring

  1982

  462

  231

  957

  632

  17,145

  1987

  247

  75

  321

  148

  7,304

  1992

  180

  49

  478

  155

  6,673

  Summary motoring

  1982

  288

  209

  553

  487

  11,117

  1987

  84

  66

  117

  167

  4,330

  1992

  42

  14

  81

  106

  1,905

  All offences

  1982

  3,465

  1,303

  6,893

  3,306

  110,018

  1987

  1,882

  551

  2,493

  1,229

  53,597

  1992

  914

  254

  2,137

  738

  29,006

  594
  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1988 to 1992 is given in the table. Data for 1993 and 1994 are not yet available.

  Number and percentage of offenders aged under 21 years convicted at Doncaster magistrates court1 for all offences by type of offence 1988–1992

  Type of offence/Year

  All ages

  Aged under 21

  [=100%]

  Number

  Percentage

  Indictable

  1988

  3,079

  1,324

  43

  1989

  2,602

  1,128

  43

  1990

  2,540

  1,065

  42

  1991

  2,334

  994

  43

  1992

  2,180

  816

  37

  Summary non-motoring

  1988

  3,142

  593

  19

  1989

  2,934

  720

  25

  1990

  3,513

  705

  20

  1991

  3,106

  476

  15

  1992

  3,108

  357

  11

  Summary motoring

  1988

  3,367

  648

  19

  1989

  3,912

  689

  18

  1990

  3,899

  694

  18

  1991

  3,152

  556

  18

  1992

  3,103

  484

  16

  All offences

  1988

  9,588

  2,565

  27

  1989

  9,448

  2,537

  27

  1990

  9,952

  2,464

  25

  1991

  8,592

  2,026

  24

  1992

  8,391

  1,657

  20

  1 Includes convictions at the Crown court where the committing court was Doncaster PSD.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles were convicted of offences in(a) South Yorkshire, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) Humberside for the latest date he has figures available; and what were the figures (i) five years and (ii) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for 1982, 1987 and 1992 is given in the table. Data for 1993 will not be available until autumn 1994.

  Prisoners (Deportation Orders)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time that a prisoner who has been the subject of a deportation order has to wait in prison or detention centre after completing his sentence.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  During 1993 the average period for which a prisoner who was subject to deportation proceedings following a criminal conviction remained detained on completion of his or her sentence was about a week. In 463 out of 528 cases, there was no delay. In the

  Assaults on police

  Police strength

  Year

  Offences decided at court to be murder

  Cases in col. (1) involving police

  Fatal

  Serious

  Minor/other

  Male

  Female

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  (7)

  (i)Humberside

  1983

  3

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1,608

  157

  1984

  3

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1,766

  146

  1985

  4

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1,787

  149

  1986

  —

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1,810

  152

  1987

  3

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1,810

  149

  1988

  4

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1,825

  154

  1989

  3

  —

  —

  6

  554

  1,840

  153

  1990

  3

  —

  —

  45

  273

  1,830

  159

  1991

  2

  —

  —

  11

  271

  1,835

  181

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  7

  226

  1,839

  194

  (ii) North Yorkshire

  1983

  —

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1,269

  85

  1984

  2

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1,252

  89

  1985

  —

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1,249

  104

  1986

  1

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1,247

  101

  1987

  1

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1,273

  110

  1988

  2

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1,251

  111

  1989

  4

  —

  —

  13

  113

  1,261

  118

  1990

  1

  —

  —

  6

  140

  1,246

  133

  1991

  1

  —

  —

  13

  136

  1,235

  147

  1992

  1

  11

  —

  6

  134

  1.258

  150

  (iii) South Yorkshire

  1983

  8

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  2,581

  277

  1984

  2

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  2,590

  283

  1985

  4

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  2,577

  273

  1986

  7

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  2,572

  274

  1987

  3

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  2,647

  287

  1988

  8

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  2,652

  289

  1989

  5

  —

  —

  23

  311

  2,644

  302

  1990

  6

  —

  —

  32

  276

  2,664

  320

  1991

  3

  —

  —

  85

  99

  2,661

  328

  1992

  4

  —

  —

  20

  177

  2,651

  349

  (iv) West Yorkshire

  1983

  7

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  4,613

  503

  1984

  9

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  4,543

  483

  1985

  11

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  4,567

  482

  1986

  7

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  4,636

  480

  1987

  10

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  4,704

  502

  1988

  6

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  4,692

  522

  1989

  14

  —

  —

  63

  692

  4,651

  566

  1990

  15

  —

  —

  58

  629

  4,662

  614

  1991

  10

  —

  —

  59

  650

  4,538

  605

  1992

  3

  —

  —

  58

  719

  4,441

  629

  1 A special constable was fatally attacked: special constables are not included in the figures given for police strength.

  Information for 1993 is not yet available. Offences decided at court to be murder are as at 27 August 1993;
  596
  others, the period included time taken to determine outstanding appeals, applications for judicial review, and applications for asylum.

  Police (Attacks)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by year for the last 10 years and this year to date the numbers of(a) murders, (b) murders of members of the police force, (c) attacks on police officers, giving level of seriousness and (d) policemen and women in each post for the (i) Humberside, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) South Yorkshire and (iv) West Yorkshire police force areas.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following tables show such information as is readily available centrally.

  these figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  Drugs
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the second survey on drug usage and drugs prevention, comparing urban and rural areas, is likely to be published.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 17 December 1993 we published a summary of the self-reported drug usage findings of the 1992 British crime survey, together with a report by researchers at the university of Sheffield, "Drug Usage and Drugs Prevention: the views and habits of the general public", which presented the results of a survey carried out in 1992 in four major cities on behalf of the drugs prevention initiative. The documents are in the Library. Building on the four-cities survey, the drugs prevention initiative has commissioned a further report from the university of Sheffield analysing the findings of a telephone survey conducted last year of the drugs usage and attitudes of the public in Greater Manchester and the surrounding rural area. The report is not yet completed: we hope to publish it in due course.

  Car Thefts and Burglaries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by year for the last 10 years and this year to date the number of cars damaged, the level of house burglary, theft from cars and burglary in the(a) Humberside, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) South Yorkshire and (d) West Yorkshire police areas.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for the last 10 years on offences of burglary and theft from cars is published annually in table 3.1 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables, Volume 3", copies of which are available in the Library. Figures for the latest available period for the 12 months to June 1993 are given in the table. Information on the number of cars damaged is not collected centrally.

  Notable offences recorded by the police—12 months to June 1993

  Number of offences

  Total—all burglary

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Theft from cars

  Humberside

  46,425

  18,789

  21,207

  North Yorkshire

  16,598

  7,551

  9,342

  South Yorkshire

  48,868

  23,274

  24,101

  West Yorkshire

  94,436

  56,624

  51,204

  Public Interest Immunity
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response the Government have made to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal justice concerning public interest immunity.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Royal Commission made a number of recommendations about the disclosure of information held by the prosecution, including the proposal that criminal cases where the disclosure of sensitive material is an issue should be dealt with only by High Court or nominated circuit judges—recommendation 123. As stated in the interim Government response to the Royal Commission, placed in the Library of the House on 22 February, the Government are still considering these recommendations.
  598
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public interest immunity certificates he has signed in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Howard
  No central record is kept of public interest immunity certificates covering the years 1990 to 9 April 1992. Since that time, I and my predecessor have signed 10 certificates.

  Prisoners Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish a prisoners charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Prison Service's commitments under the citizens charter were set out in "The Prison Service and Citizen's Charter", published in April 1993. This document was circulated very widely within the Prison Service and a copy has been placed in the Library. There is, however, no plan to publish a prisoners charter.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days per year the chief executive of the Prison Service agency spends on his other business interests.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the terms of his appointment the Director General of the Prison Service is permitted to spend a maximum of one and a half days a month in normal working hours as a non-executive director of other organisations.

  Mr. Zahid Parvaiz
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters sent to him on 7 December 1993, 1 January 1994 and 10 February 1994 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Zahid Parvaiz.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the right hon. Member on 14 March.

  Hypnosis
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to review the licensing guidelines for acts of hypnosis in Home Office circular 42/1989;

  (2) what plans he has to bring stage hypnotists into a central register with a code of conduct;

  (3) what plans he has to make it compulsory for stage hypnotists to carry public liability insurance.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have no present plans to do so.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information his Department has on the incidence of unlicensed stage hypnotism acts.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Between 1982 and 1992, the last year for which statistics are available, there was a total of five prosecutions for offences against the Hypnotism Act 1952, four of which resulted in convictions. Information about the number of prosecutions and convictions for the particular offence of giving an unauthorised public performance of stage hypnotism is not recorded separately.
  599
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring private clubs and students unions under the provisions of the Hypnotism Act 1952.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Any public peformance of stage hypnotism in such premises will already fall within the ambit of the Hypnotism Act 1952. We have no present plans to extend the application of that Act to private entertainments.

  Parkhurst Prison
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister of State met Professor Bob Johnson, psychiatrist at Parkhurst prison; what action the Minister has taken as a result of that meeting; what analysis has been undertaken of the results obtained from work undertaken by Professor Johnson at Parkhurst prison; if Professor Johnson and the governor of Parkhurst prison have been asked to supply further information; what plans he has to visit Parkhurst prison to discuss Professor Johnson's work with staff and prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I first met Dr. Johnson during a visit to Parkhurst prison in October last year. He subsequently came to see me at the Home Office. As a result, I asked the Director General of the Prison Service to consider the need for research into the effectiveness of Dr. Johnson's work.

  Dr. Johnson has since discussed his work and its evaluation with the director general and other Prison Service officials. It is intended that the research will be undertaken later this year.

  I have no plans to visit the prison again in the near future.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will provide a list of the full dates of publication of the annual report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for each year since it was established;

  (2) when the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board annual report for 1992–93 will be published.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report for 1992–93 was published on 9 March. As indicated in my reply on 24 January to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), column 63, I understand the delay on this occasion was caused by a technical difficulty encountered by the board's auditors in the transfer of the board's investment accounts for children from one financial institution to another.

  The dates of publication of the board's previous annual reports, to the extent that these can readily be ascertained within the time available, are as follows:

  Report number

  Command number

  Year ending March

  Date published

  1

  6,077

  1965

  October 1965

  2

  3,117

  1966

  October 1966

  3

  3,427

  1967

  October 1967

  4

  3,814

  1968

  November 1968

  5

  4,179

  1969

  October 1969

  6

  4,494

  1970

  October 1970

  7

  4,812

  1971

  November 1971

  8

  5,127

  1972

  November 1972

  9

  5,468

  1973

  November 1973

  600

  Report number

  Command number

  Year ending March

  Date published

  10

  5,791

  1974

  November1974

  11

  6,291

  1975

  November 1975

  12

  6,656

  1976

  November 1976

  13

  7,022

  1977

  25 November 1977

  14

  7,396

  1978

  24 December 1978

  15

  7,752

  1979

  28 November 1979

  16

  8,081

  1980

  18 November 1980

  17

  8,401

  1981

  1 December 1981

  18

  8,752

  1982

  1 December1982

  19

  9,093

  1983

  1 December 1983

  20

  9,399

  1984

  4 December 1984

  21

  9,684

  1985

  12 December 1985

  22

  42

  1986

  16 December 1986

  23

  265

  1987

  9 December 1987

  24

  536

  1988

  6 December 1986

  25

  900

  1989

  6 December 1989

  26

  1,365

  1990

  18 December 1990

  27

  1,782

  1991

  18 December 1991

  28

  2,122

  1992

  17 December 1992

  Drug Smuggling
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what his Department estimates to be the proportion of drugs smuggled into the United Kingdom which are seized by the police or Her Majesty's Customs and Excise;

  (2) what hs been the country of origin of shipments of illegal drugs seized by the police and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise since 1988.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 8 March 1994]: This information is not available, but I will write to the hon. Member.

  Age of Consent
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the age of consent for both men and women in each EC country.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: The following table sets out what I understand to be the ages at which, provided there is mutual consent and no special provisions apply—see footnote—persons may legally engage in heterosexual and homosexual acts in each EC country.

  Male/female

  Male/male

  Female/female

  Belgium

  14

  14

  14

  Denmark

  115

  115

  115

  France

  15

  15

  15

  Germany

  1214

  18

  1214

  Greece

  17

  17

  17

  Ireland

  17

  17

  15

  Italy

  114

  114

  114

  Luxembourg

  16

  16

  16

  Netherlands

  116

  116

  116

  Portugal

  14

  16

  16

  Spain

  116

  116

  116

  United Kingdom

  316

  21

  316

  1 A higher age may apply where the older person is in a position of authority, influence of trust.

  2 The German parliament is preparing to debate in March draft legislation which would unify the age of consent for each category at 16.

  3 Seventeen in Northern Ireland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cereals
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cereal farmers in the United Kingdom last year received cash benefits in excess of £40,000 from the common agricultural policy; and what proportion received these benefits without growing anything.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of cereal farmers receiving cash benefits in excess of £40,000 from the common agricultural policy last year cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  The introduction of the arable area payment scheme was partly to compensate for cuts in support prices for cereals. Farmers claiming under the main arable area payments scheme for 1992–93 were required to set aside 15 per cent. of the area of their claim; the remaining 85 per cent. had to consist of eligible area crops. Therefore they could not receive benefits without growing anything. Under the voluntary five-year-set-aside scheme, there was no requirement to continue to grow arable crops to qualify for set-aside payments. Last year around 10 farmers who had set aside all their eligible arable land received payments in excess of £40,000.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the extent to which the United Kingdom agricultural industry was disadvantaged by not applying for derogation on the moisture content in the 1993 cereal harvest.

  Mr. Jack
  No assessment on the lines suggested is possible.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made as to(a) the moisture content of the cereals that the majority of cereal purchasers will buy and (b) whether the majority of cereal purchasers will pay a premium for cereals with a moisture content of less than 15 per cent.

  Mr. Jack
  Moisture content requirements and any premium offered are a matter for the commercial judgment of the purchaser. We have no information which allows us to establish what proportion of cereals purchasers will pay a premium for cereals with a moisture content of less than 15 per cent.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will estimate the cost of the common agricultural policy to each household in the United Kingdom, breaking this figure down into(a) the running costs of the common agricultural policy and (b) the amount which the policy adds on to food prices.

  Mr. Jack
  The Exchequer cost of common agricultural policy expenditure in the United Kingdom in the current financial year is estimated at £2,727 million. In addition, the United Kingdom also contributes to the cost of the CAP in other member states. However, the United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole, and this is reduced by the Fontainebleau abatement which cannot be attributed to particular sectors of the EC budget.
  602
  It is not possible to provide a firm estimate of the consumer cost of the CAP to each household in the United Kingdom without making many assumptions.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will estimate the combined cost of the common agricultural policy and other national farm aids to the United Kingdom: and what this figure is broken down into(a) payments directly or indirectly received by farmers and (b) the cost to consumers in the form of higher food prices.

  Mr. Jack
  Total Exchequer expenditure on agricultural subsidies in the United Kingdom is estimated at £3,015 million for 1993–94, of which £2,727 million is in relation to the CAP. The remainder is either part-financed by the guidance section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, or is wholly nationally funded. The United Kingdom also contributes to the EC budget, and thus to the cost of the CAP in other member states.

  It is not possible to provide a firm estimate of the consumer cost of the CAP in the United Kingdom without making many assumptions. Most non-CAP schemes are structural in nature and would not have a direct impact on food prices.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost of the common agricultural policy to each citizen in the European Union in each year since 1973.

  Mr. Jack
  It is not possible to provide a firm estimate of the cost of the CAP to each EU citizen since it includes consumer costs which cannot be calculated without making many assumptions.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the loss of trade with non-EC countries consequent on the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Jack
  No such assessment has been made. The question is purely hypothetical and if an assessment was possible it would require a large number of highly speculative assumptions.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the area of each individual environmentally sensitive area in England already designated or to be designated in 1994;

  (2) what is the area of each individual environmentally sensitive area in England already designated or to be designated, estimated to be eligible for management agreements;

  (3) what is the area of each individual environmentally sensitive area in England already under management agreements at the most recent date for which accurate figures are available;

  (4) how many farmers are estimated to be eligible for participation in each individual environmentally sensitive area in England already designated or to be designated in 1994;

  (5) how many farmers had entered into agreements in each individual environmentally sensitive area in England at the most recent date for which accurate figures are available;
  603
  (6) what was or is the total budget for management agreements for all environmentally sensitive areas in England for the years 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Table 1—Uptake ESA

  Total area (ha)

  Eligible area (ha) (estimate)

  Area under management agreement (ha) (March 1994 provisional)2

  Number of current management agreements (March 1994 provisional)2

  Stage I (designated 1987, relaunched 1992)

  Broads1

  36,100

  24,000

  14,623

  718

  Pennine Dales

  46,600

  39,100

  24,276

  692

  Somerset Levels and Moors

  27,700

  25,900

  12,492

  841

  South Downs1

  69,000

  51,700

  10,430

  200

  West Penwith

  7,200

  6,900

  6,051

  185

  Stage II (designated 1988, relaunched 1993)

  Breckland1

  94,000

  51,600

  4,625

  125

  North Peak

  54,900

  50,500

  44,709

  100

  Clun1 (formerly called Shropshire Borders)

  21,400

  18,900

  14,565

  220

  Suffolk River Valleys1

  43,600

  32,600

  8,513

  405

  Test Valley1

  4,800

  3,300

  849

  29

  Stage III (designated 1993)

  Avon Valley1

  5,200

  3,800

  490

  26

  Exmoor

  80,700

  67,700

  32,868

  291

  Lake District

  245,400

  219,300

  67,431

  559

  North Kent Marshes1

  13,700

  11,600

  2,941

  39

  South Wessex Downs1

  44,900

  38,300

  15,915

  108

  South West Peak

  33,900

  27,000

  10,822

  223

  Stage IV (to be designated March 1994)

  Blackdown Hills

  39,900

  32,200

  n/a

  n/a

  Cotswold Hills1

  84,700

  66,100

  n/a

  n/a

  Dartmoor

  100,500

  89,000

  n/a

  n/a

  Essex Coast1

  27,500

  23,000

  n/a

  n/a

  Shropshire Hills

  38,500

  34,900

  n/a

  n/a

  Upper Thames Tributaries1

  27,700

  18,000

  n/a

  n/a

  1 The figures for eligible area in these ESAs contain arable land which is eligible to enter the scheme if reverted to grass. It is not expected that a high proportion of such land will enter the scheme.

  2 Information is not held about the number of farmers eligible for participation in each ESA scheme. Landlords, tenants, commoners etcetera may be eligible to apply, individually or jointly, in respect of the same holding.

  Table 2—Expenditure in ESAs

  Year

  £ (Thousands)(Payments to Farmers)

  1992–93

  110,872

  1993–94

  218,040

  1994–95

  331,036

  1995–96

  343,135

  1 Outturn.

  2 Forecast outturn.

  3 Budget provision.

  Infant Formulae
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) of 6 December,Official Report, column 106, if she still plans to implement the provisions of the EC directive on infant formulae and follow-on formulae by 1 June.

  Mr. Soames
  The implementation date of 1 June 1994 has been commented on during the consultation on the United Kingdom draft regulations. A decision on the final form of the regulations, including the coming into force date, will be announced once the Government have carefully considered all the comments received.
  604
  Mr. Jack
  Statistics relating to the 16 existing ESAs and the six to be designated this month are given in the tables.

  Agri-environmental Measures
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the total United Kingdom agricultural budget is accounted for annually by agri-environmental measures.

  Mr. Jack
  Forecast United Kingdom expenditure on agri-environment payments is £32·3 million in 1993–94 which represents approximately 1 per cent. of forecast expenditure on all forms of support for agriculture in the United Kingdom in 1993–94. United Kingdom expenditure on agri-environmental payments is planned to rise to over £100 million in 1995–96.

  EU Surplus Foodstuffs
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current rules governing the distribution of surplus EU foodstuffs.

  Mr. Jack
  The rules governing the operation of the EC surplus food scheme 1993–94 in the United Kingdom are set out in leaflets LP45 and LP46. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Kudus
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is done with the soil from the pens of kudu at London zoo;

  (2) what action is being taken to prevent the transmission of spongiform encephalopathy from kudus at London zoo to other animals and to zoo staff on (a) entering and (b) leaving the kudu pen.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This Ministry currently has no powers to investigate spongiform encephalopathies in exotic ruminants at London Zoo. Precautions taken to prevent the transmission of spongiform encephalopathy in the zoo are a matter for the London zoo authorities.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give details of the genetic relationships between the greater kudus at London zoo that have died of a spongiform encephalopathy; and if the genetic relationships between the greater kudus at London zoo indicate that any of the kudu are carriers of a spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There have been a number of scientific papers published on different aspects of spongiform encephalopathy disease in greater kudu at London zoo. The most recent of these was in The Veterinary Record of 12 February 1994, while another on 9 October 1993 addressed the familial relationships between the confirmed cases and their dams.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many greater kudu from the London zoo herd have died of a spongiform encephalopathy; and how many of the greater kudu presently at London zoo are suspected to be suffering from a spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I understand that six greater kudu have developed a spongiform encephalopathy; they are all dead.

  Food (Expenditure)
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the net disposable income per person in pound sterling in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the USA, (c) the European Union, (d) Japan, (e) Germany and (f) France at the latest available date; and what was the expenditure on food (i) as a percentage of net disposable income and (ii) in pound sterling.

  Mr. Jack
  The following broadly comparable information is available for 1991.

  Household expenditure per person1

  Expenditure on food per person

  Expenditure on food as a percentage of household expenditure

  £

  £

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  6,207

  766

  12

  USA

  28,423

  831

  10

  European Union

  6,377

  1,095

  18

  Japan

  8,555

  1,162

  14

  Germany

  7,397

  3 1,453

  20

  France

  7,187

  1,162

  16

  1Final consumption expenditure of resident households.

  2Includes expenditure by private non-profit-making institutions.

  606
  3Includes alcoholic drink and meals out.

  Source: EUROSTAT National Accounts ESA 1970 to 1991.

  OECD National Accounts 1979 to 1991.

  Orchard Replanting Grants
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the take-up in each of the last five years of orchard replanting grants; and if she will make a statement about the cessation of the scheme.

  Mr. Jack
  The amount of grant given in England for orchard replanting over the last five years is as follows:

  Orchard replanting grants in England 1989 to 1993

  Year

  Expenditure (£)

  1989

  216,683

  1990

  234,094

  1991

  345,998

  1992

  570,530

  1993

  518,898

  Total

  1,886,193

  These grants were introduced essentially as pump-priming measures to improve the competitiveness of the United Kingdom orchard sector through the injection of capital for the replanting of apple and pear orchards. The objective of the scheme was that, after five years of assistance, the industry would be capable of self-sustaining development without further government intervention. A recent evaluation of the scheme carried out for us by the university of Leicester indicates that the grants were taken up by practically all of our target population. A report of the evaluation is available in the Library of the House.

  Arable Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent delays have occurred in payment of arable aid to farmers in(a) south Yorkshire, (b) north Yorkshire, (c) west Yorkshire and (d) Humberside who are growers of commercial oilseed rape; from what office the cheques are being paid; and whether all payments due to be met by 31 December have been paid.

  Mr. Jack
  Over 98 per cent. of all payments due to growers of commercial oilseed rape were issued by 31 December 1993. In a very small number of cases payments could not be made for a number of reasons. Payments are authorised by the regional service centre at Northallerton and payable orders are issued from the Ministry's finance department at Guildford.

  Food Stockpile
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the items and quantity of food in the national food stockpile.

  Mr. Soames
  The national food stockpile contains some 93,000 tonnes of food, made up of flour, biscuits, fat and sugar. Stocks are being run down to achieve liquidation which was announced in March last year.

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 847, by what authority the British

  607
  Government are able to prosecute a British haulier for breaking welfare laws for animals being transported in another EC member state who are suspected of breaking (a) British laws and (b) EC laws; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992 implements EC directive 91/628. In Great Britain this legislation is enforced by the local authorities, with support and advice from the Ministry. Allegations of infringements are investigated and where appropriate charges are brought before a magistrates court. If investigations reveal offences in another member state the facts are reported to the relevant authorities.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what was the country of origin and country of departure stated on documentation accompanying live sheep certified as fit to travel which arrived at an abattoir in Birmingham on 8 March and later found to have multiple caseous abcesses, oedema and emaciation, bruising and septicaemia following carcase inspection;

  (2) what was the port of entry of a consignment of 300 live sheep which arrived at a Birmingham abattoir on 8 March; and what veterinary inspection they were subjected to and by whom on arrival in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  The consignment was imported from Poland into the EC through the border inspection post at Frankfurt-on-Oder in Germany. Following its arrival at a slaughterhouse in Birmingham, documentary, identity and physical inspections were carried out by the state veterinary service in conjunction with the official veterinary surgeon.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will now announce the constitution, including producer representation, of the proposed Milk Marketing Board residuary body, its budgetary provisions and proposed lifetime.

  Mr. Jack
  The constitution of the residuary Milk Marketing Board will depend upon the functions to be assigned to it, which must be specified in an approved reorganisation scheme. No decision can be taken on the constitution, therefore, until a reorganisation scheme has been approved. We have, nevertheless, announced our intention that producers should be strongly represented on the residuary board.

  The assets and liabilities to be retained by the board after vesting day would likewise be specified in the approved reorganisation scheme. The funding provision for the residuary board would therefore be determined if and when the scheme was approved.

  The lifetime of the residuary board would depend to some extent upon how quickly it could realise its assets and discharge its liabilities. Some potential liabilities could crystallise well after vesting day, however, and the residuary board is likely to have a lifetime of several years at least.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will consider the appointment of a market regulator for a period of two years to allow the orderly development of a free market for milk.

  Mr. Jack
  After the end of the milk marketing scheme the milk market will be subject to the normal rules on 608
  competition. The Agriculture Act 1993 does not provide for the appointment of a special regulator for the milk market.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) pursuant to her answer of 2 March,Official Report, columns 744–46, if she will publish the same information for less-favoured area specialist sheep farms;

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 2 March, Official Report, columns 744–46, if she will provide a further breakdown of the information requested for sheep, cattle, cattle and sheep and in addition for specialist sheep farms and mixed cattle and sheep, giving unweighted estimates and distinguishing between the results from the annual farm census and the farm business survey.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: The further breakdown of the information requested is shown in the table. The numbers and proportions of farms for each type and size are taken from the June census and the estimates of net farm income are weighted averages from the farm business survey.

  LFA livestock farms in England: holdings and net farm income by ESU size group

  ESU size group

  Holdings (as at June 1992)

  Net farm income 1992–931 (£'000)

  Number

  Proportion

  Farms classified as SDA Specialised sheep

  <8

  1,091

  41

  —

  8<16

  402

  15

  11·0

  16<28

  384

  14

  28<40

  267

  10

  40<60

  284

  11

  22·4

  60<100

  174

  7

  100<200

  48

  2

  35·7

  200 and over

  4

  0

  All sizes

  2,654

  100

  15·1

  ESU per holding

  Average of all sizes

  22

  —

  —

  Average of over 8 ESUs

  36

  —

  —

  Farms classified as SDA Specialised beef

  <8

  1,075

  58

  —

  8<16

  330

  18

  —

  16<28

  239

  13

  —

  28<40

  93

  5

  —

  40<60

  68

  4

  —

  60<100

  33

  2

  —

  100<200

  12

  1

  —

  200 and over

  2

  0

  —

  All sizes

  1,852

  100

  —

  ESU per holding

  Average of all sizes

  13

  —

  —

  Average of over 8 ESUs

  25

  —

  —

  Farms classified as SDA Mixed cattle and sheep

  <8

  738

  20

  —

  8<16

  488

  13

  9·6

  16<28

  632

  17

  28<40

  555

  15

  40<60

  608

  16

  22·6

  60<100

  543

  14

  100<200

  175

  5

  65·9

  200 and over

  18

  0

  All sizes

  3,757

  100

  17·8

  609

  ESU size group

  Holdings (as at June 1992)

  Net farm income 1992–931 (£'000)

  Number

  Proportion

  ESU per holding

  Average of all sizes

  37

  —

  —

  Average of over 8 ESUs

  45

  —

  —

  Farms classified as DA cattle and sheep

  <8

  1,686

  47

  —

  8<16

  689

  19

  3·5

  16<28

  497

  14

  28<40

  256

  7

  40<60

  224

  6

  11·6

  60<100

  160

  4

  100<200

  63

  2

  71·1

  200 and over

  4

  0

  All sizes

  3,579

  100

  5·5

  ESU per holding

  Average of all sizes

  18

  —

  —

  Average of over 8 ESUs

  31

  —

  —

  All farms classified as cattle and sheep (LFA)2

  <8

  4,590

  39

  —

  8<16

  1,909

  16

  7·7

  16<28

  1,752

  15

  28<40

  1,171

  10

  40<60

  1,184

  10

  21·7

  60<100

  910

  8

  100<200

  298

  3

  61·8

  200 and over

  28

  0

  All sizes

  11,842

  100

  13·7

  ESU per holding

  Average of all sizes

  24

  —

  —

  Average of over 8 ESUs

  37

  —

  —

  1 Weighted averages. Unweighted averages are not appropriate as they do not accurately reflect the distribution of farms.

  Performance measures by size of farm in England, 1992–931

  SDA specialist sheep farms

  SDA mixed cattle and sheep farms

  Output (£'000) per labour unit

  Small

  22

  24

  Medium

  31

  37

  Large

  32

  55

  All sizes

  27

  33

  Output per £100 of total assets (£)

  Small

  22

  20

  Medium

  29

  26

  Large

  39

  27

  All sizes

  26

  24

  Output per £100 of total input (£)2

  Small

  101

  97

  Medium

  118

  112

  Large

  123

  128

  All sizes

  109

  109

  1 The size groups are: small (8 to <40 ESUs), medium (40 to <100 ESUs) and large (100+ ESUs).

  2 Total input includes rental value, tenant-type inputs and farmer and spouse manual labour, but excludes interest payments.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Museums Review
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made in his Department's review of museums, announced after the financial statement in 1993.
  610
  2 Includes the following main types: SDA specialist sheep, SDA specialist beef, SDA mixed cattle and sheep, DA cattle and sheep, means sample too small to provide reliable results for individual size groups. In some cases size groups have been combined.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 1068, if the weighting of the sample information from the farm business survey analysis of less-favoured area livestock farms takes into account the economies of scale achieved in relation to farm size; what mechanism there is for measuring the economies of scale achieved by less-favoured area livestock farms in relation to farm size; and if she will publish the results according to standard farm classification in terms of the size group set out in her answer of 2 March, Official Report, column 744, for (i) specialist sheep farms and (ii) mixed cattle and sheep farms.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: The weighting system ensures that sample results from the farm business survey for farms of different size, type, region and tenure are combined in proportion to the number of farms recorded at the June agricultural census. An analysis of three performance ratios for small, medium and large farms for all LFA cattle and sheep farms represented in the farm business survey is published in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom".

  There are insufficient farms in the sample to allow an analysis for each of the size groups set out in the previous reply; however, the table shows the results for small, medium and large farms.

  Mr. Sproat
  No formal announcement has been made about a decision to review the Government's policy on museums. However, the Museums and Galleries Commission is considering ideas for a national policy, and I am taking a close interest in this initiative.

  Millennium Commission
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to announce the names of the members of the Millennium Commission.
  611
  Mr. Brooke
  The names of the members of the Millennium Commission were announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 February. I shall have the honour of being chairman of the commission. The other members are:

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade

  Professor Heather Couper, FRAS

  The Earl of Dalkeith

  The hon. Robin V. Dixon, CBE

  Sir John Hall

  Mr. Simon Jenkins

  Mr. Michael Montague CBE

  Ms Patricia Scotland QC

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on how many occasions he has given the right hon. Member for Swansea, West holding answers on parliamentary questions relating to the occupied royal palaces; what has been the length of the delays before substantive answers were given; how many were answered on Fridays; and what were the reasons for the delays.

  Mr. Sproat
  Holding answers have been given on 12 occasions: three for two working days; five for three; two for four and one for seven working days. None was answered on a Friday. The delays occurred because the detailed information requested was such as to require significant staff time to assemble or identify.

  In the one other case, where the holding answer was for a duration of 23 working days and which I answer today, the delay was caused by an oversight within my Department for which I apologise.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total rent received from the grace and favour accommodation in the occupied royal palaces.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: Rent of £69,000 per annum is received for residential accommodation in the occupied royal palaces.

  Regional Orchestras
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether the Arts Council has approached him since 3 March for additional funding for regional orchestras.

  Mr. Brooke
  No.

  Cathedrals (Stone Decay)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what contact he has had with the Cathedrals fabric committee on first aid and remedial treatment for stone decay.

  Mr. Brooke
  None. English Heritage is carrying out work on first aid and remedial treatment for stone decay and is in regular contact with the Cathedrals Fabric Commission.

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the extent of the decreases in concentrations of sulphur dioxide according to the information available to his Department, in relation to the rate of decay of historic buildings.
  612
  Mr. Brooke
  The report of research on atmospheric pollution and stone decay for the joint working party between the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England and the joint environmental programme of National Power plc and Power Gen plc, published last year, found that the annual average concentrations of sulphur dioxide had decreased very markedly over the last 30 years. However, there is likely to be decay in historic stone as a result of past depositions. The Building Research Establishment is maintaining a programme of research on the effects of sulphur dioxide and other pollutants on the decay of stone and other materials as part of the national materials exposure programme of the Department of the Environment and the international materials exposure programme of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Overseas Investors
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to encourage more potential overseas investors in the United Kingdom to include a visit to Northern Ireland in their fact-finding itinerary, prior to making a decision on where to site new industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland continues to work closely with the Invest in Britain Bureau of the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that prospective inward investors visiting the United Kingdom have the opportunity to include a visit to Northern Ireland on their itinerary. Independently from the Department of Trade and Industry the Industrial Development Board organises a number of visits to Northern Ireland for potential investors from its target markets overseas through its network of overseas offices placed in these strategic regions.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the proportion of(a) Protestant and (b) Catholic staff, by seniority, in the district 6 office of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Information about the religious make-up of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's work force as a whole is published annually in the Fair Employment Commission's report "A Profile of the Northern Ireland Workforce: Summary of the Monitoring Returns". The most recent report for 1992 is available in the Library.

  I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that it allocates staff resources to various parts of the organisation on the basis of its operational needs and personnel management policies. The executive does not release information about the religious composition of staff in individual offices.

  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the proportion of public authority housing in terms of(a) Protestant and (b) Catholic occupancy administered by the district 6 office of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that it does not
  613
  hold statistical information on the religious composition of its tenants. The Housing Executive has consistently administered housing policies in a fair and open way on the basis of need, irrespective of religion.

  EC Funds
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the receipts under the European social fund in each financial year were earned by(a) the private sector, (b) non-central Government public sector bodies and (c) central Government.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Private/Vol. sector

  £ million non-central Government public bodies

  Central Government

  1973–74

  —

  —

  —

  1974–75

  0·41

  0·31

  2·68

  1975–76

  —

  —

  —

  1976–77

  0·77

  0·58

  5·05

  1977–78

  0·90

  0·68

  5·92

  1978–79

  1·80

  1·35

  11·85

  1979–80

  1·80

  1·35

  11·85

  1980–81

  2·76

  2·07

  18·17

  1981–82

  3·00

  2·25

  19·75

  1982–83

  4–22

  3·17

  27·81

  1983–84

  4·56

  3·42

  30·02

  1984–85

  4·56

  3·42

  30·02

  1985–86

  3·00

  2·25

  19·75

  1986–87

  6·39

  4·80

  42·11

  1987–88

  6·77

  5·08

  44·55

  1988–89

  4·33

  3·25

  28·52

  1989–90

  5·35

  4·01

  35·19

  1990–91

  5·24

  3·93

  34·50

  11991–92

  5·06

  3·80

  33·32

  60·92

  45·72

  401·06

  1 This is the latest available information as claims for 1993, and some for 1992, have not yet been settled.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money Northern Ireland has received in each financial year from EC sources apart from payments under the three structural funds.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following amounts have been identified as being received in Northern Ireland from European Community sources other than the three structural funds since 1987–88 when meaningful figures first became available.

  Financial year

  Total £ million

  1987–88

  27·6

  1988–89

  27·8

  1989–90

  46·1

  1990–91

  48·1

  1991–92

  59·7

  1992–93

  56·3

  Most of the receipts in this category are from the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. However, it should be noted that the bulk of guarantee section receipts are disbursed centrally by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and details of payments are not generally maintained at regional level. Other small payments are made by the European Commission direct to recipients which are not passed through the United Kingdom Government.
  614
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money received in each financial year up to 31 December 1993 from EC sources has been paid into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund.

  Sir John Wheeler
  All money received from EC sources is paid into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money Northern Ireland has received in each financial year up to 31 December 1993 from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, guidance sector; how much of those receipts were paid to the private sector; how much of these receipts were paid to the public sector; how much of these receipts represented a cash addition to the Northern Ireland economy; and how much was used each year to offset Government expenditure on Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following amounts were received from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, guidance section.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Individual capital projects

  Other guidance schemes

  Total

  Private sector

  Public sector

  Private sector1

  Public sector

  1974–75

  —

  —

  0·25

  —

  0·25

  1975–76

  0·45

  —

  0·25

  —

  0·66

  1976–77

  1·87

  0·31

  0·27

  —

  2·45

  1977–78

  1·28

  0·31

  1·28

  —

  2·87

  1978–79

  0·70

  0·24

  2·46

  —

  3·40

  1979–80

  1·27

  0·20

  3·21

  —

  4·68

  1980–81

  1·91

  1·05

  3·35

  —

  6·31

  1981–82

  1·43

  0·13

  4·69

  —

  6·25

  1982–83

  2·47

  0·99

  3·30

  —

  6·76

  1983–84

  1·59

  0·38

  14·65

  —

  16·61

  1984–85

  0·95

  0·28

  13·29

  —

  14·52

  1985–86

  3·56

  0·03

  11·83

  —

  15·42

  1986–87

  2·58

  0·11

  5·96

  —

  8·65

  1987–88

  3·29

  —

  5·99

  —

  9·28

  1988–89

  2·31

  0·51

  10·05

  —

  12·87

  1989–90

  2·84

  —

  6·60

  —

  9·44

  1990–91

  4·75

  —

  6·25

  —

  11·00

  1991–92

  4·31

  —

  21·78

  2·86

  28·95

  1992–93

  8·31

  —

  9·56

  0·45

  18·32

  1993–942

  0·66

  —

  13·17

  2·70

  16·53

  Totals

  46·53

  4·54

  138·15

  6·01

  195·22

  1 Includes reference to the approximate share in Northern Ireland on various structural schemes which were applied throughout the United Kingdom.

  2To December 1993.

  All these receipts present cash additions to the recipients and are subject to normal European Community audit arrangements. The overall level of receipts is taken into account in the Government's decision on public expenditure allocations and their availability enables public expenditure to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be feasible.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the receipts which Northern Ireland has received from the European regional development fund since 1973 has been earned by(a) infrastructure projects undertaken by non-central Government bodies, (b) infrastructure projects undertaken by central Government and (c) industrial projects.
  615
  Sir John Wheeler
  The following amounts have been received from the European regional development fund to 31 December 1993:

  Infrastructure

  £ Million

  Non-central Government

  125·8

  Central Government

  79·9

  Industry

  100·7

  Programmes1

  222·6

  TOTAL2

  529·0

  1 These programmes combine elements of both industry and infrastructure.

  2 Includes estimated receipts for the first nine months of the 1993–94 financial year.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been received by Northern Ireland under each of the European Community initiatives to date.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Under the 1989 to 1993 structural funds allocation, Northern Ireland has 10 approved Community initiatives. The amounts recived to date under each initiative are:

  £ million

  INTERREG (assistance to border areas)

  25·52

  STRIDE (research and technological development)

  8·55

  ENVIREG (environmental improvement)

  2·34

  PRISMA (assistance to firms)

  3·41

  TELEMATIQUE (promotion of telecommunications service)

  3·36

  EUROFORM (qualifications and new skills and employment opportunities)

  0·90

  NOW (employment opportunities for women)

  0·90

  HORIZON (handicapped and certain disadvantaged groups)

  0·71

  RETEX (diversification for textile regions)

  0·90

  LEADER (rural development)

  1·09

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money Northern Ireland has received from the European social fund in each financial year up to 31 December 1993; now much each year represented a cash addition to the Northern Ireland economy; and how much was used to offset Government expenditure on Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following amounts were received from the European social fund:

  Financial Year

  Total £ million

  1973–74

  —

  1974–75

  3·4

  1975–76

  0·0

  1976–77

  6·4

  1977–78

  7·5

  1978–79

  15·0

  1979–80

  15·0

  1980–81

  23·0

  1981–82

  25·0

  1982–83

  35·2

  1983–84

  38·0

  1984–85

  38·0

  1985–86

  25·0

  1986–87

  53·3

  1987–88

  56·4

  1988–89

  36·1

  616

  Financial Year

  Total £ million

  1989–90

  44·6

  1990–91

  43·7

  11991–92

  42·2

  Total

  507·8

  1 This is the latest available information as claims for 1993, and some for 1992, have not yet been settled.

  Receipts earned by the private sector and by non-central Government public sector bodies are paid to the claimant. The recipients represent cash additions to the recipients. Receipts earned by central Government are paid into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. All ESF receipts are subject to EC audit arrangements.

  The overall level of receipts is taken into account in the Government's decisions on public expenditure allocations, and their availability enables public expenditure to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be feasible.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much Northern Ireland's share of the United Kingdom's payments into the European Economic Community was from 1 January 1973 to 31 December 1993; how much Northern Ireland's share was of the receipts for the same period; and how much of those receipts was used to offset Government expenditure on Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not possible to determine Northern Ireland's actual share of the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Community because payments are made on a national and not a regional basis. Similarly it is not possible to identify the full extent of receipts from the Community. However, a Northern Ireland attributed share of the contribution to the EC is calculated as an accounting mechanism necessary because of the operation of a separate Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. This notional attributed share does not count as an item of expenditure within the Northern Ireland public expenditure programme and has therefore no bearing on the level of public expenditure in the Province.

  Figures for the notional attribution of part of Northern Ireland's share of the United Kingdom's payments and for those areas where the receipts from the European Community's structural funds can be separately identified are as follows:

  Financial year

  Attributed share (part) £ million

  Identified receipts2 £ million

  1973–74

  1

  0

  1974–75

  6

  4

  1975–76

  8

  4

  1976–77

  13

  16

  1977–78

  16

  14

  1978–79

  24

  19

  1979–80

  28

  31

  1980–81

  28

  44

  1981–82

  50

  41

  1982–83

  66

  53

  1983–84

  66

  51

  1984–85

  68

  58

  1985–86

  74

  44

  1986–87

  62

  77

  1987–88

  91

  111

  1988–89

  85

  96

  1989–90

  104

  95

  617

  Financial year

  Attributed share (part) £ million

  Identified receipt2 £ million

  1990–91

  107

  110

  1991–92

  1100

  132

  1992–93

  1134

  158

  Total

  1,131

  1,158

  1 Attributed share figures for the last two years are provisional estimates which will be revised when final details of tax revenues are determined.

  2 This comprises total identified EC structural funds receipts in Northern Ireland.

  All receipts represent cash additions to the recipients and are subject to normal European Community audit arrangements.

  The overall level of receipts is taken into account in the Government's decisions on public expenditure allocations and their availability enables public expenditure to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be feasible.

  Prisoners (Christmas Leave)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Northern Ireland if he will list by(a) Her Majesty's prison and (b) Her Majesty's remand prison the number of prisoners who applied for Christmas leave and the number of those who were granted Christmas leave; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In December 1993 a total number of 446 convicted prisoners were released from the following prisons for Christmas home leave. Under the criteria for Christmas home leave, remand prisoners are not eligible to apply.

  Prison

  Applications

  Applications granted

  Belfast

  33

  32

  Maze

  116

  111

  Maghaberry

  115

  109

  Magilligan

  162

  145

  Young Offenders Centre

  79

  49

  The Christmas home leave scheme and other release schemes play a key part in the Northern Ireland prison service's objectives by enabling prisoners to retain, and in some cases, re-establish family and community links in preparation for eventual release, and this has proved to be very successful. Of the 466 prisoners only two remain unlawfully at large. Both are medium-risk prisoners who had short periods left to serve.

  Outdoor Education Centres
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names, location and county of each of the outdoor education centres in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Outdoor education centres

  Name

  Location

  County

  Ballyholme

  Portrush

  Antrim

  Bushmills

  Bushmills

  Antrim

  Derganagh House

  Ballycastle

  Antrim

  618

  Name

  Location

  County

  Drumalla House

  Carnlough

  Antrim

  Ardnabannon

  Castlewellan

  Down

  Binnian

  Newcastle

  Down

  Cabra Towers

  Newry

  Down

  Delamont

  Killyleagh

  Down

  F. H. Ebbit

  Newcastle

  Down

  Ganaway

  Millisle

  Down

  Killowen

  Rostrevor

  Down

  Killyleagh

  Killyleagh

  Down

  Shannaghmore

  Newcastle

  Down

  Tullymore

  Newcastle

  Down

  Yellow Water Cottage

  Rostrevor

  Down

  Coranerk

  Derrygonnelly

  Fermanagh

  Gortatole

  Florencecourt

  Fermanagh

  Carrowmena

  Limavady

  Londonderry

  Magilligan Field Centre

  Limavady

  Londonderry

  Woodhall

  Kilrea

  Londonderry

  Carnteel

  Aughnacloy

  Tyrone

  Corrick

  Newtownstewart

  Tyrone

  Goles Cottage

  Keadycam, Plumbridge

  Tyrone

  Dentistry
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the amount spent per child aged under 18 years on general dental services in the Province, whether or not registered with a general dental practitioner.

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) on 11 March 1994 at columns 436–37.

EDUCATION

  Teachers (Trials)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) head teachers and (b) teachers in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94 were committed to trial and found guilty; and what information he has concerning costs incurred.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected in the form requested. The Department receives about 150 reports a year from the police or employers about the conviction of teachers and other staff. Records are not held by year of conviction or by category of staff. We have no information about the cost of bringing teachers to trial.

  Science
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the decision to withdraw combined science as a compulsory double subject at GCSE level in the national curriculum; what is his Department's assessment of the effect this will have on(a) the number of 16-year-olds studying science, (b) their total exposure to science subjects during their education and (c) the longer-term scientific literacy of British society.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There has been no such decision. Double award science never has been compulsory at GCSE level. Sir Ron Dearing's final report recommends that the minimum statutory requirement for science at key stage 4—14 to 16-year-olds—should continue to be the single award science. Most 14 to 16-year-old pupils—around 85 per cent. when last sampled in 1993—do, however, take double award science, and we welcome that.
  619
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what initiatives his Department is taking to encourage more young people at school to study science and to choose science subjects in higher education.

  Mr. Boswell
  The national curriculum ensures that all pupils, from the age of five to 16, study science. Most pupils in their final year of compulsory schooling—about 85 per cent. when last sampled in 1993—take the double award in science. That ensures that they are qualified for further study. In addition to the traditional A-level route, new high-quality vocational qualifications post-16 will provide alternative routes for students to continue their science and technology studies. General national vocational qualifications in science started a pilot phase in September 1993.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish tables showing the percentage of teaching time devoted to(a) mathematics, (b) physics, (c) chemistry and (d) total for all science

  Schools and pupils in the London boroughs Table A: maintained primary schools

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  LEA

  Total number schools

  Total number GM schools

  Percentage GMS in LEA

  Total number pupils

  Total number GM pupils

  Percentage GM pupils

  Corporation of London

  1

  0·0

  214

  0

  0·0

  Camden

  41

  0·0

  10,610

  0

  0·0

  Greenwich

  77

  0·0

  20,934

  0

  0·0

  Hackney

  69

  0·0

  16,677

  0

  0·0

  Hammersmith

  38

  0·0

  9,025

  0

  0·0

  Islington

  57

  0·0

  14,966

  0

  0·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  27

  1

  3·7

  6,292

  326

  5·2

  Lambeth

  78

  5

  6·4

  19,053

  1,250

  6·6

  Lewisham

  70

  1

  1·4

  20,479

  361

  1·8

  Southwark

  76

  5

  6·6

  21,222

  1,265

  6·0

  Tower Hamlets

  74

  0·0

  20,717

  0

  0·0

  Wandsworth

  65

  2

  3·1

  17,250

  515

  3·0

  Westminster

  41

  0·0

  9,122

  0

  0·0

  Barking

  54

  0·0

  15,727

  0

  0·0

  Barnet

  89

  2

  2·2

  23,790

  776

  3·3

  Bexley

  65

  2

  3·1

  18,596

  447

  2·4

  Brent

  65

  1

  1·5

  22,228

  493

  2·2

  Bromley

  78

  2

  2·6

  20,449

  934

  4·6

  Croydon

  98

  2

  2·0

  26,271

  836

  3·2

  Ealing

  91

  4

  4·4

  27,652

  1,217

  4·4

  Enfield

  70

  1

  1·4

  23,316

  149

  0·6

  Haringey

  77

  0·0

  19,127

  0

  0·0

  Harrow

  54

  0·0

  19,109

  0

  0·0

  Havering

  74

  0·0

  19,624

  0

  0·0

  Hillingdon

  72

  11

  15·3

  20,107

  2,602

  12·9

  Hounslow

  63

  0·0

  19,339

  0

  0·0

  Kingston upon Thames

  36

  1

  2·8

  10,463

  191

  1·8

  Merton

  49

  0·0

  15,224

  0

  0·0

  Newham

  67

  0·0

  25,235

  0

  0·0

  Redbridge

  56

  0·0

  19,045

  0

  0·0

  Richmond upon Thames

  39

  0·0

  10,785

  0

  0·0

  Sutton

  43

  3

  7·0

  12,884

  799

  6·2

  Waltham Forest

  62

  0·0

  19,705

  0

  0·0

  Totals

  2,016

  43

  2·1

  575,237

  12,161

  2·1

  Table B: maintained secondary schools

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  LEA

  Total number schools

  Total number GM schools

  Percentage GMS in LEA

  Total number pupils

  Total number GM pupils

  Percentage GM pupils

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Camden

  11

  2

  18·2

  10,479

  2,340

  22·3

  Greenwich

  15

  0

  0·0

  13,956

  0

  0·0

  Hackney

  10

  0

  0·0

  7,384

  0

  0·0

  Hammersmith

  9

  1

  11·1

  5,976

  1,229

  20·6

  Islington

  9

  0

  0·0

  7,037

  0

  0·0

  620
  subjects for the average 14-year-old, 15-year-old and 16-year-old in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) France, (iii) Germany, (iv) Italy, (v) Japan and (vi) the United States of America at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the numbers and percentages of(a) schools and (b) children at (i) primary and (ii) secondary levels who are in grant-maintained establishments for each London borough, both inclusive and exclusive of those in the private sector.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The tables show numbers and percentages of grant-maintained schools and pupils in such schools in the 33 London boroughs.
  621

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  LEA

  Total number schools

  Total number GM schools

  Percentage GMS in LEA

  Total number pupils

  Total number GM pupils

  Percentage GM pupils

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4

  1

  25·0

  3,203

  629

  19·6

  Lambeth

  10

  5

  50·0

  6,350

  3,363

  53·0

  Lewisham

  13

  0

  0·0

  10,515

  0

  0·0

  Southwark

  14

  5

  35·7

  9,121

  2,765

  30·3

  Tower Hamlets

  15

  1

  6·7

  11,582

  907

  7·8

  Wandsworth

  10

  6

  60·0

  8,907

  6,487

  72·8

  Westminster

  8

  0

  0·0

  7,358

  0

  0·0

  Barking

  8

  0

  0·0

  9,493

  0

  0·0

  Barnet

  21

  9

  42·9

  18,416

  8,946

  48·6

  Bexley

  16

  4

  25·0

  14,391

  2,818

  19·6

  Brent

  14

  8

  57·1

  12,387

  8,154

  65·8

  Bromley

  17

  11

  64·7

  16,688

  10,581

  63·4

  Croydon

  20

  4

  20·0

  14,561

  3,713

  25·5

  Ealing

  12

  5

  41·7

  10,998

  4,905

  44·6

  Enfield

  17

  5

  29·4

  17,390

  5,576

  32·1

  Haringey

  9

  0

  0·0

  9,060

  0

  0·0

  Harrow

  10

  1

  10·0

  7,965

  483

  6·1

  Havering

  18

  4

  22·2

  14,825

  3,813

  25·7

  Hillingdon

  17

  12

  70·6

  13,715

  11,467

  83·6

  Hounslow

  14

  2

  14·3

  14,010

  2,108

  15·0

  Kingston upon Thames

  10

  4

  40·0

  7,607

  2,859

  37·6

  Merton

  11

  0

  0·0

  7,167

  0

  0·0

  Newham

  14

  1

  7·1

  13,575

  556

  4·1

  Redbridge

  14

  1

  7·1

  14,952

  1,113

  7·4

  Richmond upon Thames

  8

  0

  0·0

  7,447

  0

  0·0

  Sutton

  14

  8

  57·1

  11,065

  6,591

  59·6

  Waltham Forest

  16

  2

  12·5

  11,049

  1,915

  17·3

  Totals

  408

  102

  25·0

  348,629

  93,318

  26·8

  Table C: All schools

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  LEA

  Total number schools

  Total number GM schools

  Percentage GMS in LEA

  Total number pupils

  Total number GM pupils

  Percentage GM pupils

  Corporation of London

  4

  0

  0·0

  1,795

  0

  0·0

  Camden

  90

  2

  2·2

  27,541

  2,340

  8·5

  Greenwich

  112

  0

  0·0

  38,182

  0

  0·0

  Hackney

  103

  0

  0·0

  28,246

  0

  0·0

  Hammersmith

  71

  1

  1·4

  19,605

  1,229

  6·3

  Islington

  78

  0

  0·0

  23,295

  0

  0·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  78

  2

  2·6

  20,365

  955

  4·7

  Lambeth

  115

  10

  8·7

  28,366

  4,613

  16·3

  Lewisham

  100

  1

  1·0

  35,046

  361

  1·0

  Southwark

  114

  10

  8·8

  36,788

  4,030

  11·0

  Tower Hamlets

  107

  1

  0·9

  33,841

  907

  2·7

  Wandsworth

  115

  8

  7·0

  32,304

  7,002

  21·7

  Westminster

  81

  0

  0·0

  22,616

  0

  0·0

  Barking

  65

  0

  0·0

  25,373

  0

  0·0

  Barnet

  146

  11

  7·5

  48,850

  9,722

  19·9

  Bexley

  90

  6

  6·7

  34,112

  3,265

  9·6

  Brent

  101

  9

  8·9

  37,168

  8,647

  23·3

  Bromley

  120

  13

  10·8

  43,202

  11,515

  26·7

  Croydon

  155

  6

  3·9

  50,660

  4,549

  9·0

  Ealing

  134

  9

  6·7

  45,378

  6,122

  13·5

  Enfield

  99

  6

  6·1

  42,479

  5,725

  13·5

  Haringey

  105

  0

  0·0

  31,106

  0

  0·0

  Harrow

  83

  1

  1·2

  31,983

  483

  1·5

  Havering

  102

  4

  3·9

  35,353

  3,813

  10·8

  Hillingdon

  106

  23

  21·7

  37,753

  14,069

  37·3

  Hounslow

  88

  2

  2·3

  34,493

  2,108

  6·1

  Kingston upon Thames

  64

  5

  7·8

  21,623

  3,050

  14·1

  Merton

  76

  0

  0·0

  25,980

  0

  0·0

  Newham

  98

  1

  1·0

  40,266

  556

  1·4

  Redbridge

  89

  l

  1·1

  38,043

  1,113

  2·9

  Richmond upon Thames

  71

  0

  0·0

  25,040

  0

  0·0

  Sutton

  71

  0

  15·5

  26,232

  7,390

  28·2

  Waltham Forest

  91

  2

  2·2

  33,357

  1,915

  5·7

  Totals

  3,122

  145

  4·6

  1,056,441

  105,479

  10·0

  Footnotes to the tables

  1. The figures for total schools and pupils are estimates derived from the Department for Education's January 1993 schools' census.

  2. The figures for numbers of pupils are based on a head count of full-time and part-time pupils.
  622 623
  3. The numbers of grant-maintained schools are the totals operating in January 1994.

  4. Table A—maintained primary sector—and Table B—maintained secondary sector—exclude figures for special and independent schools. The data on these schools held by the Department cannot be divided into "primary" and "secondary".

  5. Table A and Table B include middle deemed primary and middle deemed secondary schools respectively.

  6. Table B excludes sixth form colleges as these institutions are now part of the further education sector.

  7. Table C includes maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools, and non-maintained special and independent schools.

  Expelled Pupils
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils have been expelled from secondary schools for(a) drug abuse and (b) violence in each of the London boroughs in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for each of the last 10 years are not available. Information on permanent exclusions from maintained schools in England was collected by the Department over a two-year period, starting with summer term 1990, under the national exclusions reporting system. In England, 81 pupils were excluded for drug-related offences and solvent abuse in year one and 179 in year two. The figures for physical aggression against others was 1,059 and 1,476 respectively. It is not possible to provide an area breakdown of the figure because of assurances given as to confidentiality.

  Opted-out Schools (Advertisements)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of the advertisements relating to opting out of schools which have appeared in recent editions of the Radio Times.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total cost of the recent advertising campaign, which was designed to give governors, schools and parents access to the factual information published by the Department on grant-maintained status and which ran for five weeks, was around £200,000. The advertisements appeared in The Independent, The Guardian, the Sunday Times, The Mail on Sunday, The Observer, The Times Educational Supplement, as well as the Radio Times. It is not possible to disaggregate the cost of the advertisements that appeared in the Radio Times.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many respondents there have been to the advertisements regarding the opting out of schools which appeared in recent editions of the Radio Times.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To date there have been almost 3,000 responses. The advertisements appeared in The Independent, The Guardian, the Sunday Times, The Mail on Sunday, The Observer, The Times Educational Supplement, as well as the Radio Times. Almost 500 of the responses were related to the advertisements in the Radio Times.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table giving the number of applicants per place on offer in higher education establishments in all major subject areas in September 1993.

  Mr. Boswell
  Institutions decide within the resources available to them how many students in any given subject area to admit. The ratio of home applications to acceptances/admissions through the Universities Central 624
  Council on Admissions and the polytechnics central admissions systems respectively for entry in autumn 1993 is shown.

  Subject

  UCCA1 2 Rate of applications to acceptances

  PCAS1 2 Rate of applications to admissions

  Medicine and dentistry

  10·3 : 1

  —

  Topics allied to medicine

  12·4 : 1

  11·5 : 1

  Biological sciences

  8·0 : 1

  10·8 : 1

  Agriculture and related subjects

  7·2 : 1

  3·6 : 1

  Physical sciences

  6·1 : 1

  7·6 : 1

  Mathematical sciences

  6·6 : 1

  5·1 : 1

  Engineering and technology

  6·6 : 1

  5·3 : 1

  Architecture, building and planning

  11·1 : 1

  5·6 : 1

  Social science

  10·2 : 1

  10·4 : 1

  Business and administration

  11·3 :1

  7·6 : 1

  Mass communication and documentation

  20·8 : 1

  11·0 : 1

  Languages and related studies

  7·6 : 1

  11·6 :1

  Humanities

  6·8 : 1

  11·6 : 1

  Creative arts

  13·0 : 1

  11·7 : 1

  Education

  11·6 : 1

  12·0 : 1

  Combined subjects

  8·9 : 1

  6·5 : 1

  Total

  8·8 : 1

  8·3 : 1

  Source of data:

  UCCA—Table 7 and Figure 5 from the UCCA 31st report 1992–93.

  PCAS—PCAS statistical supplement 1992–93 due to be published by UCAS in June 1994.

  Notes:

  1 For 1993 entry some 48 per cent. of all applicants to higher education through UCCA and PCAS applied to both schemes. Their applications to acceptances/admissions are included in both columns.

  2 The average number of applications per applicant is 4·2 and 3·5 for UCCA and PCAS respectively. The division of the ratios in each column by the average number of applications per applicant gives an approximate measure of the ratio of the numbers of applicants in each subject area to the numbers accepted or admitted.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many new discretionary awards were offered to students on educational courses; and what was the value of the awards in(a) England as a whole and (b) in each local education authority for the year 1992–93 and for the year 1993–94, broken down in each case for higher education level courses and further education level courses.

  Mr. Boswell
  Provisional figures for the academic year 1992–93, the latest available, indicate that 131,500 new discretionary awards were made by local education authorities in England. Information on the value of new discretionary awards is not collected centrally. Information on the numbers and value of discretionary awards made by individual local education authorities and on the level of the courses supported is not yet available.

  Suspended Teachers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) head teachers and (b) teachers were suspended in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94 following

  625
  allegations made against them by children in schools; and if he will estimate the teaching hours lost through suspensions.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not held centrally. The power to suspend teachers rests with head teachers and governing bodies of schools with delegated budgets under schemes for the local management of schools. Local education authorities have such power only in respect of school teachers employed elsewhere. Neither schools nor LEAs are required to inform the Department for Education when they suspend a teacher.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what power he has to shorten the period of office of governors of former local authority colleges of further education; what financial consequences he expects from failure by colleges to agree the new contract between the College Employers Forum and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend does not have the power to reduce the period of office of college governors except in exceptional circumstances. Under section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the affairs of any institution within the further education sector have been or are being mismanaged he may, on the recommendation of the Futher Education Funding Council, remove all or any of the members of the governing body and appoint new members in their places. Some £50 million of the Further Education Funding Council's grant will be held back in 1994–95. It will be released when college governing bodies certify that all contracts for new staff from 1 April 1994 provide adequate flexibility for the college's needs. It is for colleges to decide whether adoption of the contract recently agreed by CEF and ATL will allow them to do this.

  Education Costs
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost to public funds of the education of an average pupil at an average grant-maintained and at an average local authority secondary school in 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average recurrent spending per pupil in 1992–93 was £2,450 for grant-maintained secondary schools and is estimated as being £2,182 for local authority maintained secondary schools, reflecting the greater responsibilities of the former.

  Outdoor Education Centres
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the names, location and county of each of the outdoor education centres in England.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Disabled Student Allowance
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the take-up of the disabled student allowance; how it is administered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Mandatory awards are made by local education authorities to eligible students attending 626
  full-time first degree or comparable courses and courses of initial teacher training in the United Kingdom. The disabled students' allowances are assessed by local education authorities as part of the total maintenance requirement of mandatory award holders who are obliged, by reason of their disability, to incur additional expenditure in respect of their attendance at their courses. The total assessed value of the disabled students allowances before means-testing was £1,960,000 in 1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available. Information on the numbers of students receiving the disabled students' allowances is not available.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will list the independent schools that have been struck off the register of independent schools in the past five years, giving the date of when they were struck off;

  (2) if he will list the private and independent schools that have received a notice of complaint from his Department within the past five years with the date of issue of the notice and the number made for each school.

  Mr. Forth
  In the five years 1989–94 the registrar of independent schools has caused one school, namely Hilsea college, to be struck off the register in accordance with section 73 of the Education Act 1944.

  During the same period, eight schools have been served with notices of complaint under section 71 of the Act. It is not the Government's policy to name schools served with a notice of complaint, unless this leads to a subsequent decision that the school should be struck off the register.

  Also, during the same period, 233 schools have voluntarily removed their names from the register. In many cases, the closure of these schools followed official letters from the registrar addressing concerns about standards of accommodation, tuition and other matters which, but for the school's voluntary closure, might have led to a notice of complaint.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the private and independent schools that were inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate in the three years up to 1 September 1992, giving the date of the inspection.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A list of the independent schools inspected by HMI between 1 September 1989 and 31 August 1992 showing the date of the inspection has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the private and independent schools that have been inspected by Her Majesty's inspector of schools or the Office for Standards in Education in the past five years, giving the date of inspection, where the inspection led to a published report.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The new Government Department, the Office for Standards in Education, was created on 1 September 1992. All inspections carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate or reports published since that date are a matter for Ofsted. I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.
  627
  Those independent schools which received an Her Majesty's inspectorate inspection between 1 September 1989 and 31 August 1992 which led to published reports are as follows:

  School name

  Date of visit

  Annie Lawson School

  6 June 1990

  Nanhurst School

  30 October 1989

  Oaktree House

  11 June 1990

  Rodney School

  3 June 1991

  Stonely Grange School

  14 October 1991

  The Small School at Red House

  30 January 1992

  Wells Cathedral School

  1 December 1989

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many appeals from Doncaster education authority relating to dyslexia are being currently dealt with by his Department;

  (2) how many appeals are currently with his Department in respect of children who have been statemented by Doncaster local education authority; how many statements have been assessed; and how many children have been made the subject of formal assessment by Doncaster education authority for each of the last 10 years;

  (3) how many children have been (a) statemented and (b) formally assessed by Doncaster education authority in each year for the last 10 years, whose special need is as a result of diagnosis of dyslexia.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department is currently dealing with two appeals from parents of children with special educational needs in Doncaster. Neither of these children has dyslexia.

  Information on the number of formal assessments and statements made by Doncaster LEA, for each year since 1984, is shown in the table. Information is not available centrally on the special need or needs for which a given statement was issued.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the expected numbers of pupils in each of the new sixth forms he announced on 16 February in Departmental press notice 42/94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total numbers of pupils in the sixth forms concerned are expected to be:

  Number

  The Arnewood School, Hampshire

  236

  The Burgate School, Hampshire

  120

  Chellaston School, Derbyshire

  200

  The King John School, Essex

  282

  The Merrill Community School, Derbyshire

  100

  Ringwood School, Hampshire

  120

  Sheringham High School, Norfolk

  120

  New school for pupils aged 11 to 18 years in Halifax, Calderdale

  120

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy for lone parents to be reassessed for family credit, if their circumstances change, one month or more after the previous assessment.

  Mr. Burt
  No. Family credit awards are fixed for 26 weeks and neither increases nor decreases in income during that period are taken into account. This works to the advantage of many beneficiaries.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone mothers on family credit were affected by the regulations introduced by his Department on 7 February to reduce the maintenance payments from their former partners; and how much money on average they will lose before their family credit is reassessed.

  Mr. Burt
  We estimate that there are fewer than 1,000 families whose family credit awards have been based on a Child Support Agency maintenance assessment figure and where this maintenance may be liable to reduction as a result of the recent child support changes. We estimate that the average loss per family will be under £100 in total. However, those families entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit, or who become entitled following changes in maintenance, could recover up to 85 per cent. of their loss through an increase of those benefits.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will reimburse lone mothers at their next assessment for family credit for loss of income incurred as a result of the regulations introduced on 7 February to reduce the level of maintenance payments from their former partners;

  (2) whether he will ensure that funds will be made available to reimburse lone parents on family credit for losses incurred in income as a result of DSS regulations introduced on 7 February to reduce the level of maintenance payments from their former partners.

  Mr. Burt
  Family credit awards are fixed for 26 weeks and neither increases or decreases in income during that period are taken into account. This works to the advantage of many beneficiaries. Any reduction in maintenance during the period of a family credit award will be taken into account in assessing the renewal award. However, those families entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit, or who become entitled following changes in maintenance, could recover up to 85 per cent. of any loss through an increase of those benefits.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of new furniture for his private office during the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no new furniture for his private office in 1993–94.

  Income Support (Further Education)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will amend regulations so as to ensure that parents on income support receiving allowances and
  629
  benefits on account of their children in further education should continue to receive the allowances after the children turn 19 until the end of the young person's course of study;

  (2) what study he has made of the effect of the withdrawal from parents on income support of benefits and allowances in respect of young people following courses in further education, when those young people reach the age of 19 years; and how many students then give up their courses as a result.

  Mr. Burt
  We believe that young people remaining at school after their 19th birthday to complete their studies, and their families, should turn for any necessary additional financial assistance to the sources of funding available through the educational maintenance system.

  The information requested about the numbers involved is not available.

  Industrial Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount was recovered, under section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989, from the damages paid to victims of industrial injury for(a) the Doncaster area, (b) South Yorkshire as a whole by year for the last four years and (c) the current year to date.

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what schemes he has launched to compensate disabled people for the increased value added tax being introduced from 1 April.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of the extra help in respect of VAT on domestic fuel were given in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on 30 November 1993 at columns 437–38.

  Prisoners (Resettlement Grants)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what guidance is given to social fund officers regarding the priority given to resettlement grants to those leaving prison;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that resettlement grants to those leaving prison are given high priority in all areas of the country.

  Mr. Scott
  People leaving prison are among those specifically included in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's list of groups normally to be given priority for community care grants. Guidance on priority groups is contained in the social fund guide, in the Library. However, it is for each individual social fund officer, who acts independently, to decide the priority of an application after fully considering all the circumstances of the particular case.

  Pensions
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the cost to date to public funds of the incentive for contracting out pensions.

  Mr. Hague
  The cost to the national insurance fund to date of the 2 per cent. incentive to newly contracted-out pensions is estimated at £.3·6 billion.
  630
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many rebate-only personal pensions have been sold since they were introduced; what is the estimated administrative expense involved in each case; what controls there are over administrative expenses in such cases; and what requirements as to warnings to purchasers comparing the risks and expense overheads compared with the state earnings-related pension scheme have been made by the DSS.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. Since 1988, the Contributions Agency has received 6,456,901 applications to contract out of SERPS by way of an appropriate personal pension—although the number of APP holders in any one year would be less than that. Inland Revenue data suggest that, in the financial year 1991–92, 2·1 million APP holders made payments in addition to the DSS contribution. Information about the administrative expenses connected with those pensions is not available. Rules on the marketing of personal pensions and other investment products are a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the estimated total administrative expense of appropriate personal pensions and the equivalent anticipated administrative expenses for the contracted-out cohort through the national insurance fund.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available.

  Benefits, London
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently receiving(a) attendance allowance, (b) disability allowance, (c) family credit, (d) income support, (e) invalidity benefit and (f) sickness benefit in each of the London boroughs; and what were the respective figures for 1990.

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

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for the Lewisham area the number of people who will be affected by the decision to reduce the entitlement to unemployment benefit from 12 months to six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) on 18 January at column 559.

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much financial assistance will be made available by the Government to individual residents of sheltered housing units with communal facilities to help them meet increased costs resulting from the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel.

  Mr. Burt
  People in sheltered housing may be entitled to receive any of the wide range of social security benefits that are available, subject to individual circumstances.
  631
  Details of the extra help in respect of VAT on domestic fuel were given in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on 30 November 1993 at columns 437–38.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many residents in sheltered housing units with communal facilities will be eligible for extra financial assistance from the Government to help meet increased costs resulting from the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel(a) in London and (b) in Lewisham; and how many such residents there are in total (i) in London and (ii) in Lewisham.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of existing recipients of invalidity benefit in the Doncaster area who will be disqualified under the new capacity test.

  Mr. Scott
  Numbers cannot be reliably estimated at this stage, but our current estimate is that around 200,000 of the people who will initially transfer to incapacity benefit from invalidity benefit may fail to satisfy the test within the first two years. The estimate cannot be broken down by district.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, following consultation, he has reached a decision on the proposals to exclude death or disablement caused by a smoking or alcohol-related disease from the scope of the war pensions scheme.

  Mr. Hague
  Following consultation, we have decided to go ahead with the change but with a significant easement. We originally proposed to except from the exclusion any individual who suffered from a service-related mental disablement that was assessed at 80 per cent. or more and therefore caused him to smoke or drink.

  We have decided to set the minimum level of mental disablement that will be considered at 50 per cent. Individual claims will still be subject to the further test that, whatever the assessed level of disablement, it must also cause the individual to smoke, or prevent him from giving up.

  An amending order will be laid shortly.

  Unemployed People (Voluntary Organisations)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the rules allowing the unemployed to work for voluntary organisations which engage in political activities.

  Mr. Hague
  The rules governing benefits for unemployment allow unemployed people to undertake voluntary work for voluntary bodies without losing benefit, provided that they remain available for and actively seeking work. The Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment Regulations 1993 define a voluntary body as"a body the activities of which ale carried out otherwise than for the purpose of profit".

  We have no plans to review these rules.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many public interest immunity certificates he has signed in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Hague
  No Secretary of State for Social Security has signed a public interest immunity certificate since 1990.

WALES

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were not on waiting lists for treatment but waiting to see a specialist in the NHS on 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October of each year since 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The following table gives the number of people waiting for a first out-patient attendance at Welsh hospitals for each available date since 31 March 1990. Such information is collected centrally for 31 March and 30 September only.

  Number of people waiting for a first out patient attendance

  Number

  31 March 1990

  83,151

  30 September 1990

  91,403

  31 March 1991

  86,653

  30 September 1991

  96,078

  31 March 1992

  97,109

  30 September 1992

  113,044

  31 March 1993

  118,853

  30 September 1993

  127,802

  Work of Equal Value
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the past and current number of equal value cases in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, the table shows the numbers of all equal pay cases—which included equal value cases—dealt with by the Cardiff regional office of the industrial tribunals in the period April 1985 to 31 March 1993.

  Applications registered

  1985–86

  6

  1986–87

  7

  1987–88

  96

  1988–89

  12

  1989–90

  12

  1990–91

  36

  1991–92

  17

  1992–93

  60

  The Cardiff region of the industrial tribunals currently serves the whole of Wales, together with parts of Shropshire and Herefordshire. Prior to January 1986, the Birmingham office included part of the current Cardiff region in its catchment area. In addition, prior to 1987, the former regional office at Liverpool served the north Wales area.

  Minimum Wages Protection
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on minimum wages protection in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Statutory minimum wage fixing, in Wales or elsewhere, distorts the operation of the labour market and destroys jobs.

  Tourism
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he had with the chairman of the Welsh tourist board over the choice of the Welsh celebrities chosen to feature on the posters and other advertising literature used to attract visitors to Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will be seeking public consultation on the options presented to him by the forestry review group.

  Mr. Redwood
  We are now considering the forestry review group's report; the form and timing of consultation will depend on the conclusions which we draw from it.

  Outdoor Education Centres
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names, location and county of each of the outdoor education centres in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has as to the number of surplus school places; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish for each education authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole, his Department's assessment of surplus school places in (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools for the latest available year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department's estimate of the number of surplus school places as at January 1993 is as follows:

  Local education authority

  Primary

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  7,676

  2,110

  Dyfed

  8,827

  1,147

  Gwent

  7,453

  9,133

  Gwynedd

  4,435

  4,355

  Mid Glamorgan

  13,027

  5,952

  Powys

  3,173

  1,581

  South Glamorgan

  8,491

  6,363

  West Glamorgan

  11,318

  6,321

  WALES

  64,400

  36,962

  Local authorities will recognise that removal of unwanted surplus school places would release significant resources for redeployment in other areas of the education service.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of the efficiency scrutiny of the monitoring arrangements for sponsoring non-departmental public bodies in Wales carried out during 1993 by the Prime Minister's efficiency unit.

  Mr. Redwood
  When I have considered the report's recommendations and what action is needed, I will place a copy, together with my plans for implementing them, in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those non-departmental public bodies which have not had a financial management and policy review for more than five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  All executive NDPBs are subject to financial management and policy reviews at five-year intervals. The reviews due by or in the current financial year have been completed or are in the process of being carried out, with the exception of the Curriculum Council for Wales and the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. The Curriculum Council for Wales is to be replaced from 1 April this year by the new Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales. The review of the Welsh national board has been postponed pending decisions on reviews on the analogous English, Scottish and Northern Irish boards.

  NHS Accounting Officer
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who will be the accounting officer for the expenditure on the national health service in Wales subsequent to the planned merger between the national health service directorate in Wales and his Department's health policy division; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Mr. Peter Gregory.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the initial external financial limit for each of the existing and new national health service trusts in Wales for the year commencing April 1994; and if he will give the level of capital spending agreed for each trust for the same financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  I shall be issuing details of the provisional 1994–95 external financing limits for each of the existing and new NHS trusts in Wales shortly.

  Conflicts of Interest (Advice)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 596, if he will specify the date on which he will place in the Library the relevant advice and guidance on conflicts of interest.

  Mr. Redwood
  A copy of the relevant guidance was placed in the Library of the House on 14 March.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many public interest immunity certificates he has signed in each year since 1990.
  635
  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Industrial Business Allowances
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those projects in Wales that have received industrial business allowances.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not collected centrally. In any case, normal taxpayer confidentiality rules would rule out publication.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Lambeth have been unemployed for more than two years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  For the Lambeth local authority district, 5,907 on the unadjusted claimant count basis in January 1994.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployed men in the Liverpool travel-to-work area; and what proportion of these have never worked at all.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The figure was 55,846 on the unadjusted basis in January 1994. The claimant unemployment count does not record details of previous employment history.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of youth unemployment in the Doncaster area and the level 12 months ago.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the Doncaster travel-to-work area unadjusted claimant unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds has fallen by 15 per cent. in the past year, from 5,065 in January 1993 to 4,301 in January 1994.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of people who are unemployed but who do not appear in his Department's claimant count of unemployed people for January.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The claimant measure and the International Labour Organisation recommended measure both show falling unemployment in the United Kingdom, at about 2·8 million.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from individual members of trade unions arguing that the trade union legislation since 1979 should be repealed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Hardly any.

  Redundant Miners
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the employment prospects of miners made redundant as the result of recent colliery closures.
  636
  Miss Widdecombe
  British Coal Enterprise is very active in resettling ex-mineworkers, with success rates of 85 per cent. 12 months since pits have closed.

  BCE is continuing its valuable and successful resettlement efforts for all ex-mineworkers.

  North Norfolk Action
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a progress report on North Norfolk Action.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Early indications are that North Norfolk Action is successfully achieving its aim of helping unemployed people back into work or into further training.

  Astra Training Agency
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department will make a statement on the implications for training provision and the losses to the public purse of the privatisation and subsequent bankruptcy of the Astra training agency.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The receivership of Astra Training Services has had no implications for training provision, as training and enterprise councils have found alternative training for those affected. Astra was losing £30 million a year before privatisation. The Department is now a creditor of Astra for the statutory payments made by the redundancy payments service to those employees made redundant. It is therefore too early to say what the net cost will be.

  Health and Safety
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which health and safety at work regulations he considers to be a burden on business.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is among the questions that I have put to the Health and Safety Commission and I am awaiting its advice.

  Confederation of British Industry
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives of the CBI to discuss problems in the labour market.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Howard Davies on 18 February.

  ABB Transportation Ltd.
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the workers made redundant last year by ABB Transportation Ltd. in York received the unemployment benefits to which they are entitled.

  Miss Widdecombe
  So far as I am aware, there are no outstanding cases of clients not having received unemployment benefit to which they are entitled.

  Maximum Working Week
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received in support of a statutory maximum working week of 35 hours.
  637
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. Statutory controls of this type serve only to destroy jobs and the prosperity of workers.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of persons in full-time work on 1 January.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In September 1993 there were 17,427,000 full-time workers in Great Britain. December 1993 figures will be published tomorrow.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the proportions of full-time adult manual workers, full-time adult non-manual workers, and all full-time adult workers with earnings, including overtime, of less than(a) £100, (b) £120, (c) £140, (d) £160, (e) £180, (f) £200 and (g) £220 per week in the Doncaster area; and if he will provide separate figures for males and females.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available from the new earnings survey is for South Yorkshire and is as follows:

  Full-time employees on adult rates in the county of South Yorkshire—pay unaffected by absence: proportion with gross weekly earnings (including overtime) below the following amounts: at April 1993

  Amount

  Male

  Female

  All

  Manual employees

  £100

  0·5

  4·5

  1·1

  £120

  1·7

  19·2

  4·5

  £140

  4·7

  37·2

  9·8

  £160

  9·0

  48·7

  15·3

  £180

  13·2

  62·8

  21·1

  £200

  21·8

  79·5

  30·9

  £220

  29·7

  86·5

  38·7

  Non-manual employees

  £100

  0·5

  1·6

  1·0

  £120

  1·4

  5·1

  3·1

  £140

  3·3

  11·2

  6·9

  £160

  6·2

  20·6

  12·7

  £180

  8·5

  29·3

  17·9

  £200

  12·8

  39·7

  25·0

  £220

  17·5

  50·2

  32·3

  All employees

  £100

  0·5

  2·1

  1·0

  £120

  1·6

  7·9

  3·6

  £140

  4·0

  16·2

  8·1

  £160

  7·6

  26·1

  13·8

  £180

  10·9

  35·8

  19·2

  £200

  17·4

  47·4

  27·4

  £220

  23·8

  57·3

  34·9

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average wage of(a) males and (b) females in part-time employment in the Doncaster area for each year since 1979, and this year to date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available from the new earnings survey for part-time female employees in the county of South Yorkshire is shown in the following table. There were too few part-time male employees in the new earnings survey samples for reliable figures to be produced.
  638

  Average gross weekly earnings for part-time females in the county of South Yorkshire for the years 1979 to 1993 inclusive

  Year

  Average gross weekly earnings part-time female £

  1979

  25·2

  1980

  32·5

  1981

  35·1

  1982

  38·3

  1983

  41·5

  1984

  44·1

  1985

  47·3

  1986

  49·8

  1987

  52·7

  1988

  56·0

  1989

  64·9

  1990

  72·6

  1991

  78·5

  1992

  88·2

  1993

  89·4

  Job Creation
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of differences in levels of job creation in the USA since 1980 and job creation in the European Community over the same period, in both the private and public sectors.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Between 1980 and 1991 the USA created over 17·5 million jobs, mostly in the private sector, while the EC created 6·5 million jobs, mostly in the public sector.

  Mountain Search and Rescue
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve the employment and training prospects of people engaged in mountain search and rescue-related activity.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I very much welcome the role volunteers play in a wide range of activities, including mountain rescue, and would encourage employers to recognise the value of volunteering not just to the community but to their own business.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made in changes in patterns of employment as a result of local government reform.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is for local authorities to decide their own staffing structures.

  Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent by his Department for training in England in each year since 1989–90, the expected outturn in 1993–94, and plans for 1994–95 in 1993–94 prices and cash terms.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the following table:
  639

  Training expenditure 1989–90 to 1993–94 and plans for 1994–95 at 1993–94 prices, England1 2

  £ million

  1989–90

  Cash

  2,240

  Real terms

  2,760

  1990–91

  Cash

  2,053

  Real terms

  2,340

  1991–92

  Cash

  1,906

  Real terms

  2,043

  1992–93

  Cash

  1,869

  Real terms

  1,930

  1993–94

  Estimated outturn

  1,938

  1994–95

  (Plans)3

  Cash

  1,892

  Real terms

  1,819

  1 Excludes European social fund.

  2Excludes administration/running costs.

  3 Excludes programmes transferring to the single regeneration budget.

  Since 1989–90, approaching 1 million young people have entered youth training. An estimated 133,000 have been helped in 1993–94; plans for 1994–95 are for 147,000 young people to enter the programme. YT funding for 1994–95 will be £692 million, which is £50 million more than the training and enterprise councils are forecast to spend this year. Further increases are planned for future years.

  Training for work and its predecessors have helped almost 1·5 million unemployed people since 1989–90. Expenditure on TFW in England in 1994–95 will be £705 million: 115,000 places will be provided and 273,000 long-term unemployed people will be helped, compared with 240,000 in 1993–94.

  In addition, this of course excludes money raised by TECs themselves, and the estimated £20 billion spent by employers on training each year.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent by his Department for training in Great Britain in each year since 1989–90, the expected outturn in 1993–94 and plans for 1994–95 in 1993–94 prices and cash terms.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures include training programme expenditure and administrative running costs.

  Training expenditure 1989–90 to 1993–94 andplans for 1994–95 at 1993–94 prices—Great Britain

  £ million

  1989–90

  Cash

  2,940

  Real terms

  3,622

  1990–91

  Cash

  2,802

  Real terms

  3,194

  1991–92

  Cash

  2,694

  Real terms

  2,888

  640

  £ million

  1992–93

  Cash

  2,693

  Real terms

  2,781

  1993–94

  Estimated outturn

  2,828

  Total planned expenditure for 1994–95 is available for England only. Planned expenditure for Wales and Scotland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of females in Wales affected by the abolition of the wages councils.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It was estimated that in 1992 there were some 120,000 workers, men and women aged 21 or over, in Wales covered by the wages councils. Estimates of the number of women formerly covered by the councils in the constituent parts of Great Britain are not available.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the Central Arbitration Committee.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The members of the Central Arbitration Committee on 10 March 1994 were:

  Sir John Wood (Chairman)

  Professor S. Kessler (Deputy Chairman)

  Mr. S. McDowall (Deputy Chairman)

  Professor R. W. Rideout (Deputy Chairman)

  Ms S. Rothwell (Deputy Chairman)

  Mr. D. Sawbridge (Deputy Chairman)

  Miss S. R. Corby

  Mr. L. D. Cowan

  Mr. G. L. Dennis

  Ms B. Hillon

  Miss I. Innes

  Mrs. T. Marsland

  Miss A. Minto

  Mr. P. Moseley

  Professor A. J. Pointon

  Mr. A. E. Powell

  Mr. P. N. Scott

  Mr. D. A. P. Staines

  Miss D. Whittingham

  Mr. G. Wright

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The members of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Council on 10 March 1994 were:

  Mr. J. W. Hougham (Chairman)

  Mrs. O. Aikin

  Mr. G.J. Armstrong

  Mr. J. W. Edmonds

  Professor J. F. B. Goodman

  Mr. W.Jordan

  Mr. W.B. Keates

  Mr. W. J. Knox

  Mr. J. S. Monks

  Professor A. J. Pointon

  Mrs. C. Wells

  641
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to Remploy Ltd.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The members of Remploy's board are as follows:

  The two officers are:

  Chairman David Heywood

  Chief Executive Tony Whithey

  There are three executive directors:

  Simon Norris

  Kenneth Taylor

  Maurice Westbrook

  and six non-executive directors:

  William Bogie

  Derek Boothman

  Roy Jackson

  Jennifer Laing

  John Ramsey

  Ann Roberts

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The members of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal on 10 March 1994 were:

  Sir David Calcutt (Chairman)

  Mr. D. J. Burt OBE

  Mr. L. D. Cowan

  Mr. J. R. Crosby

  Mr. J. D. Hughes

  Lord McCarthy

  Mr. D. Robinson

  Mrs. J. C. Rubin

  Lord Wedderburn

  Mr. G. E. Yates

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The members currently appointed by the Secretary of State to the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board are as follows:

  CHAIRMAN

  N. N. W. Dunlop—Director, Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd.

  MEMBERS

  A. Y. Innes—Managing Director, Babcock Construction Ltd.

  A. McPherson—Regional Contracts Director, Press Offshore Ltd.

  R. S. Miller—Managing Director, Octavius Atkinson and Sons Ltd.

  J. A. Murphy—Managing Director, Motherwell Bridge Construction Group.

  M. O'Reilly—Managing Director, Caxios Ltd.

  J. B. Orr MBE—International Projects Director, Davy Metals

  T. D. Sullivan—Director of Construction, NEI. International Combustion Ltd.

  R. F. Wood—Managing Director, Jordan Engineering UK Ltd.

  D. N. Odling—Director of Sales and Marketing, AOC International Ltd.

  W. A. French—Assistant Principal, Falkirk College of Technology.

  D. Hewitt—National Secretary, GMB Technical Craft Section

  T. Maclean—National Secretary, Construction Section, Amalgamated Engineering Union.

  M. L Morton—Director, Oil and Chemical Plan Constructors' Association.

  J. G. Porter—Director, National Engineering Construction Employers's Association.

  A. C. Probert—Senior Consultant, Industrial Relations, BP Engineering.

  642

  R. B. Williams—Manager, Project services Branch, PowerGen PLC.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the Construction Industry Training Board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The members currently appointed by the Secretary of State to the Construction Industry Training Board are as follows:

  Chairman

  Sir Clifford Chetwood

  Deputy Chairman

  H. W. Try-Chairman, Try Group Plc.

  Members

  P. F. R. Backaller—Managing Director, Stribley and Backaller (Builders) Ltd.

  A. J. Barry—Chairman, Commercial Finishing Contractors Group.

  I. Dixon, CBE—Chairman, Wilmott Dixon Ltd.

  J. R. T. Douglas, OBE—Chairman, Tilbury Douglas Plc.

  A. N. Duncan—Chairman, Duncan Group (Scotland) Ltd.

  G. M. Fordy—Chairman and Chief Executive, The FT Construction Group.

  P. Joyner—Managing Director, A. Joyner Ltd.

  I. M. McAlpine—Director (Midland Operations), Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons Ltd.

  D. McGinley—Managing Director, McGinley Construction Services Ltd.

  G. Thomas—Managing Director, Dyfed Joinery (Wales) Ltd.

  B. G. Tierney—Director, R. F. Peachey and Sons Ltd.

  Mrs. M. Todd—Chairman, A. E. Burt and Co. Ltd.

  G. B. Brumwell—General Secretary, UCATT.

  G. P. Henderson—National Building Secretary, TGWU.

  W. Duthie—Deputy Principal, Glasgow College of Building and Printing.

  Professor M. Romans—Executive Dean, Faculty of the Environment, University of Westminster.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently employed to the Sheltered Employment Consultative Group.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, dated 15 March 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Employment has asked me to reply to your question asking who are the members, currently appointed to the Sheltered Employment Consultative Group.

  Members' names are shown below:

  Mr. M. A. Barrett, OBE, Mr. D. Bradford, Mr. R. Bridges, MBE, Mr. K. Metcalf, Mr. J. Gallagher, Councillor A. Keenan, Mr. R. McManus, Mr. G. W. Mann, Councillor W. Minto, OBE, Mr. S. Norris, Mr. F. Rankin, Mr. G. H. Robins, Mr. R. Winter.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The members currently appointed to the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities are:

  Council chairman:

  Mr. Alan Smith, MBE, FIPM, FBIM, FinstD

  Members representing employers:

  Ms Julie Mellor

  643

  Mr. Roger Spoor, OBE, RD, DCL(Hon), DL, FCA

  Mr. Alan Wild, BA(Hons), MIPM

  Members representing workers:

  Mr. William Anderson, BSc(Econ), FLA

  Mr. Richard Exell

  Mr. Peter Gallant, BSc, ARCS, C Chem, FRSC

  Independent members:

  Professor Ian Bruce, BSocSC, FBIM

  Mr. John Denholm

  Dr. Ann Fingret, MBBS, MFOM

  Sir Peter Large

  Mr. Peter MacDonald

  Mr. Bert Massie, OBE

  Dr. Clive Morton, OBE, CEng, MICE, MIPM

  Mr. Tim Papé, BSc

  Ms Susan Scott-Parker, BA

  Ms Dianah Worman

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the Health and Safety Commission.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Commission has a chairman, Mr. Frank Davies, and nine members: Eddie Carrick, Christopher Chope, Paul Gallagher, Peter Jacques, Nigel Pitcher, Geraldine Schofield, Rex Symons, Alan Tuffin and Dame Rachel Waterhouse.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The current members of the Equal Opportunities Council are as follows:

  Ms Kamlesh Bahl—Chairwoman

  Mrs. June Bridgeman—Deputy Chairwoman

  Ms Noren Bray—Director, Good Relations Limited

  Lady Brittan—Deputy Chair, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Ms Anne Gibson—National Officer, MSF

  Ms Bernadette Hillon—National Women's Officer, USDAW

  Mrs. Barbara Kelly—Partner in mixed dairy farming enterprise

  Mr. Clive Mather—Director of Personnel and Administration, Shell UK Limited

  Miss Anne Watts—Equal Opportunities Director, Midland Bank

  Ms Cecilia Wells—Consultant in Human Resources

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The members currently appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications are as follows:

  CHAIRMAN

  Mr. Michael Heron—Chairman, the Post Office.

  MEMBERS

  Mr. John Barnes—Senior Lecturer in Political Science, London School of Economics and Political Science.

  Dr. John Capey OBE—Principal, Exeter College.

  Professor Raymond Cowell—Vice-Chancellor, the Nottingham Trent University.

  Mr. David Gwyther—Chairman, Somerset Training and Enterprise Council.

  Mr. PeterHill—Ex-Managing Director, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars.

  Mr. John Hillier (ex-officio member)—Chief Executive, NCVQ.

  Ms Prudence Leith OBE—Managing Director, Prudence Leith Ltd.

  Mr. Kevin Lyden—Managing Director, Shotton Paper Company Ltd.

  Mr. Leif Mills—General Secretary, Banking Insurance and Finance Union.

  Mr. John Randall—Director, Professional Standards and Development Directorate, the Law Society.

  Ms Ruth Silver—Principal, Lewisham College.

  Dr. John Spece OBE—Chairman, Training and Employment Agency, Belfast.

  644

  Mr. George Stevenson—Managing Director, Mathiesons Family Bakers.

  Immigrants (Employment)
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet his European counterparts to discuss the prospects for employment of legal immigrants from outside the Community.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State next expects to meet his European counterparts at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 19 April 1994. A range of employment matters will be under discussion in the context of the follow up to the White Paper on "Growth, Competitiveness and Employment". Commissioner Flynn's Green Paper on social policy, which makes passing reference to improving employment opportunities for legal immigrants, may also be discussed.

  Union Levies
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the Trades Union Congress general secretary to discuss union levies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no plans for a meeting to discuss union levies. A trade union does not need a political fund levy unless it wishes to spend money on electoral or other party political activities.

  Pathfinder Career Service
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what factors have prevented the signing of contracts with tenderers for the Pathfinder career service; and what steps he is taking to overcome them.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Negotiations with organisations tendering to provide careers services are progressing well.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many contracts have now been signed with tenderers for the Pathfinder careers service; when any out-standing contracts will be signed; and if it is his policy that all the career services where tenders were received will be contracted out to tenderers; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The negotiations are of a commercial nature and are being treated in confidence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce those organisations with which he will contract when negotiations are finalised.

  Outdoor Education Centres
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to start the inspection of outdoor education centres; and when the first report will be available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive and local authorities both inspect outdoor activity centres, including outdoor education centres, as part of their routine work. The special programme of visits to outdoor activity centres will start on 1 April 1994 as the outdoor pursuit season gets under way. I will let the House know immediately if any areas of significant concern emerge. A report of the findings of the visits will be made available in spring 1995.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the record of the skill centres in the east midlands since privatisation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The Employment Department has not contracted with the former skill centres since privatisation.

  Former skill centres which have delivered Government training programmes under contract to training and enterprise councils will have been subject to the same financial and quality assurance checks as other providers.

  Beyond this, the Employment Department has not undertaken any specific assessment of their record in the east midlands.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Air Miles
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidance exists for the use of free air miles accrued by civil servants on official business.

  Chairmen

  Chief executives

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  Sir Alistair Grant

  Professor Tom Blundell FRS

  Engineering and Physical Science Research Council

  Dr. Alan Rudge, OBE, FRS, FEng

  Professor Richard Brook, OBE

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Dr. Bruce Smith, OBE

  Professor Howard Newby

  Medical Research Council

  Sir David Plastow

  Sir Dai Rees, FRS

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Mr. Robert Malpas, CBE, FEng

  Professor John Krebs, FRS

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  Dr. Peter Williams, CBE

  Professor Kenneth Pounds, CBE, FRS

  The councils will be under the general direction of Sir John Cadogan, CBEHon, FEng, FRS, the first Director General of Research Councils. Sir John and the chairmen and chief executives will have a vital role. They will be working together to implement the Government's strategy for science engineering and technology as set out in the 1993 White Paper "Realising our Potential"—Cm 2250.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many occasions he has knowingly offered incomplete information in an answer to a parliamentary question; and on what subjects.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I answer parliamentary questions on the basis set out in paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". I also seek to comply with the Speaker's guidance on the need for brief answers to oral questions.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Prime Minister whether it will be for Lord Justice Scott to decide on the timing of the publication of his report.

  The Prime Minister
  As I said when I announced the terms of reference for the inquiry,Official Report, 16 November 1992, columns 74–75, Lord Justice Scott will be entirely free to decide on the publication of his report. The inquiry will report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  646
  Mr. David Davis
  It has recently been decided that the benefits of frequent fly and similar schemes deriving from expenditure on official business should be used only for official travel or forgone. Departments have been asked to issue guidance to their staff to implement that decision.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many public interest immunity certificates he has signed in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he can report in making senior appointments to the new research council system.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The appointments procedure has been completed. From 1 April 1994 the part-time non-executive chairmen and full-time chief executives of the six research councils will be:

  Tigris and Euphrates Valleys
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with President Clinton during his visit to the United States from 27 February to 1 March on malnutrition-related disease in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

  The Prime Minister
  We are in regular contact with the United States about Iraqi issues in general.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.

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

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will instruct the relevant Department to place in the Library copies of all telexes made the subject of public interest immunity certificates in the case of Mr. Lorrain Osman; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the contents of classified documents concerning the international relations of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Prime Minister how many public interest immunity certificates he has signed in each year since 1990.
  647
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 3 March 1994,Official Report, column 803.

  Constituency Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister how much notice his Office gives to hon. Members prior to visits made to hon. Members' constituencies.

  The Prime Minister
  My Office contacts all hon. Members whose constituencies I visit as part of my regional tours. In the light of security arrangements which have to be made for these visits, advance notice for hon. Members may have to be restricted to 24 hours.

  Council of Europe and Western European Union
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union, which has been sent to him.

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so.

TRANSPORT

  Driving School Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he is undertaking a review of the number, status or distribution of locations at which the Driving Standards Agency has a presence;

  (2) how many whole-stime equivalents staff were in post in the Driving Standards Agency (a) at 1 April 1993 and (b) currently; if he will give their locations; and how many of these staff are affected by the market testing of booking and finance functions.

  Driving Standards Agency—Regional Staff in Post as at 31 December 1993

  Grade

  North East

  North West

  West Midlands

  East Nottinghamshire1

  East Cambridgeshire1

  Wales

  West

  South East

  Scotland

  Metropolitan

  SEO

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  HEO

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1·5

  EO

  4

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  5

  AO

  13·5

  6

  5

  3–5

  3

  5·4

  4

  8

  5

  18

  AA

  28·5

  18

  13

  10

  6·5

  11·2

  6·25

  15·5

  11

  39·5

  Typist

  1

  0

  0

  0·5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1·5

  Support

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  P. Keeper

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Telephonist

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  51

  28

  21

  17

  11·5

  19·6

  12·25

  27·5

  19

  69·5

  1 A further 22 staff located in the headquarters office in Nottingham are partially engaged in providing finance services for the driver test booking services in Nottingham and Cambridge.

  Flights (Poland)
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the situation regarding the resumption of flights to and from Poland by Lot and British Airways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I am delighted that we have now settled the dispute in a way which is satisfactory to both sides. It has been agreed that direct services between the United Kingdom and Poland can resume from 13 March. The agreement creates enhanced opportunities for the airlines.
  648
  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.

  Letter from Dr. S. J. Ford to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 14 March 1994:

  DRIVING STANDARDS AGENCY

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to the questions you have raised about certain of DSA's operations.

  PQ 1563/93/94

  You asked about DSA staffing levels both at 1 April 1993 and currently, and how many of these staff would be affected by the market testing of booking and finance functions.

  The Agency currently employs 1,829 full time equivalent staff, this compares with a total of 1,810 at 1 April 1993. These staff are located across GB at the Agency's headquarters in Nottingham, 10 regional offices and a network of nearly 500 test centres. The staff who are affected, directly or indirectly, by the market test are those identified in the attached schedule. (The figures quoted are for December 1993, but there has been no change since then.)

  PQ 1577/93/94 224

  You also asked whether a review of Driving Standards Agency locations is being undertaken. The Driving Standards Agency has a continuing responsibility to deliver its service in the most cost-effective way. In this context, I have a responsibility to keep the number, status and distribution of its operating locations under constant review.

  I recently wrote to Members of Parliament with a constituency about the planned closure of 22 of DSA's 486 driving test centres. No further closures are planned, although the Agency must continue to review its network to meet business and demographic changes.

  The principal activity of its ten regional offices is booking driving tests. This operation is currently the subject of a market testing exercise. It is not possible at this stage to anticipate the result of the market test, but a possible outcome could be a change in the number and location of the offices required to deliver the service.

  It will, for instance, allow British Airways to phase in increased services over the next 12 months. This is good not only for the airlines: travellers will benefit, too, from greater choice.

  North Circular Road
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing all correspondence between his Department and Barnet council regarding the proposed sale by the council to his Department of land adjacent to Coppetts wood in Finchley which is now proposed to be given as exchange land for
  649
  (a) widening the north circular road east of Fallodert way and (b) widening the north circular at Regent's Park road and Great North way, showing (i) the date of each piece of correspondence. (ii) the sender and recipient and (iii) the nature of each piece of correspondence; whether it was his Department or the council which first suggested the sale of the land to his Department; on what date the sale was completed; and how much was paid to the council for the land.

  Mr. Norris
  The exchange land at Coppetts wood is the subject of compulsory purchase orders and exchange land certificates. The orders were made and the certificates were issued after consideration by an independent inspector at public inquiry.

  I am placing the information requested in the Library. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 February 1994, at columns 466–69.

  The suggestion that land adjacent to Coppetts wood be acquired for use as exchange land was made first by my Department in 1985.

  Purchase of the land adjacent to Coppetts wood forms part of a larger transaction between the Department and Barnet council and completion has not taken place. The price to be paid is the subject of negotiations between the council and the district valuer who is acting for the Department.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what property, leased or owned for the purposes of his Department, is not currently occupied.

  Mr. Norris
  The position is as follows:

  Her Majesty's Coastguard:

  30 properties are vacant pending disposal as a result of estate rationalisation.

  Driving Standards Agency:

  One building is vacant and for sale.

  Ports:

  Two buildings are vacant and will be sold shortly.

  Transport Research Laboratory:

  Two buildings are vacant.

  Highways Safety and Traffic Command: at 31 December 1993, 815 properties acquired for the national roads programme were vacant. Of these 204 were classified as lettable. The rest were awaiting demolition or in the process of being sold or otherwise not suitable for letting.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he is to have with Wandsworth borough council on the proposed increase in aircraft traffic flying into Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  On 10 November 1993 we issued a consultation paper on night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports for summer 1994 and for winter 1994–95 to summer 1998. A written response has been received from Wandsworth borough council and will be taken into account, along with all other responses received, in reaching a decision on the restrictions to apply from winter 1994–95 onwards. No discussions have been requested by Wandsworth borough council.

  Airport Runways
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the length of the runways at(a) Leeds Bradford and (b) Humberside airports.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is as follows:

  Leeds Bradford airport

  Runway 10/28—1,100 metres

  Runway 14/32—2,250 metres

  Humberside airport

  Runway 03/21—2,230 metres

  Runway 09/27—1,054 metres

  Source: Pooley's Flight Guide 1994.

  Coaches
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the checks that are made to ensure that coaches of 18 or 19 tonnes registered in other European countries are not operating on United Kingdom roads.

  Mr. Key
  Only coaches with three axles may operate legally on British roads at weights over 17 tonnes. The Vehicle Inspectorate has powers to weigh and prohibit coaches operating on British roads in excess of the weights permitted by British regulations. During 1993 the Vehicle Inspectorate carried out a special weighing exercise targeting international traffic. A total of 402 vehicles were stopped, of these 80 were foreign. Of the 13 foreign vehicles prohibited, 10 were registered in EC states.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in the last year for which figures are available coaches of 18 or 19 tonnes registered in other European countries were found to be operating on United Kingdom roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My Department does not collate statistics on the number of foreign coaches of 18 or 19 tonnes operating on British roads. Only coaches with three axles may legally operate over 17 tonnes on British roads. Two-axle coaches are restricted to 17 tonnes.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice his Department has given to licence applicants in the restricted HGV taxation class.

  Mr. Key
  Since September 1993 all operators of vehicles licensed in the restricted HGV taxation class have been given advice on relicensing procedures with their licence renewal reminders. Trade associations have also been kept informed of changes in procedures.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the prohibition orders issued and the dates they were issued in respect of licence No. OB 19 5660 in Pudsey; if he will provide details of the latest licence issued; and what are the outstanding requirements the operator must comply with; and what further monitoring has been undertaken;

  (2) who made representations against the issue of a licence to heavy goods vehicle operator licence No. OB19 5660 in Pudsey.

  Mr. Key
  Decisions on, and advice given about, individual operators' licences are the responsibility of the Traffic Commissioners. I have asked the Traffic Commissioner for the North Eastern traffic area to write to the hon. Member.

  Aircraft Landing Charges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing, for a number of typical aircraft, the landing charges expressed per passenger, on the assumption that the aircraft are 80 per cent. full at peak times at(a) Leeds Bradford and (b) Humberside airports.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  All landing charges include aerodrome navigation services charges.

  All passenger charges include security charges. Charges are shown for both domestic and international passengers.

  Comparison of airport charges Total charges F27

  Landing £

  Pax dom flight £

  Pax intl flight £

  Total dom flight £

  Total intl flight £

  Humberside

  251

  247

  399

  498

  650

  Leeds Bradford

  236

  219

  405

  455

  641

  Total charges B737–200

  Humberside

  700

  613

  1,313

  1,313

  2,013

  Leeds Bradford

  659

  545

  1,007

  1,204

  1,666

  Charges per passenger F27

  Landing £

  Pax dom £

  Pax intl £

  Total dom £

  Total int £

  Humberside

  7·17

  7·05

  11·40

  14·22

  18·57

  Leeds Bradford

  6·75

  6·27

  11·57

  13·02

  18·32

  Charges per passenger B737–200

  Humberside

  8·04

  7·05

  15·09

  15·09

  23·13

  Leeds Bradford

  7·58

  6·27

  11·57

  13·85

  19·15

  Source: Civil Aviation Authority.

  Late Night Trains (Midlands)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what subsidy would be required to continue to operate late night trains between Euston and Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton as at present;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the proposed removal of late night trains between Euston and Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton;

  (3) what study he has undertaken into the impact of the withdrawal of late night trains between Euston and Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that BR intends to discontinue the late night 23·40 service between Euston and Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton on the grounds of low patronage. The subsidy required to continue the service cannot be accurately assessed because British Rail does not generally establish the net costs of operating individual services. At present, the InterCity service to the west midlands is not in receipt of subsidy.

  I have received one representation about the removal of the train.

  The assessment of the impact of this change is a matter for BR.
  652
  The charges apply at any time of day throughout the year since there is no peak/off-peak charging structure at either airport.

  There are no noise rebates available at either airport.

  The following aircraft assumptions apply:

  Maximum take off weight (tonnes)

  Seats

  Passengers at 80 per cent, loadfactor

  Boeing 737–200

  53

  109

  87

  Fokker 27

  19

  44

  35

  Motorways
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorway are currently(a) open, (b) under construction and (c) planned in England either (i) as new motorway or (ii) as existing motorway being widened.

  Mr. Key
  There are 1,724 miles of motorway in England.

  At 31 January, there were 39 miles of new motorway under construction, and 27 miles of motorway widening.

  The Department is currently reviewing all the schemes in preparation in the trunk road programme to determine their priority. The results of the review are expected to be announced shortly.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to encourage London local authorities to extend and develop bus lanes in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has allocated £6·25 million in 1994–95 to the London authorities for bus priority schemes in London which will include the
  653
  provision of bus lanes where they are appropriate. This includes £2·5 million towards the design of a comprehensive London-wide bus priority network.

  A56
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the capability and capacity of the A56 to handle any increased traffic flows following completion of the M65–M6 link.

  Mr. Key
  None. This is a matter for Lancashire county council as highway authority for the A56. However, our studies have shown that the M65–M6 link could increase traffic on the M65 east of Blackburn by some 11 per cent. We estimate, from the transpennine study, that between 9,000 and 11,000 vehicles per day will use the A56 east of Colne after the link road is opened.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what request he has received from British Nuclear Fuels plc to permit the transport of radioactive wastes from the Drigg site to Sellafield in transport containers that do not meet the International Atomic Energy Agency standards; and if he will make a statement on the conditions under which his Department is able to grant the equivalent of Crown immunity to the movement of radioactive cargoes.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has received an application for a special arrangement transport operation to move this material and is assessing it.

  Special arrangement transport operations are permitted under the International Atomic Energy Agency regulations when all of the applicable requirements of the regulations cannot be met. Such arrangements may be approved by a competent authority provided that the overall level of safety in transport is at least equivalent to that which would be provided if all the applicable requirements had been complied with. It is not a question of Crown immunity or any equivalent.

  Grants
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of all grants paid in the last 12 months(a) under the freight facilities grant scheme and (b) in respect of the new track areas grant scheme; how much is available for grant; and how applications are to be made.

  Mr. Freeman
  Payments totalling £2 million have been made to five companies during the last 12 months. In addition, two new grants have been awarded on which no claims have yet been submitted. No payments can be made under the track access grant scheme until it is introduced next month. The provisional budget for the next three years for both grants is £43 million. Guidance for applicants will be published shortly.

  A11
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of the A11 Wymondham bypass.
  654
  Mr. Key
  The tender figure for the All Besthope to Wymondham improvement contract is £16,506,805. The cost of the whole scheme including land etcetera VAT and ancillary works, is likely to be in the order of £26 million at today's prices.

  M62 Relief Road
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make a decision on the application by Mr. and Mrs. Whitehead for the advance purchase of 45 Glen avenue, Worsley, Salford, which is affected by the proposed M62 relief road.

  Mr. Key
  As soon as our consideration of the case is complete.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to reply to the letter dated 21 January from Mr. L. A. Brock, 12 Hawthorne drive, Worsley, Salford.

  Mr. Key
  A reply, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, was given on 28 February.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications he has received for the advance purchase of houses in Roe Green, Worsley, Salford, affected by the proposed M62 relief road.

  Mr. Key
  Fourteen applications from Roe Green, 18 applications from Worsley and 10 applications from Salford.

  Motorway Tolls
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it will be a condition of the grant of a license to operate a private motorway that vehicles driven by disabled people and exempt from vehicle excise duty shall travel toll free.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The only current legislation under which any new motorway could be subject to tolls is the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which inter alia provides that vehicles in this category are exempt from tolls. New powers would be needed to toll existing motorways; it would be for Parliament to consider whether any vehicles should be exempt from tolls.

  Airports (Crime)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing, for each standard region, separately for men and women and as an overall total, the number of incidents of(a) violent crime and (b) sexual assault at United Kingdom airports for 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available centrally.

DEFENCE

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 383, if he will state the month and year that each memorandum of understanding was signed for as many years since 1979 as are available.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 9 February, Official Report, column 254.

  River Class Minesweepers
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the River class minesweepers.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Royal Navy's River class vessels retain only a very limited mine countermeasures capability as a result of significant advances in mine technology. Consequently, over the last year, these vessels have been either re-roled or withdrawn from service as surplus to requirements. Under current plans, five River class vessels will remain in operational service with the Royal Navy, four as patrol craft and one as a training ship. The remaining seven vessels in the class will be sold.

  Trident
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the costings for the Trident facility at Devonport; to what extent these are on target; and how they have altered since the refitting decision was made.

  Mr. Aitken
  The project to develop the Trident facility at Devonport is in its early stages but progressing satisfactorily as to time and cost. The costings have not altered since the decision was made to concentrate nuclear refitting at Devonport.

  RAF Strike Command, High Wycombe
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the expenditure from public funds to refurbish the homes of the Commander-in-Chief and Deputy Commander-in-Chief of RAF Strike Command, High Wycombe.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 1 July 1994, the present Commander-in-Chief RAF Strike Command takes up the full-time appointment of Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces Northwest, a new NATO command replacing Allied Forces North. As is normal in these circumstances it is a United Kingdom responsibility to provide him with appropriate accommodation, and he will continue to occupy his present official residence. This change of appointment creates a need for a suitable residence for his successor, as Commander-in-Chief RAF Strike Command, the present deputy Commander-in-Chief RAF Strike Command, and a married quarter at RAF High Wycombe is being upgraded for this purpose. At the same time a United Kingdom-maintained residence in Oslo for the United Kingdom officer holding the post of Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces North will be given up. It is my 656
  Department's practice to provide service officers in senior command appointments with residences which allow them to offer official hospitality and entertainment commensurate with their status.

  Military Reaction Force
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Military Reaction Force was established; what is its purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Military Reaction Force was a small military unit which, during the period 1971 to 1973, was responsible for carrying out essential surveillance tasks in Northern Ireland in those circumstances where soldiers in uniform and with Army vehicles would be too easily recognised.

  RAF Hendon
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that when his Department disposes of its interest in the land at east camp RAF Hendon it will be a condition of the sale that any new owner will be required to dismantle and reconstruct the listed Grahame-White hangar on adjacent land set aside for the RAF museum by his Department in accordance with the written undertaking given to the hon. Member for Hendon, North by his Department on 8 September 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  An MOD-commissioned survey by an architectural consultant, Mr. Graham Savage, ARIBA, concluded that it would not be practicable to dismantle and reassemble the Grahame-White hangar without destroying many of its original features. My Department is therefore proposing, subject to the necessary listed building consent being obtained, that it is taken down carefully to ensure as much as possible of the structure, including the Belfast roof trusses, is preserved and transferred to the RAF museum.

  Copia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the loss of the fishing vessel Copia; what help he is able to provide with the recovery of the bodies of the crew; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence wrote on 14 March in response to the hon. Member's earlier representation about the loss of the fishing vessel Copia on 14 December 1993. Responsibility for investigating fatal accidents in Scotland rests with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, through his local representative, the procurator fiscal.

  The investigation into the loss of the fishing vessel Copia is being conducted on the procurator fiscal's behalf by Strathclyde police and it is a matter for the procurator fiscal to decide upon what action is necessary to pursue his inquiries. The marine accident investigation branch of the Department of Transport is also investigating the incident. We are in this, as in other cases, to provide assistance should we be asked to do so.

  D-day
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Ministers are participating in the steering group responsible for co-ordinating the United Kingdom's
  657
  involvement in D-day commemorations; how often the group plans to meet; and in what form the group's deliberations will be published.

  Mr. Hanley
  The ministerial steering group directing the Government's official 50th anniversary of D-day commemorative events is chaired by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence. The deputy chairman is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage. At present, the group meets every two weeks; as its deliberations are often informal they are not published.

  Service Personnel (Location)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current location, by country and as between the United Kingdom, the United Nations and NATO Command, of all personnel in(a) the Army, (b) the Navy and (c) the Air Force.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The table lists the locations of British armed forces personnel as at 14 March 1994:

  British Armed Forces Deployments by Location

  Armed Forces deployments (as at 14 March 1994)

  (a) Army

  (b) Royal Navy/Royal Marines

  (c) Royal Air Force

  Ascension Island

  *

  Baltic Sea

  *

  Belize

  *

  *

  Brunei

  *

  Canada

  *

  *

  Caribbean

  *

  Central Atlantic

  *

  *

  Channel

  *

  *

  Cyprus3

  1*

  *

  *

  Denmark

  *

  Diego Garcia

  *

  Eastern Atlantic and North Sea

  *

  *

  Falkland Islands

  *

  *

  *

  Germany

  *

  *

  Gibraltar

  *

  *

  *

  Great Britain

  *

  *

  *

  Gulf

  1*

  *

  *

  Hong Kong

  *

  *

  *

  Kenya

  *

  Malaysia

  *

  Mediterranean Sea

  *

  Northern Ireland

  *

  *

  *

  Norway/Norwegian Sea

  *

  *

  *

  North Sea

  2*

  Sardinia

  *

  Italy4

  *

  South Atlantic (Antarctic)

  *

  *

  Turkey

  *

  USA

  *

  Western Atlantic

  *

  Former Republic of Yugoslavia

  1*

  12*

  12*

  Notes:

  1 Forces deployed on United Nations operations

  2 Forces deployed on NATO operations

  3 Elements of the British Army presence are deployed in support of United Nations peacekeeping operations (UNFICYP).

  4 RAF deployment in support of UNPROFOR/United Nations Security Council resolutions is under "Former Republic of Yugoslavia".

  General Notes:

  1 and 2 can apply simultaneously to a deployment in support of both NATO and United Nations operations. Eg: elements of the Royal Navy are deployed in the Adriatic both in support of United Nations operations
  658
  in the former Yugoslavia and as part of NATO/WEU operation SHARP GUARD.

  Loan Service Personnel and Training Teams are not included.

SCOTLAND

  Protection Orders
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all applications for protection orders which have still to be considered by him under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976; if he will list in each case, the applicant or applicants; and if he will place in the Library full details of each of the applications.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Two applications for protection orders under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 are under consideration. One, from the United Clyde Angling Protective Association, is in respect of the main stem of the River Clyde. The other, from the Reay forest estate, is in respect of lochs in part of north-west Sutherland.

  I have arranged for copies of each of the applications, as advertised, to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the protection orders which have been granted under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The following protection orders have been made under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976:

  The Rivers Tweed and Eye Protection Order 1980;

  The Upper Spey and Associated Waters Protection Order 1982;

  The River Lunan Catchment Area Protection Order 1983;

  The River Tummel Catchment Area Protection Order 1983;

  The River Tay Catchment Area Protection Order 1986;

  The West Strathclyde Protection Order 1988;

  The River Earn Catchment Area Protection Order 1990;

  The River Don Catchment Area (Part) Protection Order 1990;

  The Loch Morar and River Morar Protection Order 1992;

  The Loch Awe and Associated Waters Protection Order 1992.

  Pupils (Unit Costs)
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the unit cost per pupil in each Scottish local education authority for 1992–93 for(a) nursery-primary and (b) secondary pupils.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the table. It excludes the cost of home-to-school transport, school meals, education authority central administration and loan charges.

  Net current expenditure per pupil in 1992–93

  Region

  Nursery and primary £

  Secondary £

  Borders

  1,839

  2,857

  Central

  1,736

  2,801

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,752

  2,957

  Fife

  1,711

  2,636

  Grampian

  1,861

  3,031

  Highland

  1,917

  2,896

  Lothian

  1,698

  3,047

  Strathclyde

  1,812

  2,842

  Tayside

  1,733

  3,036

  659

  Region

  Nursery and primary £

  Secondary £

  Orkney

  2,103

  3,827

  Shetland

  2,393

  4,489

  Western Isles

  2,429

  4,297

  Notes:

  1. These figures have been compiled from local authority financial returns.

  2. Figures for Borders, Strathclyde, Shetland and Western Isles are provisional.

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many agency chief executives in his Department are currently paid more than £82,925, excluding performance-related bonuses; and whether such chief executives were recruited directly to their present post from outside the civil service.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no agency chief executives in my Department who are currently paid more than £82,925 per annum, excluding performance bonuses.

  Copia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been received by the Lord Advocate concerning the loss of the fishing vessel Copia; what consideration has been given to arrangements for recovery of the ship and its crew; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has been made aware of the circumstances of the sinking of the fishing vessel Copia so far as they are known. He is also aware of the difficulties surrounding the investigation because of bad weather and the depth of the water in which the vessel now lies.

  Police divers, working at the limit of their operational capabilities, have managed to reach the wreck, but, regrettably, have been unable to locate the bodies of the crew, which may or may not be on board. The procurator fiscal is considering what further actions may be required in connection with his responsibilities and will report in early course to my noble and learned Friend.

  Consultancies
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list for each of the past five years and as a total over the same period(a) all political consultants, (b) public relations companies, (c) management consultants, (d) survey organisations and (e) other outside bodies or individuals employed by the Scottish Office together with the date on which the contract was awarded, the length of the contract and the total amount spent by the Scottish Office on each contract; whether the contract was based on a fixed fee or fee plus man hours basis; what was the name of the individual or organisation to whom the contract was awarded; what are the services which were required by the Scottish office; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list all (a) political consultants, (b) public relations companies, (c) management consultants, (d) survey organisations and (e) other outside bodies or individuals currently employed by his Department,
  660
  together with the date on which the contract was awarded, the length of the contract and the total amount spent by the Scottish Office on each contract, whether the contract was based on a fixed fee or a fee plus man hours basis; what was the name of the individual or organisation to whom the contract was awarded; what are the services which were required by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: I notified the hon. Member that a reply would be made as soon as possible.

  Detailed records of all work commissioned from external consultants are not available centrally. The information requested could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. Details of external consultants engaged by my Department in the current financial year to date have, however, been obtained. As this is a fairly lengthy list, I have arranged for it to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the public appointments he is responsible for making in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies 1993", including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 4 March 1994]: The information sought is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  School Leavers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a ranking by region of the percentage of female school leavers leaving school with five or more standard grades—levels 1 to 3.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 March 1994]: The available information is set out in the following table. Many pupils who left from the 1991–92 session would have sat their fourth year examinations in 1991 or 1990, before the standard grade fully superseded ordinary grade. O-grade qualifications have therefore also been included in the analysis.

  Female school leavers from the 1991–92 session with 5 or more O/S Grades (1–3)

  Number

  As Percentage of all female leavers

  SCOTLAND

  29,820

  45·5

  1 Shetland

  123

  65·9

  2 Orkney

  126

  62·7

  3 Borders

  566

  54·2

  4 Dumfries and Galloway

  881

  52·1

  5 Highland

  1,245

  51·0

  6 Central

  1,684

  50·3

  7 Tayside

  2,394

  49·5

  8 Grampian

  3,110

  47·7

  9 Western Isles

  230

  47·4

  10 Fife

  2,094

  46·4

  11 Lothian

  4,149

  44·5

  12 Strathclyde

  13,218

  42·1

  Sea Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of 24 February,Official Report, column 441, regarding sea bird fatalities in Scotland, what is the proportion of fatalities of (a) adult birds and (b) juvenile birds.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: Exact figures are not available, but from post mortem samples it is estimated that of dead guillemots, the species most affected in the recent losses, 50 per cent. of birds found in the Shetlands are adults while in other areas the proportion is about 20 per cent.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the possible connection between overfishing and the death of sea birds in the recent incidents on the east coast of Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: There is at present no evidence that current levels of fishing are having an adverse effect on sea birds which feed on sea fish.

  The sea birds which have been washed ashore in recent weeks feed on pelagic species such as sprat and sand-eels. There is no significant United Kingdom fishery for these species in the North sea. Scientific advice on the state of sand-eel and sprat stocks does not suggest that they are at low levels. Nevertheless, the European Union has established a working group consisting of marine ecologists and fisheries biologists to study the impact of fishing for sprat and sand-eels on the marine ecosystem. This follows pressure from the United Kingdom at last December's European Fisheries Council meeting.

  It is clear that recent bad weather has been a major cause of sea bird mortality and that the prevailing easterly wind will have washed birds ashore that would otherwise have remained at sea.

  Freephone and Freepost
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the use of freephone and freepost facilities currently being operated by his Department; how much these facilities are costing; for what purposes these facilities are being used; and how much his Department has spent on operating freephone and freepost facilities in each financial year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: Only one freephone service is operated by the Scottish Office—"Drugline Scotland", which opened in March 1992, providing a 24-hour telephone advice, information and referral service for people who have concerns about their own or someone else's drug use. In the year 1992–93, it cost £11,776. As part of the initiative to make the Scottish Office more accessible, people are now able to telephone the Scottish Office from over 20 offices throughout the country without charge. Cost figures are not yet available, as the service has been operating only since October 1993.

  The Scottish Office uses both business reply and freepost response facilities, mainly to encourage people to provide information to Departments or to respond to Government initiatives or campaigns. The costs of the two services are not separately recorded but the total costs of items returned through the Department's central postal
  662
  services for each year from 1983–84—the earliest year for which figures are available—are shown in the table. The cost of operating the services cannot be isolated from other mail handling costs.

  Year

  Expenditure on Business Reply/Freepost £

  Year

  Expenditure on Business Reply/Freepost £

  1983–84

  43,596

  1988–89

  55,953

  1984–85

  19,958

  1989–90

  66,551

  1985–86

  51,295

  1990–91

  44,092

  1986–87

  51,522

  1991–92

  65,222

  1987–88

  62,550

  1992–93

  26,762

  Fishing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement setting out the view of Her Majesty's Government on enlargement of the European Union and its consequences for the Scottish inshore fishing fleet.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: Fisheries have been an important element of the recent negotiations on enlargement of the European Union, particularly with Norway. The negotations with Norway will resume on 15 March, and the Government will continue to defend the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement setting out the view of Her Majesty's Government on access of the Spanish fleet to the North sea and its consequences for the Scottish inshore fishing fleet.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: Conclusions have not yet been reached in the review of the fisheries aspects of the Spanish and Portuguese Acts of Accession. The Government have made clear their determination to protect British interests in the North sea fisheries, as in other fisheries around the United Kingdom coastline.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the name, size, type and home port of all Scottish inshore fishing vessels accepted to date as being eligible for decommissioning.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: Final payments have still to be made to all the vessels for which conditional offers of decommissioning grant were made. A list of vessels receiving grant will be published in due course.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider introducing a policy of scrap and build for the Scottish inshore fleet.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The fundamental imbalance between fishing effort and available fishing resources must be resolved if we are to ensure a secure future for the fishing industry. Limited public resources will yield the best value for money if they are targeted at this objective.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect he expects the current market price of
  663
  white fish pressure stocks landed from the North sea to have on the long-term future of the Scottish inshore fishing fleet.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: Market prices fluctuate markedly during the winter months owing, among other reasons, to the impact of the weather on the level of fishing activity. In those circumstances, there seems to be little to suggest that current market prices will have any long-term effects on the fleet.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals his Department has to deregulate any aspects of the current legislative provisions as they apply to the catching sector of the Scottish inshore fishing fleet.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: Fisheries departments are currently reviewing the licensing system for fisheries with the aim of simplifying and reducing the burden on the industry.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what discussions he has recently had with representatives of the European Union on the consequences of the suspension of the days at sea regulations; and what he now proposes as an alternative management regime for North sea white fish pressure stocks;

  (2) what steps he is taking to protect white fish stocks in the North sea;

  (3) if he will make a statement outlining the current proposals being considered by Her Majesty's Government on alternative methods of fishery management to be applied to the Scottish inshore fleet fishing in the North sea.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I met Commissioner Paleokrassas on 24 January to discuss conservation measures for fisheries in the light of the suspension of our days at sea scheme. Discussions are now being undertaken with the industry on these matters and a further statement will be made in due course.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the most recent estimates of the average age of the fishing vessels in the Scottish inshore fleet.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: There is no formal definition of vessels that comprise the Scottish inshore fleet. The table shows the average age of vessels based in Scotland in selected length bands. Age is not recorded for approximately one third of vessels of length 10 m or under.

  Average age of vessels in the Scottish fishing fleet at 31 December 1993 for which the age is known

  Registered length

  Average age (years)

  10 metres or under

  16·22

  10-

  19·22

  15-

  23·39

  20-

  17·78

  25 metres or over

  15·82

  All vessels

  18·06

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made by Scottish Ministers to the representations of the European Union on the equal enforcement of CFP regulations throughout member states; and what steps they are taking to secure sanctions against member states that fail to enforce the regulations.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: Scottish Office Ministers regularly press the case within the Council of Ministers of the European Union for proper and effective enforcement of the common fisheries policy by all member states. The United Kingdom Government actively supported the new fisheries control regulation adopted by the Council in October 1993. This places specific obligations on member states to enforce common fisheries policy rules and increases the powers of the European Commission to monitor enforcement.

  Officials of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department are playing a full part in discussions with the Commission and other member states on implementation of the control regulation. This regulation should bring about a substantial overall improvement in standards of enforcement.

  Scottish Ambulance Service
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the expenditure on the Scottish ambulance service for each of the past five years; what is the budget for the current year and for the next financial year; what representations have been made to him by the ambulance service about the adequacy or otherwise of such expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The information on expenditure and budgets is as follows:

  Year

  £1

  1988–89

  37,195,685

  1989–90

  41,227,960

  1990–91

  47,665,465

  1991–92

  57,294,250

  1992–93

  66,042,161

  1993–94

  67,008,000

  1994–95

  70,141,000

  1 The figures include capital.

  Like other public services, funding for the Common Services Agency, of which the Scottish ambulance service is a division, is considered as part of the public expenditure survey programme.

  Funding for the Scottish ambulance service has been increased from £12,865,100 in 1979 to £70,141,000 in 1994—an increase of 82·75 per cent. in real terms.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the position of the Scottish ambulance service in relation to the citizens charter; what is the response time expected for an emergency call; and what arrangements are made for the monitoring of the speed of response to emergency calls.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The position of the Scottish ambulance service under the

  665
  citizens charter is set out in its charter standard statement. The target response times given for an ambulance to respond to an emergency call vary according to population density and are:

  95 per cent, of calls within minutes

  Dense population (more than 3 people per acre)

  14

  Medium population (between 0·5 and 3 people per acre)

  18

  Sparse population (less than 0·5 people per acre)

  21

  The time taken for each response is recorded and analysed by the Scottish ambulance service. This information is made available on a regular basis to the board of the Common Services Agency of which the Scottish ambulance service is a division.

  Limb Defects
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what work the Medical Research Council is undertaking into clusters of babies born with limb defects; which local health authorities are undertaking investigations of their own; and when he expects the results of those inquiries.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The Medical Research Council is not currently undertaking any studies on clusters of babies born with limb defects. We are not aware of any current investigations into this subject by health boards in Scotland.

  School Repairs
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding the estimated amount of outstanding repairs required to schools in each local education authority area in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The overall management of their school building stock is a matter for individual education authorities. Detailed information of the kind requested is not held centrally.

  Voter Registration
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds are being made available to electoral registration officers in each of the nine regions and three island authorities to publicise information to EU citizens from outwith the British Isles on voter registration; and in which of the official languages of the European Union versions will be provided.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: No additional funds are to be made available to electoral registration officers for this exercise. An information sheet printed in English has been issued to electoral registration officers, to political parties in Scotland, to consular offices of member states in Scotland, to the French, Danish and Italian Institutes and to citizens advice local offices.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will lay before Parliament an order to extend the period to allow late registration to vote by EU citizens from outwith the British Isles.
  666
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for publicising the procedure, and deadline of 29 March, to allow EU citizens from outwith the British Isles to register to vote; what Scottish newspapers will carry such advertisements; in how many languages; and how often.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: My right hon. Friend has no plans for newspaper advertising.

  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State has issued a statement encouraging European Union citizens resident in Scotland to register to vote at the European parliamentary elections in June 1994 and has emphasised the need for them to act quickly.

  In addition, the Scottish Office Home and Health Department has sent information sheets in the English language to electoral registration officers, political parties in Scotland, consular offices of other member states in Scotland, citizens advice local offices and to specialist bodies such as the French, Danish and Italian Institutes. A notice has been placed in the Edinburgh Gazette.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) by what date he expects all applications for sheep annual premium in the current year to be paid out;

  (2) how many applications for payment of sheep annual premium he has received in the current year from (a) Scotland, (b) Orkney and (c) Shetland; and what proportion in each category remained unpaid on 1 March.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The number of eligible applications received under the 1993 sheep annual premium scheme and the proportion of claims for which the advance payment had not been made at 10 March are set out in the table.

  Number

  Proportion (per cent.)

  Scotland

  16,687

  11·0

  Orkney

  482

  12·0

  Shetland

  1,470

  7·0

  The applications for which advance payments have still to be made are those where claims for premium are not matched by quota. Payments will continue to be made over the coming weeks, but a number of claims cannot be paid until after allocations from the national reserve have been completed and the additional period for transferring and leasing quota has taken place in the early summer.

  School Repairs
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the amount spent on the repair and maintenance of school buildings by local education authorities in Scotland in each financial year since 1989–90.
  667
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The available information is given in the table. The capital figures include expenditure on new building work as well as on repairs and maintenance, information on which is not recorded separately.
  668

  Current expenditure on repair and maintenance of school buildings and capital expenditure on school buildings

  £ million at outturn prices

  Current

  Capital

  1989–90

  76·630

  66·884

  1990–91

  77·665

  67·305

  1991–92

  86·485

  72·572

  1992–93

  84·402

  89·679

  Note:

  The figures for current expenditure have been compiled from local authority financial returns and for capital expenditure from capital payments returns submitted by local authorities to the Scottish Office.

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

War Pensions: Smokers' Entitlement
Lord Ashley, of Stoke Lord Ashley, of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to restrict the pensions of widows of servicemen who died from smoking-related diseases.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, following consultation with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions on our proposals to amend the law governing war pensions so as to exclude, with certain exceptions, death or disablement caused by a smoking or alcohol-related disease, we have decided to go ahead with the change but with a significant easement.
We originally proposed to except from the exclusion any individual who suffered from a service related mental disablement that was assessed at 80 per cent. or more and caused him to smoke or drink. Following careful consideration of responses, we have decided to set the minimum level of mental disablement that will be considered at 50 per cent. Individual claims will still be subject to the further test that, whatever the assessed level of disablement, it must also cause the individual to smoke, or prevent him giving up. An amending order will be laid shortly.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I do not consider that to be a significant amendment. Is the noble Viscount aware that it would be grossly unfair to interfere in any way with the pensions of those widows? Does he agree that it was the stress of service life, war and prison camps that led many servicemen to become addicted to tobacco? Is he further aware that in those days the Government provided free cigarettes because it was believed that tobacco and smoking relieved stress? Will he take on board that if the Government now try to relieve those widows of their pensions, that will cause stress both in and out of Parliament?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is no proposal to make changes for anyone currently receiving a pension. The reason that we are making the change is to clarify the position after a recent court case. The change will be effective from the date on which the amending order comes into force—28th March—and will not affect any war widow or disabled ex-serviceman who is already receiving a pension as a result of a smoking-related disease.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say why the fact that someone indulged in what many of us regard as the unhealthy practice of smoking
96
should deprive his widow of any degree of pension at all? Will he take note that the Question raises a very bad issue? Does he agree that the widow should receive a proper widow's pension whatever the cause of her husband's death?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the war pensions scheme was introduced in 1917 and provides compensation for those disabled as a result of service and for their widows. The war pensions scheme was never intended to compensate for the effects of a habit such as smoking. Smoking is the result of a personal decision and is not a requirement of service. It has been a long-standing policy of successive governments that smoking is only regarded as attributable to service when there is a severe disabling mental condition, itself attributable to service, that renders the individual incapable of exercising such personal choice.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the Minister agree that during the war the Army used to give cigarettes away free and urged everybody to smoke? Were not servicemen given 40, 50 or 60 cigarettes a clay? How can the Government at the end of the day suddenly relate that to pensions for widows?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, cigarettes were supplied to servicemen during the Second World War as part of the ration for those who smoked. There was never any official compulsion to smoke. The decision whether or not to do so remained a personal one. Even those who smoked during the war were free to give up the habit afterwards. The same applies to those who were able to buy cigarettes at a reduced price. I agree that during the Second World War and indeed at the time of National Service the dangers of smoking were not known, as they are now. Smoking was the normally accepted thing to do. But that applied to the population as a whole and not just to those who served in the forces.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the logic of his position means that people who smoke should not be accepted in the service at all?
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords. I do not think that it means that at all. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the basic condition for the award of a war widow's pension, for example, is that the husband's death was due to, or substantially hastened by, service in the Armed Forces. There must be that causal connection; otherwise the very preferential rates of war widows' pensions could not be justified. For example, if the husband's death was not connected with service, the state provides for the widow's maintenance through the social security system. That is long established government policy. We are clarifying the law. We are not changing the policy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister take note of the response of practically the entire House to the question raised by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter? Is not that what Back to Basics is all about?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that I said—I shall say it again—that we are not changing the policy.

97
It has been the policy of many governments over the years. All that we are doing is clarifying the law in this respect.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister says that it is a matter of personal choice. Surely if the Government issue free cigarettes to servicemen it then becomes a matter of public policy. Do the Government accept that they should not have issued free cigarettes to servicemen? If so, why are they ducking responsibility now for the actions that they took then?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, until quite recently in the Navy, I believe, a tot of rum was issued to those who served. It has never been suggested that as a result we should give war pensions to those who claim that they became alcoholics because of their service.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend say how one knows whether or not a man died from smoking? We all know that smoking makes one more likely to suffer from lung cancer and heart conditions. But if a man dies from cancer of the lung or a heart condition, how can we know that it was smoking and not something else?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we do not intend to totally prescribe diseases linked to smoking or alcohol. The amendment will only exclude those claims where the disease is due to the effects of smoking or alcohol. For example, if a person claims as a result of a chronic chest condition and there is reliable evidence to raise a reasonable doubt about the condition being due to service in some way—perhaps because of poor living conditions during the war—the claim would not be excluded by the amendment. In a widow's claim, if there was more than one cause of death, one being smoking-related and the other not smoking-related but linked to service, the claim would again succeed.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I have no wish to embarrass the Minister. However, as he has such a bad case, will he please ask the Secretary of State to think again?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I said earlier in my Answer that we will shortly be laying the order. I must stress that it is not a change of policy. It has been the policy of many governments, including that of the noble Lord opposite when in office. We are simply clarifying the law after the recent court case.

Back to Basics
2.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can name any measures which they have taken since November 1990 which contribute to the objectives of Back to Basics as set out by the Prime Minister in his interview with the Daily Express on 17th February 1994.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, the Government seek to ensure that as far as possible the objectives of Back to Basics are reflected in all the measures they take.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for that reply. He will notice that I invited him to name a measure. May I deduce from his silence that he found difficulty in doing so? Can he tell us why, after this Government have been in power for almost one-sixth of a century, the basics should be so badly in need of repair?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Earl did not listen to my extremely short Answer, which indicated that I thought that nearly all the measures we introduced showed some cognisance of Back to Basics. Perhaps that is because the noble Earl does not fully understand what Back to Basics is about. I shall do my best to give your Lordships a reasonable definition.
It is intended to ensure that government policies are firmly based on the common-sense values of the British people and in particular that they encourage individual responsibility. It is essentially important in such areas as education, law and order and in the provision of public services, but it applies across a range of other government policies as well. It is for that reason that I felt that nearly all measures reflected it.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that many of us admire Her Majesty's Government in trying to bring about, in principle, the idea of Back to Basics? Many of us believe that we need that concept and we offer the Government all encouragement to try to work it out. So, well done!
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope he will not mind my saying so but Back to Basics is not seeking to return to the past, indulging in nostalgia. However, we must not turn our backs, as I believe he indicated, on the strengths of our past or deem that change is inevitable.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that he gave a short Answer. Perhaps I can ask him a short question. Does he think the Back to Basics campaign has been a success? If so, he is the only person in this House who does.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I find it extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition thinks it necessary to ask the Leader of the House whether or not a policy based on common sense is a success. A policy based on common sense is nearly always a success and I am surprised that he should try to assert otherwise.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not time that not only this side of the House, but both sides of the House, should ask themselves what the issue is about? Should we not return to sanity and retreat from trivialisation and petty party points, and go back to good common sense, respect for privacy, individual rights and freedom under the law?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, when my noble and learned friend gave that answer I nostalgically wondered why he did not also have a bell to wave at the appropriate moment.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, would the noble Lord really say that the appalling Education Bill which is before the House, which has been universally condemned and which takes teacher training back to the 19th century, is a case of back to basics?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the Education Bill before the House at the moment is part of a whole series of education Bills that the Government have brought forward. All are about improving the standards of education of our children, which is fundamental to Back to Basics.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when Ministers of the Crown, with one particular exception, signed public interest immunity certificates which put the liberty of a couple of subjects at risk, did they use their common sense then or were they doing what they were told by lawyers?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships would consider that for me to answer that question is nearly as unwise as it was for the noble Lord to have asked it. The Government have set up the Scott Inquiry to look into this matter. I think it would be grossly irresponsible of me to attempt to answer that question.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Leader of the House saying that the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill as originally introduced into the House was a matter of common sense and back to basics?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the objectives of the Bill that was introduced into the House were fundamentally worth while. Your Lordships had some views on whether we were seeking to achieve those very worthwhile objectives in perhaps the most felicitous way. As a result of the good sense of your Lordships, I anticipate that we might make a little further progress later.
Earl Peel: My Lords, to ensure that basics are still not further undermined, can my noble friend assure the House that the UK's voting powers will not be further undermined by discussions taking place in the EC at the moment on the introduction of four additional states?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have every confidence that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will achieve two objectives at the negotiations. One is to further the growing co-operation within the countries of Europe and, it is to be hoped, achieve negotiations which will enable the enlargement to take place. The second is to protect the essential interests of the British people.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it common sense for the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister to announce universal nursery education just before Christmas and then to take that promise away in March?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord is probably not speaking with all the authority of the Prime Minister's office when he asks that question. That is not the position. The matter is under review. When the Government have reached a conclusion an announcement will be made.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can I take it from that answer that the Government's commitment to nursery education for all is now under review?
Lord Wakeham: No, my Lords. The question is one of timing, as resources allow.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord reconsider the use of the words "common sense" on the basis that sense is not very common at the moment and perhaps replace them with the phrase "good sense"?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I prefer common sense, but I am very happy for the noble Countess to refer to the policies of this Government as good sense as well.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord has at last mentioned something concrete. He has referred to an improvement in education. Is he aware that that improvement has not been remarked by most of those who work in the business? Does he think that this inability to get it perceived by the professionals is a point against his measures or in favour of them?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not think it is either. It is a question of keeping on struggling to do the right thing. Success will come in that way. The fact that at the moment we have not necessarily—I take the noble Earl's word for it—persuaded everyone in the education field that what we are doing is right, does not make me despondent that we will not achieve that.

The Disabled: Building Regulations
2.54 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will amend the Building Regulations to require that, wherever practicable, staircases in public and private buildings are fitted with handrails on both sides for the safety of people disabled by the loss of use of one arm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the Building Regulations do already require staircases in new non-domestic buildings to he designed to suit the needs of people with disabilities. To satisfy this requirement handrails should be provided on each side.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for that encouraging reply. Will he have the Palace of Westminster surveyed from this point of view so that we can set a good example to everyone else?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have some good, practical and sensible news and information for the noble Lord. After a comprehensive review of the

101
facilities existing in both Houses of Parliament it has been decided that £250,000 is to be spent in the coming year on improving facilities in both Houses.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is even more important that there be at least one rail on each side and that this applies also to people who have to walk with sticks? For them safety requires, when there are no rails at all, that they go down backwards, as noble Lords may have been intrigued to see me doing; for example, when I leave the Painted Hall at Greenwich when I attend meetings there.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I take very seriously the points my noble friend has made and indeed any other points that noble Lords might make this afternoon concerning the Palace of Westminster. I am certain that my noble friend's points will be taken into account when deciding precisely what facilities are to be made available.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that this Question highlights the need for what is known as barrier-free housing so that a house can be adapted should the occupant of that house unfortunately become disabled? Is the noble Earl aware that one of the great problems in housing disabled people is the inability to adapt a house when the occupant sadly becomes disabled? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will look closely at the Building Regulations in order to introduce the concept of what is known in the field of work for the disabled as barrier-free housing?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are assessing the potential means of achieving better provision for disabled people in new dwellings. We are already considering applying the access requirements of the Building Regulations to alterations and conversions of non-domestic buildings.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some local authorities such as Ealing have an exemplary record of first-class immediate action in providing handrails where they are required? In so far as one local authority has proved that it can be done, would the noble Earl be prepared to ensure that other local authorities carry out the desire of Parliament and indeed of Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that many local authorities set a very good example. It is to be hoped that other local authorities will follow their example.

Milk Marketing Schemes
2.58 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have delayed the establishment of Milk Marque and other voluntary co-operative schemes for the marketing of milk.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government have not set out to delay the implementation of new milk marketing arrangements. The England and Wales MMB has recently submitted amendments to its scheme of reorganisation and has recognised that it is no longer feasible to aim for a vesting day of 1st April. The timetable for vesting is linked with the flotation of Dairy Crest and the MMB has sensibly allowed for the possibility of flotation in October. It has therefore proposed 1st November as vesting day. I understand that the Milk Marketing Boards in Scotland and Northern Ireland have agreed that vesting day for them will also be delayed beyond 1st April 1994.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his excuses. Does he not agree that the question of Dairy Crest has been under discussion for some years and that the Milk Marketing Board is going to divest itself of these manufacturing interests? It has been in consultation with the Government over the past two or three years on this matter. When the MMB put forward its proposals the Government objected and said that they did not sufficiently fulfil the terms for competition. Will the Minister reject the notion put about by some people that the Government are delaying this matter in order to spread confusion among the farmers and thereby withdraw contracts and please the manufacturing side of the industry as against the producers?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the best answer I can give to that suggestion is to quote from the recent House of Commons Select Committee report which says:
"Since the submission of the board's scheme we consider that MAFF has behaved entirely correctly … in its conduct of the consultation exercise and in subsequent discussions. We also consider that MAFF's guiding philosophy, that it is more important to get the arrangements right than to get them in place quickly, is the most sensible approach".
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we had a perfectly good system of milk marketing before the Government decided, for purely ideological reasons, to scrap it? If we can supply only 80 per cent. of our requirements for milk and milk products from home production because of milk quotas, and farmers are now being assured by buyers that the price to them will increase because the market is under-supplied, can the Minister tell the House how the consumer is supposed to benefit from the scrapping of the milk boards?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord's views on the Government's actions are on record. From the Government's point of view the significance of the reforms which we have put in place cannot be overstated because for the first time since the 1930s there will be genuine diversity and competition in the market place. Statutory constraints on two generations of farmers will be swept away. Producers will be able to choose between competing offers for their milk and they will be free to market their products themselves. That is not just in the producer's interests but in the national interest as well.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the price of milk to farmers increases, and there is an under-supplied market because of quotas, how is the consumer supposed to benefit?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot make any predictions about what the price of milk will be in the shops after these reforms are in place. It will be for retailers to set their prices in the light of their costs and the demand for milk.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord has cited the heaven that awaits farmers when they are free to sell their milk to any manufacturer without a milk marketing board. I am aware of the Minister's age, but is he aware that in that golden era in the 1930s the price of milk was driven down to an extent where the primary producer was severely disadvantaged, to put it mildly? Will the Minister now consult constantly with the Milk Marketing Board on the launch so that we do not arrive at 1st November and further delay the process?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am well aware of the circumstances which led up to the statutory arrangements being put in place in the 1930s. But the world has moved on a good deal since then. I can only tell the noble Lord that officials of my department are in regular touch with those at the MMB. We are confident that the target date proposed by that body appears achievable.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the world has moved on to a position where in some shop milk is sold at 46p a pint and in other shops nearby at 23p a pint? How does the Minister justify that and what is he going to do about it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, that illustrates one aspect of the current marketing arrangements for milk. It is for retailers to price their products accordingly and for the consumers to go where they perceive the best deal to be.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, no doubt the Minister is aware that many milk producers were in fact relieved when the Government rejected the original proposals coming from the Milk Marketing Board. Can I have an assurance from my noble friend that the Government will take into consultation not only the Milk Marketing Board but also milk producers, many of whom are at present losing money because the new arrangements are not in place?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as far as producers are concerned, at present the board must be taken to represent their interests although at a later stage, once Ministers consider a scheme which is put forward, the interests of producers are among the sets of interests which Ministers must take into account before approving any scheme.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that over the past 60 years of its existence the Milk Marketing Board has done more to reduce choice and opportunity for the consumer and to reduce the opportunities for the milk producers than any other institution we have ever had? Does he further agree that the best thing for the agricultural industry is to get rid of
104
the Milk Marketing Board and the quicker that we are able to agree the Milk Marque proposals the better for the whole of the industry?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend except to say that we do not want to belittle the achievements of the milk marketing boards over the past 60 years. They have stood us in good stead over that time, but the time has come to move on. It is a very different market place now from the one which existed in the 1930s.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule 1 [Schedule to be inserted in Police Act 1964: police areas]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Arnendment No. 1
Page 49, line 23, at end insert:
("British Transport Police The British Transport Police").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I return to an issue which I referred to on the first day of the Committee stage of the Bill. Precisely a month ago, on 15th February, I pointed out that a serious error had been made in the drafting of the Railways Act. As a result, quite inadvertently, the British Transport Police will have their powers as constables removed from 1st April this year when following alleged offenders to their homes, interviewing them and, when appropriate, arresting them. They will only be able to pursue an offender or a suspect if they still regard themselves as being, in the language of the Act,
"In the vicinity of Railtrack property".
What does that mean? Does it mean 100 yards, a quarter of a mile, half a mile, or what? The result will be almost a stream of endless litigation. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us during the debate that the British Transport Police will have jurisdiction when it comes to an offence committed on the property of Railtrack. The noble Earl added:
"We are aware that there may be some doubt now as to the precise extent of the powers which the British Transport Police may have beyond Railtrack property".—[Official Report. 15/2/94; col. 103.]
Thirteen days later, on 28th February, the Minister for Public Transport, Mr. Freeman, wrote to me and went further than the noble Earl. He said:
"I can assure you that we shall take the earliest possible legislative opportunity to correct the position. In the meantime we are urgently considering with British Railways and the British Transport Police the extent of the problem and how to address. it until we can change the legislation".
The House will want to note those words. It is accepted by the Government that the legislation will have to he changed. Subsequently, I met Mr. Freeman and a number of his officials. I believe all of us accepted that amending legislation is necessary. The problem is now urgent because, as I indicated, the transport police will lose many of their existing powers on 1st April.
The purpose of my amendment is to give the Government the opportunity of telling us what action

105
they propose to take to deal with the situation. There are three choices. I believe that that is common ground. The first is to amend the Bill; the second is to amend the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which is in the other place at the moment; and the third is to introduce a one-clause Bill to amend the Railways Act. The problem with the first two choices is that neither the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill nor the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is likely to reach the statute book until July this year. That would result in the work of the transport police being gravely jeopardised for at least four months.
Thus the solution appears to be a one-clause Bill, introduced at once in this House or the other place. The Opposition in both Houses would inevitably have to agree to that course of action. Speaking for my noble friends alone —I cannot and could not commit anyone else—I have told Mr. Freeman that I would urge my colleagues to accept that procedure and endeavour to get the Bill on the statute book before Easter, if at all possible. I should be grateful if the noble Earl can tell us what action the Government propose to take. I hope that he will say that they are prepared to introduce such a one-clause Bill. The consequences of a failure to introduce such a Bill are obvious.
As I said on 15th February, 23 police forces in this country are smaller than the British Transport Police. Last year, excluding the London Underground, the BTP had to investigate over 1,200 offences of violence; nearly 400 sexual offences; over 900 robberies; over 3,000 burglaries; over 2,800 cases of fraud; and 37,000 cases of theft. As I said, from 1st April, unless offenders are caught virtually red-handed, most of the work will have to be carried out by the rest of our severely over-stretched police forces. That would be wholly unacceptable.
I assume that the Association of Chief Police Officers has already been informed of the situation. Perhaps the noble Earl will confirm that. This is a profoundly serious matter. I hope very much that the noble Earl will be able to meet us on the basis that I have outlined. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, drew attention to this matter in Committee and I was most grateful to him for that. As he knows, I said then that we would consider the matter and enter into consultations about how best to get round the problem. I can tell him that we have been concerned. I agree that the word "vicinity" is difficult to define and that there is some curtailment of the powers of the British Transport Police. In recognition of that, it is the Government's intention to bring forward a one-clause Bill at the earliest possible moment in order to clarify the jurisdiction of the BTP. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for saying that he will help to expedite that Bill when it comes to your Lordships' House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl has met my point completely. I am grateful to him for that. It will give great reassurance to both the British Transport Police and the rest of the police service.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord seeks to withdraw his amendment, perhaps I should say on behalf of the Opposition that we, too, will give our full co-operation to ensuring the rapid passage of such a one-clause Bill. We add our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for raising the matter in the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has just said. This is a matter of considerable importance. I am very glad that the noble Earl has been able to meet us entirely on this point. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Police forces and police authorities]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out lines 17 to 42.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 44, 72, 120, 214, 215 and 216. This large group of amendments deals with the size and composition of the police authorities. It may be for the convenience of the House if, at the same time, we consider also the amendments that stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, which are Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, 10, 12, 17 and 18 because they all cover the same ground. Although the number of the Government's amendments—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are separately grouped and deal with a separate subject.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry. I beg my noble friend's pardon. He is quite correct.
Although the number of the amendments that stand in the name of the Government is large, I hope that there is not a great deal to detain your Lordships for long because the main amendments reflect the proposals that I explained when we last considered these clauses on 1st March. The other amendments in the group are simply consequential.
Amendment No. 7 requires each police authority to consist of 17 members. It also provides a power for the Secretary of State by order to increase that number to a specified odd number greater than 17. As we have all agreed that police authorities should, in general, be smaller and sharper bodies, I do not anticipate that the Secretary of State will use the power very often. However, we have all accepted that there may be exceptional cases where a larger authority is necessary. The amendment does not put any limit on how large an authority may be, but I doubt very much whether there will be any cases in which a number substantially larger than 17 is needed.
Amendment No. 8 deals with the composition of an authority. In a 17-member authority, nine are to be

107
members of relevant councils, three will be magistrates and five will be independent members. We shall be considering shortly the procedure for the appointment of the independent members. In the case of an authority which is larger than 17 members, councillors will still be in a majority of one and the number of independent members will not exceed one-third of the total membership.
We have discussed at great length both inside and outside the Chamber what the proportion of councillors, independents and magistrates should be. I know that some noble Lords would have preferred to see a few more councillors while others would have liked more magistrates. However, at some point, we have to conclude the debate and reach a firm decision. I hope that, by introducing these amendments, I shall expedite that process. On 1st March, most noble Lords from all parties in the House indicated that they found that composition acceptable. I hope that that will be your Lordships' view today.
The other amendments in the group are consequential amendments to Schedule 2 and Clauses 9 and 23. As I hope that your Lordships will approve the substance of Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, the others will then follow. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I should remind the House that if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 3 to 6.
Lord Mottistonc: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, which are the principal amendments, and to Amendments Nos. 10, 12, and 15, which are consequential upon them.
My noble friend says that he has gone a long way towards satisfying what we wanted. I agree and thank him very much for what he has done so far. However, I think it would be helpful if, before the Bill leaves Parliament—if not before it leaves your Lordships' House—my noble friend could think more deeply about how the provisions may work out. My first point is that we have an amendment before us that will provide one more councillor. I am not sure whether that will be enough because those who attend the meetings need to be those who will have some effect in carrying through the business being considered. I do not consider one extra councillor a sufficient enough precaution.
I have therefore approached the matter from a slightly different point of view. I suggest that three-fifths of the members should be councillors and that magistrates and independent members should each comprise one-fifth of the membership. I know that that will reduce the number of independent members to below that which my noble friend said was wanted in the first place, but I am not sure whether having a vast number of independent members will be as effective as might he thought. However, I propose to keep that argument until later.
What really concerns me is the position of the police authorities which cover the area of more than one local authority. If your Lordships would care to read Schedule I, you will find that a very large number of police authority areas comprise more than one local authority.
108
One of the problems that will arise from the numbers that my noble friend seeks is that there may not be enough members to satisfy several of the authorities that they are properly represented. There are two aspects. The first is the kind of police authority which covers the area of more than one local authority. The second is where the difference in number of local authorities covered is great. Schedule 1 shows that the police authorities in Greater Manchester and Northumbria cover a great number.
Another problem arises when one of the two local authorities is big and the other is small. That is the situation with regard to my county, the Isle of Wight and Hampshire. Out of 36 members of the police authority —and I agree that that is too many—six come from the Isle of Wight. As is the process, two-thirds are councillors and one-third are magistrates. It looks as though the reduced number will be 17 and therefore the Isle of Wight's contribution will be reduced to not more than three. That will be difficult if two of them are to be councillors, because they must be in the majority, and one is to be an independent, say, and one a magistrate.
For those reasons I hope that my noble friend w ill not consider that the situation is all wrapped up and that he does not have to think a little harder about what will happen in individual cases. Of course we note the powers of Amendment No. 7, which will allow the Secretary of State to increase the number of police authorities. However, in introducing the amendments, my noble friend said that he did not believe that those powers would be used very often. I suspect that examples such as the case of the two counties that I mentioned will not often arise. It is essential that they should if we are not to have amendments on the lines of my own.
I do not propose to push the amendments in any sense but I implore my noble friend to give further thought to the matter before the proposed legislation becomes law.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will not wish me to repeat speeches that were made at previous stages when we considered this clause and this schedule. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is right in saying that the general feeling of the House was not only in favour of a majority for local authority members, which is now provided in the government amendment, but for a significant majority. A number of noble Lords on the Government Benches specifically stated that of the options available to them they preferred a two-thirds majority rather than the simple majority that the Government are now providing.
As regards the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I take his point about the difficulty of having police authorities that are too small to represent the smaller local authorities. However, his amendment does not help; it still has a smaller police authority of 15 as compared with the Government's minimum on which there are only nine local authority members. That is the same number as the Government propose. His amendments and the Government amendments allow for larger authorities so in that sense the argument is not very powerful —
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I was hoping that the size of our police authorities would go up to 20 or 25.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, so they could but the size of the Government's could increase in steps of two as well. It might be wise for that to happen in the case of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, Greater Manchester and a number of other police authorities. I am making the point that in that respect there is no difference between the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the Government.
I prefer a larger majority for local authorities but the agreement was reached after a significant amount of negotiation. I do not propose to go back on it and, with regret, I believe it is right that we should support the amendments proposed by the Government.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when the Government and Opposition Front Benches have agreed upon something there is little that any of us—even keen government supporters on the Back Benches—can do about it. However, I feel bound to place on record not only my agreement with my noble friend Lord Mottistone but my admiration for the careful, restrained and effective way in which he has put forward his point of view. However, let us count such blessings as there are and be thankful that the size of the police authority is to be 17 rather than 16, with the capability of enlargement. If Devon and Cornwall are to be one police authority it will have to be enlarged.
As I mentioned previously, my main reason for agreeing with my noble friend Lord Mottistone is that his proposal gives the weight that should be given on a police authority to the experience of magistrates. Since 1964 one-third of every police authority has consisted of magistrates. As a result of their experience of trying cases in court, they have seen the difficulties and sometimes the shortcomings of the police. They have learnt how in order to maintain law and order it is necessary to have a police authority which gets things right. I believe that for almost a quarter of a century magistrates have helped the police authorities to get things right.
But now we are to have only three magistrates on an authority. I had hoped that in the course of applying this complicated method of selection of the so-called "independent" members, the number of magistrates might be added to. However, under Amendment No. 26 that cannot be done. In new paragraph 8B(1) (b), which it is proposed to add to Schedule 2, one sees that among those,
"disqualified for being appointed as a member of a police authority under paragraph 3A of this Schedule".
is,
"a magistrate eligible for appointment … under paragraph 5 of this Schedule".
Therefore, the number of magistrates on the police authority cannot be increased.
That is most regrettable. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the Home Secretary, who has the ultimate responsibility, will bear that in mind during further proceedings of the Bill. I hope that it will be rectified on Report, when I shall move an amendment to leave out—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, this is the Report stage.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I mean on Third Reading. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his quick-witted correction. I hope that either on Third Reading in your Lordships' House or in another place that prohibition will be deleted.
I wish to add only one comment, if I dare; that is to quote the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who is a former Home Secretary of great experience and is highly respected. He referred to the method of sending 20 names to the Home Office, receiving 10 names in return and then selecting five as "an elaborate farce". I must say that I cannot disagree with that description. He added:
"But I ask please not to produce any more legislation like this".
I can but agree with him.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, although I do not regard the arrangements proposed by the Government as ideal, I am certainly prepared to support them this afternoon. They were hammered out after due deliberation and they should be given their chance.
The only comment that I wish to make reinforces a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I think and hope that in practice it may be found necessary to have authorities with a membership larger than 17 in perhaps more cases than the noble Earl indicated. When one looks at the West Midlands, West Yorkshire, and in particular Greater Manchester and Merseyside, which happens to function through a large number of subcommittees, one may well find that there are quite a few cases where a larger authority is needed. One must also bear in mind the forces which will come into being as a result of amalgamations following changes in local government structure. But we shall see. In the meantime, I go along with the government amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I can see no case for changing the basis of police authorities as they now exist. That case has never been made, but I do not intend to go again down that particular road.
As the House is aware, we have been involved in prolonged discussions on this issue. We have accepted the Government's proposals. I have no pride of authorship as regards the content of the amendment. As I have indicated, I should prefer to leave things exactly as they are. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to begin unpicking the formula now. For that reason, I support the noble Earl's proposals.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I speak as a member of an authority. Agreement has been reached after lengthy negotiations on this matter. Although some of us may have wished for greater local government involvement, we have now reached a solution which is acceptable to the House.

111
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there should be a greater representation by magistrates. Speaking as a magistrate member, I am not sure that I go along with that. It seems to me that it should be a case of quality and not quantity. I should have thought that three magistrates would be quite sufficient for the purpose that we have in mind and that a greater spread of independent views would be a good solution.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, not for the first time my noble friend Lord Mottistone puts me in some difficulty. He said that he hoped that I should not consider the matter to be wrapped up so that I did not have to think any further. I assure my noble friend that I have been thinking about this subject almost morning, noon and night for the past two weeks and I should love dearly not to think about it any further. I shall accede to my noble friend's request. I will consider the matter further. But before he gets too excited, I should tell him that I do not believe that even after I have considered the matter further, I shall reach a different conclusion.
My noble friend Lord Renton said that when the Government and Opposition Front Benches agree on matters, it is extremely difficult for noble Lords on the Back Benches to get their oar in. I have not noticed much difficulty among my noble friends behind me. I wish that they would feel rather more constrained, but that is for them!
What are the facts of the matter? My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made various propositions which did not meet with the approval of your Lordships and others. Therefore, we tried to find a way of achieving agreement. I know that my right honourable friend would have preferred a different figure and that is why his original proposals were in a different form. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wanted a figure of two-thirds. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he does not go along with everything. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that on the whole, he is in favour of the present proposal. We have tried to find an arrangement which would satisfy everyone. In doing that, everyone had to give a bit. We tried to find—I use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—a consensus. In fact, I do not know whether that is what we were trying to find, but that is what we have now. We now propose a system which, on the whole, meets with the approval of all interested parties, and that is why I have tabled these amendments.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone reminded me of the schoolboy who puts his hand up at the back of the classroom and says. "Please sir, I think that my system is better". Of course his system may seem better to him, but it would not meet with the approval of everyone else.
My noble friend is concerned about the Isle of Wight. I cannot guarantee that the Isle of Wight will be represented, but it is likely that it will be, either by councillors, by the independent members, or both. Initially people wanted different things. My noble friend Lord Renton wanted to see more magistrates and my noble friend Lord Mottistone wants three-fifths of the members to be councillors. The noble Lord, Lord
112
McIntosh, wants two-thirds of the members to be councillors. But we have reached an arrangement which I believe is acceptable to most people.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone rather reminds one of a battleship ploughing through the waters totally regardless of the waves blowing over the bows. I advise my noble friend to switch on his ASDIC equipment to see whether there are any rocks underneath which may hole his boat. I understand that he is not enarnoured of all the proposals but I assure him that we have gone to a great deal of trouble. I believe that the present proposals are most likely to be acceptable to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am unable to call Amendments Nos. 3 to 6.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Membership of police authorities etc
(".—(1) After section 3 of the 1964 Act there shall he inserted—
"Membership of police authorities etc.
3A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, each police authority established under section 3 of this Act shall consist of seventeen members.
(2)The Secretary of State may by order provide in relation to a police authority specified in the order that the number of its members shall be a specified odd number greater than seventeen.
(3)A statutory instrument containing an order made under subsection (2) of this section shall be laid before Parliament after being made.
(4)Schedules 1B and 1C to this Act shall have effect in relation to police authorities established under section 3 and the appointment of their members."
(2) After Schedule 1A to the 1964 Act there shall he inserted (as Schedule 18 and 1C) the Schedules set out in Schedule 2 to this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Schedule to be inserted in Police Act 1964: police authorities]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
Page 49, line 27, at end insert:
("Membership of police authorities
A 1.—(1) Where, by virtue of section 3A of this Act, a police authority is to consist of seventeen members—

(a)nine of those members shall be members of a relevant council appointed under paragraph 1 of this Schedule,

(b)five shall be persons appointed under paragraph 3A, and

(c) three shall be magistrates appointed under paragraph 5.

(2) Where, by virtue of an order under subsection (2) of that section, a police authority is to consist of more than seventeen members—

(a)a number which is greater by one than the number of members provided for in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this sub-paragraph shall be members of a relevant council appointed under paragraph 1 of this Schedule.

(b)such number as may be prescribed by the order, not exceeding one third of the total membership, shall be persons appointed under paragraph 3A, and

(c)the remainder shall he magistrates appointed under paragraph 5.").

Page 49. line 30, leave out ("eight").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 49, line 30. leave out from ("in") to ("shall") in line 31 and insert ("paragraph A 1 (1) (a) or (2) (a) of this Schedule").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 49, line 32, leave out ("eight").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 49, line 46, at end insert:
("Appointment of independent members

3A. The members of a police authority referred to in paragraph A 1(1) (b) and (2) (b) of this Schedule shall be appointed

(a) by the members of the police authority appointed under paragraph 1 or 5,

(b) from among persons on a shortlist prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with Schedule 1C to this Act.

3B.—(1) Every police authority shall arrange for a notice stating—

(a) the name of each of its members appointed under paragraph 3A of this Schedule, and

(b) such other information relating to him as the authority considers appropriate, to be published in such manner as it thinks fit.

(2) A police authority shall send to the Secretary of State a copy of any notice which it has arranged to be published under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 29 and 45. This substantial set of amendments gives effect to the announcement which I made on 1st March on recommitment about the way in which the independent members of police authorities will be selected. I gave a fairly detailed description then. I thought it cheered the House up no end and even produced laughter. I am always happy to have a good laugh at anything but I never expected to find anything in this Bill to laugh about. However, it may look slightly less amusing now that it is set out with the customary precision and clarity of the parliamentary counsel.
Amendment No. 14 specifies that the independent members of the police authority are to be appointed by the councillor and magistrate members of the authority. They are to make their choice from a short list which they will receive from the Secretary of State. The police authority must publish a notice giving the names of independent members once they have been appointed, and they must copy that notice to the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 26 sets out the disqualifications for appointment as an independent member and is, I hope, self-explanatory. Independent members must live or work locally on appointment (and in the preceding 12 months) and they must leave office if they cease to do so during their term of office.
Paragraph 8B of the amendment lists others disqualifications. Those elected to local government in the police area should not be eligible; nor should magistrates or members of the selection panel. The remaining disqualifications—police officers, police authority employees or the employees of local authorities which are eligible to nominate members to the authority—are equally obvious.
Amendment No. 45 contains a self-contained schedule setting out the process for appointing independent members. It may be helpful if I explain the process in a little more detail.
Paragraph 1 defines the composition and the method of appointment of the selection panel. Sub-paragraphs
114
(3) and (4) ensure that a councillor or a magistrate for the area may be appointed as a member of the selection panel only as the nominee of the councillors and the magistrates on the police authority. They may not be so appointed by the Secretary of State or as the third member appointed by the other two.
Paragraph 2 deals with disqualifications and terms of office for members of the selection panel. Basically, the disqualifications for membership of the police authority apply equally to the selection panel. We propose a two-year term of office, although those appointing the members may reappoint them if they remain eligible. Natural wastage over time will result in the terms of office of the selection panel becoming staggered. That is no bad thing in the interests of continuity.
Those who are appointed to selection panels should exercise independent judgment and should not be the delegates of those appointing them. It follows that the appointment of a member of the selection panel does not cease with the departure from office of those who appointed him. That would be relevant in the case of the first member of the selection panel if, for example, the political complexion of the police authority were to change. In the case of the second member, it would be the same if the Home Secretary were to change. In the case of the third member, the same would apply if either of the other two members were to change.
Paragraph 8 onwards of the new Schedule 1C deals with the functions of the selection panels. I think it would be helpful if I were to take the paragraphs of the section out of the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List and put them in the chronological order of what will happen.
Under paragraph 11 of the schedule, the Secretary of State may make regulations for the procedures to be adopted in inviting applications from persons wishing to be appointed as independent members and the criteria to be used by the panel in making its choices. No doubt some detail of those procedures and the selection criteria will need to be changed from time to time. That can be done by way of those regulations which will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The basic feature of the selection process is that those to be appointed as independent members should represent the interests of a wide range of people in the police areas. That requirement is set out in paragraph 10 and is not subject to change. The task of the selection panel, within the procedural regulations, is then to provide for the Secretary of State a list of the most suitable names from among those who apply. The selection panel is to give four times as many names as there are vacancies. As the House will recall, the Secretary of State will then forward to the police authority a list containing half that number of names, representing those whom the Secretary of State regards as best qualified to serve on the police authority. The police authority will then make its own selection from that list. That is dealt with in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the schedule.
Perhaps I may just add that we need to be sure that each police authority has its full complement of members, with only brief intervals below strength when perhaps a casual vacancy has arisen unexpectedly.

115
There may be a remote possibility that we need to provide for the case where the selection panel is unable to put forward a full list containing four times the number of vacancies which require to be filled. That could arise where it appeared to the panel that there was not a sufficient number of people meeting the selection criteria among those who applied. That possibility is dealt with in paragraphs 8(2), 12(2) and 13.
If the selection panel were to send forward a list containing fewer than four times the number of vacancies, the Secretary of State would continue to send to the police authority a list containing half the number of names put forward by the panel. In other words, any curtailment of choice resulting from the restricted number put forward by the selection panel is shared equally by the Secretary of State and the police authority.
An even more remote possibility is that the selection panel may find itself able to send forward to the Secretary of State such a restricted number of names that, when the number is halved by the Secretary of State, the police authority would be left with a smaller number of names than the number of vacancies to be filled. That impasse needs to be resolved. That is the purpose of paragraph 13. In that event, the Secretary of State would add sufficient names (that he chooses) so that the list sent forward to the police authority matches the number of vacancies to be filled. I emphasise that that is an exceedingly remote possibility. I have little doubt that the selection panels will do all that they can to provide a sufficient number of names.
After the initial appointments, when there will be at least five independent members to be appointed to each authority, the process of appointment and reappointment will become irregular as a result of natural wastage. Therefore, it is likely that after the beginning the appointment of five members simultaneously in every police force area will be a rarity. I believe that those arrangements fully comply with what I described to the Chamber on 1st March, which noble Lords generally found acceptable. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has particularly clear diction. It is always a pleasure to listen to him, especially for those of us who are perhaps not quite so acute of hearing as we were in our youth. He combined that clarity of diction this afternoon with such a rapidity that I thought a machine gun was going off. I do not blame the noble Earl. I thought that it was the best way to do it. I do not know whether all noble Lords managed to catch everything that the noble Earl said or, if they did, whether they understood it.
However, if I may say so, I thought that the noble Earl was very wise to speak with both clarity and rapidity. I say that because the elaborate farce that has had to be constructed in order to get an accommodation, as the noble Earl properly said, among everyone on the matter is of such a character that it does not stand scrutiny by any rational person applying a modicum of common sense. As the noble Earl rightly said, it was necessary to do so to get an accommodation. Indeed, the
116
noble Earl worked hard to secure it. We have all gone along with it, although, as he said, everyone has given a little away in order to get that accommodation. All of that is of course very desirable, but I do not know what those in another place will think when they read about it. However, I dare say that the Government's majority will carry them through. They do not have to withstand quite the independence of mind which characterises this House.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the way in which he has steered the matter through this Chamber. I would only add that, if such an elaborate farce has been staged, the noble Earl is entirely acquitted of any responsibility for it. He told me last time that I was quite out of order to suggest that he had any responsibility for the Bill. I fully appreciate that. Indeed, I believe that the noble Earl is very wise to say so. As regards the noble Earl's rebuke to me when I suggested that he might have had something to do with the Bill, the plain truth is that when history comes to be written the further he can distance himself from the provisions of the clause the better it will be for his reputation, which stands so high.
I gladly assent to the proposal, but venture to make one prophecy. If there is another police Bill—certainly I doubt whether the present provisions will last the same length of time as those in the 1964 Act—and we have a new Home Secretary, I believe that this provision w ill be one of the first to go.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, referred to my noble friend's speech as a farce. No one knows better than the noble Lord that politics is the art of the possible. Moreover. no one knows better than a former Prime Minister that if you want to work the system where all sorts of different points of view are generally put forward from all parts of the House, you must accommodate in order to reach a point where you can actually achieve something.
I believe that my noble friend has achieved that aim in the light of all the different points of view put to him in a way which is totally admirable. If the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, will permit me to say so, my noble friend's efforts do not deserve to be described as farcical: he has shown us a skilful way of working the system. We are all part of the system, and fully aware of its strengths and weaknesses.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is well recognised that the arrangements are those to which we assented in order to achieve agreement. We shall not back off from such agreements. I would prefer to have two-thirds of what I wanted not being overturned in another place than to lose everything that would have been gained with a victory in the Division Lobbies here. My noble friend Lord Callaghan is quite right. The discipline which applies in another place makes it likely that whatever we put forward for its consideration, provided that it is approved by the Government, will in fact go forward.
The Minister referred to the precision and clarity of the parliamentary draftsman. I do not deny those qualities. But the draftsman can scarcely be congratulated on his brevity when the effect of the agreement which we reached has resulted in a new schedule which is

117
exceedingly complex. It is three pages in length and adds more to the Bill than any other element which might have been devised. And there are still defects which I regret and which I should refer to.
These are inevitably complex arrangements and they still provide for a degree of flexibility and power on the part of the Secretary of State to impose further conditions by regulation, notably under paragraph 11 of the new schedule where he may make regulations on the procedures to be followed. He may also make regulations on the criteria to be applied in the selection both by the selection panel and by himself in considering the choice made by the selection panel. The Secretary of State has the power, if he wishes to use it, to make regulations which will secure political objectives laid down by the holder of that office at the time, without reference to Parliament, which could influence the membership of police authorities. To that extent the amendments proposed are defective and are not fully in accord with what I understood to be the agreement we reached.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. When he says "without reference to Parliament" he overlooks the fact that the regulations have to be contained in the statutory instrument and are subject to annulment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept the correction of the noble Lord. Of course paragraph 11(4) makes that point. But the noble Lord knows as well as I how little influence Parliament can exercise on a negative resolution. A second problem, mentioned by the Minister when replying to his noble friend Lord Mottistone, concerns exclusions from membership of police authorities. It is not just the case that magistrates are excluded; employees of local authorities are also excluded. That means that some people who might make admirable members of police authorities, for example, youth workers or indeed teachers, will be excluded from such membership. That is laid down in statute and cannot be altered except by statute. It is an unnecessary and an undesirable exclusion.
However, my fundamental worry about these amendments—although I shall not oppose them—relates to what my noble friend Lord Callaghan said. I believe that what we have is a complex procedure which is open to the possibility that it will not work at all. We may end up with a future Home Secretary asking whether it is necessary to go through all these procedures to obtain independent members of police authorities. I regret that the drafting of the amendments leaves a future Home Secretary with no choice in the matter. If the amendments had been drafted to enable the present Home Secretary to apply the procedures at the beginning and to do his best to ensure that they work and would work in future, that would be one thing. However, the amendments have been drafted in such a way that no future Home Secretary can short-cut the procedures without primary legislation. I believe that that is a mistake which the Government and future
118
governments will come to regret. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have explained, we do not propose to oppose the amendments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for saying that he will not oppose the amendments. I am sorry if I gave the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, the impression that I was speaking like a machine-gun. I would, of course, be happy to repeat my speech which, as he will observe with his normal perspicacity, I remember totally, although it was a completely off-the-cuff speech. If the noble Lord wishes me to repeat my speech I shall do so, but I rather fancy that it may be for the convenience of noble Lords who are interested in these matters to read the speech in Hansard at their leisure. That would satisfy those who wish to know all the details of the matter. I am bound to say that I shall always be apprehensive about the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. He sits in the Chamber smiling and then rises to his feet and makes a wonderfully complimentary speech. However, one knows that he is about to unsheath the awful sword he has in his hand.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Oh no!
Earl Ferrers: Oh yes, there is a sword. If ever the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, were to invite me to dinner —I am not touting for such an invitation, as the likelihood of him inviting me to dinner is small—I would bring a taster with me because as soon as the noble Lord pays a compliment he follows it with a devastating castigation. On the previous occasion we discussed this matter, the noble Lord said that one could tell that it was I who was in charge of the Bill and not my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. When I suggested that for once the noble Lord had misread the position, he then said that he quite understood that the Home Secretary was now in charge of the Bill and he advised me to distance myself from it as far as possible. The noble Lord reminds one of a snake that weaves its way through the grass, twisting left and right.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: I say that as a compliment. It is the ability of the noble Lord to move around the various parts of the Bill like a snake that I admire so much. I must assure the noble Lord that I do not seek to insult him in saying that. I merely wish to compliment him on his great ability to weave between difficult subjects. Perhaps the noble Lord wishes to intervene? No, it appears that he does not.
The noble Lord referred to the exercise we are discussing as an elaborate farce. Regrettably, my noble friend inadvertently reminded him of that. I do not accept that. We proposed a much simpler arrangement in the Bill when it was originally introduced. However, your Lordships did not like that arrangement. We then said that we had to listen to what your Lordships said and would try to make the Bill more acceptable. Of course when one is trying to appoint independent people to a police authority—whoever appoints them—someone will say that those appointees owe their allegiance to the person who has appointed them. Your Lordships did not like the idea that my right honourable

119
friend the Home Secretary should appoint the members of police authorities as your Lordships suggested the appointees would owe allegiance to my right honourable friend. However, if local authorities co-opt people, that has disadvantages. We had to devise a system which ensures that the appointees are wholly and truly independent. If I may say so, your Lordships insisted on that point again and again and spoke on it at substantial length in Committee.
We have produced a measure to deal with the matter. It is a complicated arrangement but it is not an elaborate farce. The arrangement is perhaps more complicated than some of us would wish but it is a smashing arrangement really because it meets—I hope—all of your Lordships' concerns. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:
Page 50, line 2, leave out ("three").
Page 50, line 2, leave out from ("in") to end of line 3 and insert ("paragraph A1(1) (c) or (2) (c) of this Schedule.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 50, line 20, at end insert:
("Appointment by the Secretary of State

(1) The members of a police authority referred to in section 3A(l) (c) or (1A) (c) of this Act shall be persons, appointed by the Secretary of State, who have been proposed by the other members of the police authority concerned. Guidance to police authorities on the choice of persons to be recommended for appointment by the Secretary of State shall be issued in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State, supplemented by guidance notes of detail from time to time.

(2) An order under this paragraph may make provision for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by, and payment of allowances to, any person exercising functions for the purpose of the order.

(3) A statutory instrument containing an order made under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 18 but I have one or two important points to make. First, I hope that my noble friend will appreciate that I tabled the amendment to enable him to see how his complicated arrangement might be made simpler. I wish my noble friend to know that I tabled an amendment similar to this one before I heard about my noble friend's complicated system because it seemed to me that what my noble friend was seeking—and indeed perhaps what the House would like—was something not dissimilar to the process by which advisory committees recommend magistrates to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
In that process the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor invites the Keeper of the Rolls to chair a committee which consists of magistrates and one or two outsiders. He lays down many complicated rules—this is the first point which I suggest my noble friend might consider—and so far all those complicated rules have been laid down on the direction of successive Lord Chancellors and not by means of statutory order. The advisory committees have welcomed the rules as they have provided good guidance in terms of ensuring that the right proportion of men and women and of political balance is obtained in the magistracy. The rules have ensured that the right proportion of people from ethnic
120
minorities is appointed, if that is relevant, and that the correct proportion of professional people is appointed. They have provided us with a variety of good guidance. It is those rules to which the first paragraph of Amendment No. 18 refers.
I mentioned an order solely in order to encompass what my noble friend had included in an earlier amendment of his own. That is included in subsection (2) of my amendment. That provision obviously needed to be covered by an order. The detailed guidance which I suggest to provide advice to the councillor and magistrate members of the police authority should be on the same lines as that which is supplied to advisory committees by the Lord Chancellor.
It seems to me that that would be very much simpler. It would enable the Home Secretary to give as much guidance as he likes—which is his purpose in trying to include what he believes to be the right sort of people on the police authority. I understand why he wants to do that. Then the relevant number of people are recommended to him and he is in a position to approve or to disapprove them.
When I mentioned that proposal briefly to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and asked whether he agreed that the system produced for him a succession of magistrates who have been almost entirely satisfactory, he said that it had. Perhaps my noble and learned friend who has been Lord Chancellor and who is in our midst would like to add to that if he thinks that there is time. However, the fact is that over many years that system has produced first class magistrates to conduct the law in their own part of the country.
I believe that something on the lines of my amendment would be very much more suitable. I can see that the Government may now have gone too far and may feel that they have to go all the way down this road. It would be wonderful if they did not and were able to give the matter further thought, because I am sure that what I suggest would be better.
I should like to make one comment on my noble friend's amendment, which we shall shortly accept, in respect of the selection panel of only three people. The panel is to be selected in a most complicated fashion. In the police authorities to which I referred earlier, where more than one local authority is involved, inevitably some local authorities will not have people from their own part of the world on the selection committee. In my experience, not only in the Isle of Wight but also in other parts of England, people do not feel that their interests are automatically served if persons are chosen for important local tasks by people wholly from adjacent communities. I hope that my noble friend will appreciate that that is a very strong feeling. When the independent members are chosen and people in individual communities locally do not feel that they have had an opportunity either to produce one of the independent members or to have had some say in how those people were appointed, a great deal of unnecessary dissension will be caused. The process that I suggest in Amendment No. 18 would meet that aspect of the matter satisfactorily.
I shall not go further at this stage. In the hope of receiving a satisfactory reply, I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mottistone has made a constructive attempt to show that there are other ways of dealing with this problem. It would be idle to hope that the amendment could be accepted by the Government or by your Lordships' House at this stage. However, my noble friend's experience in the Isle of Wight and elsewhere should alert us to the difficulties that can arise when a scheme of the kind that will come into force is applied.
I do not agree entirely with the detail of the machinery which my noble friend mentioned. Indeed, he said that he hoped that something on those lines might one day prevail. I agree. It is good to have on the record what my noble friend said, and it is sad that we cannot do more than that at this time.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mottistone is nothing if not persistent. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that there are other ways of dealing with the problem. We went through them all. When we produced other suggestions for dealing with the problem they did not meet with your Lordships' approval.
I revert to what was said in relation to the earlier amendments. We have taken account of the variety of views that have been expressed, not only in the House but also outside it, to try to find a common system which is relatively acceptable to everyone. I know that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has had a great deal of experience in these matters. I understand the force of the arguments which he put forward from his own experience. But other noble Lords and other people have had different experience. In order to find a way through those different experiences we have arrived at the arrangements set out in the Bill.
My noble friend is misdirected always to refer to the arrangements which are used for appointing magistrates and to say that that is an acceptable method for appointing independent members of the police authority. My noble friend suggests that the independent members should be chosen by those people who are already members of the police authority and should have the approval of the Secretary of State. The fundamental objection to that is that we want to see a wide variety of people brought in as independent members in order to help. If one restricts that membership to those who are co-opted by members of the police authority one severely restricts the area from which those people can be drawn. That is why we did not particularly want to go down that route.
There is an endless variety of possible sizes for a police authority, of different proportions within its membership and different methods of arriving at the appointment of the independent members. I urge my noble friend to recognise that however much he may wish us to take a different course almost everyone else feels the same and we have arrived at a course which on the whole meets with general approval. I hope that my noble friend will accept that.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. I should like to make one small point.
122
In the process by which the magistrate and councillor members of the police authority would select people, the individuals themselves would volunteer, as is the case with magistrates. It is not a question of picking their own chums from anywhere. There would be strict rules about who would be suitable people. It is not quite as my noble friend suggested. The system has enormous potential, adjusted for this special circumstance. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 50, line 32, at end insert:
(" 7A. A person shall be disqualified for being appointed as a member of a police authority if he has attained the age of seventy years.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19 I should like to speak also to Amendment Nos. 27 and 40. It is probably correct to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, which is grouped with those amendments.
Amendments Nos. 19, 27 and 40 tidy up the provisions in Schedule 2 which relate to police authority members who reach the age of 70. The schedule originally provided that no one should be appointed for a term which would expire after he had attained the age of 70. The standard term of office would be four years or such shorter period as might be determined in a particular case. A person who was appointed on a 66th birthday would therefore have to be appointed for a term of four years minus one day.
When we considered the schedule earlier the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, suggested that that would be an obstacle to people being appointed once they had reached the age of 66. He thought that at that age they still had a lot of go in them, and I do not disagree with that. Although this would not necessarily have been the effect of the schedule, we are anxious to clarify the position. The amendments make clear that a person can be appointed as a member of a police authority at any time below the age of 70 but that he must cease to be a member of the police authority when he reaches the age of 70.
I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord without appearing to discriminate unduly against those who are, as they say, of more mature years.
Amendment No. 27 also ensures that the length of a member's term of office is decided by the body which appoints him subject to a maximum of four years. We would expect the normal term of office to be four years, but it will be possible for the appointing body to choose a shorter period in a particular case. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, having raised the matter, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having met my point. I am sure that the 66 year-olds will always be deeply grateful to the noble Earl for not discriminating against them in the way that might have been possible had the Bill been read in a specific way.
On Amendment No. 28 which I was going to propose, the noble Earl slightly dropped his voice as he spoke and I missed two or three words that he uttered. Is it my understanding that the authorities concerned can

123
appoint people for a period of less than four years if that is their wish? I believe that he said that. If so, I am grateful to him and I shall not trouble the House by moving Amendment No. 28.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise if my diction was slipping for the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and Lord Callaghan. I must learn to shout a little more.
The noble Lord. Lord Harris, is quite right. An appointing body may appoint for less than four years.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hear what noble Lords have said in that exchange. I do not entirely agree. Although the government amendment deals with the anomaly which would have excluded 66 year-olds, it still leaves the age limit of 70. I am not convinced that that is right. I am riot convinced that people who, for example, can perfectly well serve on local authorities should be excluded from serving on police authorities. It is not a matter to press and I do not have my name to any of the amendments. However, I think that it is a pity to let that issue go.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly to ask the Minister, with an apology if I am wrong, whether he was right in saying that the amendment means that upon attaining the age of 70 the person concerned is then disqualified. As I read the amendment, it states that a person who has reached the age of 70 cannot be appointed. Therefore if he is appointed aged under 70 years, he can obviously continue to serve.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the objective is to attain an age limit at which people would cease to be members of the police authority. There is no hard and fast rule about the right age to step down from a post. However, I believe it is right that we should impose some limit. All magistrates have to step down when they reach the age of 70. Schedule 2 would put all police authority members on the same footing. I hesitate to say that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is wrong, but I believe that he is wrong: that one must step down at the age of 70. That is what we propose in the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I must not waste the time of the House. If the Minister is certain that that is what the Bill provides, far be it from me to utter a dissentient note. However, his amendment provides that one cannot be appointed if one has attained the age of 70. The provision does not say that one cannot serve over the age of 70. One cannot be appointed originally if one has reached that age. However, if the Minister is quite sure that I am wrong aid he is right, I sit down with great alacrity.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I see that the noble Lord has sat down with great alacrity in anticipation. The position is that a person can be appointed after the age of 66 but he has to retire at the age of 70. The provision relates to a term of four years or a term expiring on his attaining the age of 70 years, whichever is the shorter. The noble Lord is an experienced lawyer and I would not wish to cross swords with him on that point.
124
However, my modest reading of that paragraph indicates that I am right and the noble Lord, for the first time in his life, is in error.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 50, line 34, leave out ("or acting as") and insert ("as or being").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 34. These are technical amendments in relation to people who become disqualified for membership of a police authority after they have been appointed. It would arise, for example, if a person went bankrupt in the middle of his term of appointment. It might have been argued that the schedule as drafted could have had the effect of allowing such a person to continue to be a member of a police authority although he would not be able to act as a member of the police authority. The amendments put that curious position beyond doubt. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Page 50, line 42, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 24. We put down our two amendments before the Government had produced their own draft. I readily acknowledge that the Government's draft must be superior to mine. It achieves the same objective. I am delighted to accept the Government's recognition that we had a valid point when we put forward at Committee stage amendments on disqualification of police authority members.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 50, line 42, leave out ("or") and insert:
("( ) he is subject to a disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, or to an order made under section 429(2) (b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (failure to pay under county court administration order); or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, concedes that the drafting of the Government is all way better than his.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say "always".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was going to say that hope that he agrees that the arguments of the Government are usually better too.
The noble Lord had amendments on the Marshalled List at Committee about this issue although we did not reach them. We considered what he had in mind and 1 am happy to bring forward an amendment which reflects the substance of the noble Lord's earlier proposal
The amendment would disqualify for membership of a police authority any person who was disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 from being a director of a limited company, or who was disqualified under the Insolvency Act 1986 from being a director or obtaining credit or engaging in any business transactions. I hope that your Lordships will

125
agree that it would not be right for such people to be members of a police authority and will therefore welcome the amendment. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, welcomes it too. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 50, line 47, at end insert (", or has been convicted of an offence in any country which would be an imprisonable offence in the United Kingdom.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is an attempt to deal with the fact that nowadays we live in a more international world and that membership of the European Union means that people who may have been convicted in other countries can now rightfully be resident in this country and could become members of a police authority.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon has a more elegant suggestion about how the same effect could be achieved with a rather different amendment. But the underlying principle is the idea that we should not have people on police authorities who are criminals or who have committed imprisonable offences. Perhaps the noble Earl would like to hear what my noble friend Lord Mishcon has to say on the subject. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that this will be a happier intervention than my last one. I at once acknowledge the principle of the amendment as being correct and one which ought to be covered. It is obviously absurd that someone who is convicted in this country and imprisoned for a period of not less than three months—whether or not it is a suspended sentence —is disqualified, but a person who commits an offence while abroad has no such disqualification. The only problem that I can see, which I respectfully mention to my noble friend, is this. The wording of the amendment would mean that someone who had been convicted abroad would be far worse off under the amendment than someone who had been convicted in this country. The person abroad only has to commit an offence, be convicted of it and fined the equivalent of £2 in foreign currency to discover that he is disqualified because in this country the offence is an imprisonable offence. That is what the amendment suggests.
Therefore, to achieve at least equality between a person who is convicted in this country and one convicted abroad, one has to alter the present clause making the offence equal; namely, if the person concerned is convicted abroad and is sentenced abroad to a period of three months or more, that person is disqualified. However, I support the principle of the amendment and merely point out that it does not propose a just arrangement, but that can be put right at Third Reading.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for drawing attention to the matter. I have considerable sympathy with the objective behind the amendment, which is to disqualify from membership of a police authority any person who had been convicted of
126
an offence abroad which would be serious enough for him to have been liable to imprisonment if it had been committed in the United Kingdom.
However, I think that there are considerable practical difficulties which would have unfair and inconsistent results if we attempted to implement the amendment as it is. Offences in foreign legislation would not necessarily be defined in terms which equated directly to some United Kingdom offence. The law varies in different parts of the United Kingdom too. The disqualification already in the Bill relates to sentences which are actually imposed—the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred—and the disqualification has, therefore, some regard to the court's assessment of the seriousness of the offence. The amendment would apply the disqualification to any offence in another country which could have given rise to imprisonment if it had been committed in the United Kingdom, whether or not a UK court would actually have imposed a sentence of imprisonment. I think that the amendment would take us into the realms of guesswork.
To take the case of dangerous driving—an offence for which someone could be imprisoned under the law of England and Wales—such a sentence would be passed only in a very serious case. It would be difficult to determine whether a driving offence, for example, under the law of Portugal, Russia or Turkey could properly be translated into English as "dangerous driving".
The objection to the noble Lord's point that one should require someone to be sentenced abroad to any actual period of imprisonment is that we would not wish to accept sentences from some countries. I do not know whether it would be appropriate to suggest countries, but they might pass punitive sentences against British citizens. It would be difficult if we started using that as an example of the type of person whom we would not want to see on the police authority. Having said that, I do not disagree with the intent behind the noble Lord's point, but it is difficult to put it into practice.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I propose to withdraw the amendment in any case, but I should like to think about the matter a little further to see whether a form of words could more clearly define it as a criminal offence abroad rather than an offence against the state or some other offence which one might not think was serious in the context. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 51, line 1, leave out ("from being appointed or acting as") and insert ("for being appointed as or being").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 51, line 20, at end insert:
("8A.—(1) Without prejudice to paragraphs 7A and 8 of this Schedule, a person shall be disqualified for being appointed as a member of a police authority under paragraph 3A of this Schedule if—

127

(a) he has not yet attained the age of twenty-one years, or

(b) neither his principal or only place of work, nor his principal or only place of residence, has been in the area of the authority during the whole of the period of twelve months ending with the day of appointment.

(2) Without prejudice to paragraphs 7A and 8 of this Schedule, a person shall be disqualified for being a member so appointed if, at any time, neither his principal or only place of work, nor his principal or only place of residence, is within that area.
8B.—(1) Without prejudice to paragraphs 7A and 8 of this Schedule, a person shall be disqualified for being appointed as a member of a police authority under paragraph 3A of this Schedule, and for being a member so appointed, if he is—

(a) a member of the council for a county, district or London borough which is wholly or partly within the area of the police authority;

(b) a magistrate eligible for appointment to the police authority under paragraph 5 of this Schedule;

(c) a member of the selection panel for the police authority's area established under Schedule 1C to this Act;

(d) a member of a police force;

(e) an officer or employee of a police authority; or

(f) an officer or employee of a relevant council.

(2) A person shall not be regarded for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (f) of this paragraph as an employee of a relevant council by reason of his holding—

(a) the post of head teacher or principal of a school, college or other educational institution or establishment which is maintained or assisted by a local education authority; or

(b) any other post as a teacher or lecturer in any such school, college, institution or establishment.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 51, line 24, leave Out from ("for") to end of line 25 and insert:
("(a) a term of four years or a term expiring on his attaining the age of seventy years, whichever is the shorter, or
(b) such shorter period as the body appointing him may determine in any particular case.
(2) A person shall not, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) (b) of this paragraph, be appointed under paragraph 3A of this Schedule for a period shorter than four years without the approval of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 51, line 28, leave out ("by the Secretary of State") and insert ("under paragraph 3A of this Schedule").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, I call Amendment No. 30; Earl Harris.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 51, line 38, at end insert:
("12A. A police authority may suspend a member from office for a fixed term by notice in writing if—

(a) he has been charged with a criminal offence,

(b) it is satisfied that the member is incapacitated by physical or mental illness, or

(c) it is satisfied that the member is otherwise unable to discharge his functions as a member.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that I have quite achieved an earldom yet but no doubt the next Honours List will put that right.
128
In moving Amendment No. 30 I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 37 and 39. The object of the amendments is to transfer a responsibility from the Secretary of State to the appointing body. The first amendment allows a police authority to suspend a member from office if,
"he has been charged with a criminal offence … it is satisfied that the member is incapacitated by physical or mental illness", and so on.
The second amendment removes the Home Secretary's power to remove members, passing that responsibility on to the appointing body. Other amendments give the power to the police authority to remove members by reason of absence. Amendment No. 37 would remove as a criterion for removal the belief that a member is unfit. On the latter point the noble Earl will remember that we have discussed the issue with him on many occasions, asking what "unfit" means. We have not yet had the good fortune of receiving a clear answer.
The amendment to allow suspension in the case of a member having been charged with a criminal offence or being temporarily incapacitated seems to me sensible. It could easily be carried out by the police authority itself. As it stands, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to remove any members of the police authority from office, whether it be an elected local authority appointee, a magistrate member or a co-optec. That is an entirely new power, without precedent either in legislation governing the police or as regards local government itself. I can understand that it may have been in the Government's mind, before they accepted the substantial number of amendments to Clause 2 and Schedule 2, that this might have been appropriate. However, given that the clause and the schedule have been drastically rewritten, I do not think there is much merit in retaining the present form of words.
Central government have not previously been concerned with, responsible for or interested in the activities of local or police authority individual members such as to be in a position to exercise the power that it provided in the Bill. The appointment of police authority members is to be in the hands of clearly defined groups of people. It should be for them to decide whether their appointees have become unfit or unable to hold office. It is not clear how a Minister in Whitehall can make a decision about a member of a police authority in Cumbria, Dyfed, Powys or anywhere similar. Why should it not be left to the appointing bodies? That seems to me to be the sensible way forward.
As well as passing to the authority the role of removing members by reason of absence, the period of absence in these amendments is extended to six months to accord with general local authority practice. After all, many authorities only meet quarterly, making three months an absurdly short period. With those observations, I beg to move the first of these amendments.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, under the Government amendments in this group basically the power is transferred to the police authority to remove its members. My chief concern remains Amendment No.

129
37 and the slight looseness of the word "unfit". The suggestion is that there should be a better definition of the grounds upon which people are removed from a police authority. It seems to me that unfitness can cover any possible sin or offence—not getting on with the chairman, or whatever. This is a piece of poor drafting and we could do with rather better definition on the face of the Bill. That is the specific amendment within this group that I wish to address.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in discussing this particular group of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, perhaps I may also include Amendments Nos. 31, 35, 36 and 38 which appear in my name. All of these amendments deal with the removal from office of police authority members. A person can be removed from office only in certain circumstances, including continuous absence from meetings, conviction of a criminal offence, physical or mental incapacity or where a person is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge his responsibilities.
I think we can all agree that there must be effective sanctions against police authority members who act improperly or fail to carry out their responsibilities. It is not in the interests of any authority, or the local people whom it serves, to tolerate as members of the authority people whose continued presence is not acceptable because of incapacity or criminal conviction.
The provisions of the schedule as drafted offered one means of achieving that. We did not think that a relevant council, or in particular a joint committee or magistrates selection panel which would only meet from time to time, would be in a position to take action against a corrupt or unfit police authority member. That was why the Bill proposed that the Secretary of State should have the power to remove police authority members in certain circumstances. In practice, the Secretary of State would not have exercised the power unless it had been drawn to his attention by the police authority that action needed to be taken.
Some noble Lords opposite put down a number of amendments drawing attention to this at Committee stage and we have considered them. As a result, I do not accept that our previous proposals might have appeared to put too much influence in the hands of the Secretary of State. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich that there is some force in the argument that the people who are most likely to know when an individual member needs to be dealt with are the other members of the authority. Amendments Nos. 31, 34, 35, 36 and 38 in my name would, therefore, mean that the power of removal rested with the police authority as a whole.
I hope that that reply meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Where the police authority considers it necessary to remove a member it will be required to notify the body which appoints the member and, in the case of an independent member, the Secretary of State. This will ensure that the appointing body has the opportunity to make a fresh appointment.
130
Amendments Nos. 30, 32, 33, 37 and 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, are similar but will have slightly different effects. The police authority could suspend members, but only other bodies could remove them, except in the case of extended absence. This could produce an odd position where a police authority had suspended a member but he was not removed. He might remain in suspended animation indefinitely. I think we should trust the collective judgment of the police authority: it will know best when action needs to be taken.
On the question of extended absence, the noble Lord suggests that a member should be liable to be removed after six months' absence. The Government suggest three months. I appreciate that six months applies in local government generally, but local councils are usually much larger bodies. A small police authority needs a full complement of active members if it is to function properly. A three-month period is not uncommon in relation to small bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, returned to the definition of fitness. He wished to delete "unfit" as a ground for possible removal. That matter also worried the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. I believe that they both suggested that that was too vague a term, which would be open to abuse. I accept that it is difficult to define precisely what unfitness is but, rather like an elephant, it can be recognised when it is seen. A person who disclosed details of planned police operations against crime, for example, should be considered to be unfit to be a police authority member, although he might be, mentally and physically, perfectly fit. The same might be said of a person who was perpetually drunk and abusive at meetings. He would be unfit to be a member of a police authority, although in other ways both mentally and physically he might be perfectly fit. But if the noble Lord's amendments were carried these characters could not be removed from membership on any of the grounds in paragraph 13 of the schedule.
The use of the term "unfit" is I believe, fairly well precedented. It applies, for example, to members of the Audit Commission under the Local Government Finance Act 1982; members of the Police Complaints Authority under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and members of the Local Government Commission under the Local Government Act 1992. I do not think there is any suggestion that the term has been open to abuse in relation to any of those bodies.
Therefore, with due modesty, I hope that your Lordships agree that the amendments in my name probably offer a better way forward. If that is so, I will be happy if your Lordships approve them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not propose to continue this discussion on the use of the word "fit" or "unfit". If I may say so, I do not believe there is much of a parallel between the Audit Commission and regular meetings in public of a police authority. I find it difficult to believe that there is a need for a provision concerned with unfitness to deal with drunken members of the Audit Commission—as far as

131
I can understand the parallel drawn by the noble Earl. That seemed to me to be a singularly unlikely development.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I really cannot allow the noble Lord to get away with the suggestion that I am equating drunkenness with members of the Audit Commission. That is an extension of the noble Lord's imagination, which is grand even for him.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I certainly do not wish to get the noble Earl into any kind of trouble with the Audit Commission. I am glad that he has clarified his reference to the Audit Commission.
I believe that the amendments he has introduced improve the situation for the reasons that I have indicated. I still do riot like the use of the word "unfit", but we will have a look at the matter between now and Third Reading to see whether or not we wish to come back to the point. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the first of my amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 51, line 39, leave out ("The Secretary of State") and insert (" A police authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 51, line 44, leave out ("from acting as") and insert ("for being").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 51, line 46, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("police authority").
Page 51, line 48, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("police authority").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments go with Amendment No. 30. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 51. line 49, at end insert:
("() Where a police authority removes a member under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, it shall give notice of that fact—

(a) in the case of a member appointed under paragraph I or 5 of this Schedule, to the body which appointed him, and

(b) in the case of a member appointed under paragraph 3A, to the Secretary of State.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 52, leave out lines 10 and 11.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 52, line 21, leave out from ("may") to ("as") in line 22 and insert ("make to its chairman and other members such payments by way of reimbursement of expenses and allowances").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 43.
132
These are minor and consequential amendments which clarify the position in relation to the allowances and expenses which are paid to police authority members. The first amendment makes clear that members may receive out-of-pocket expenses. The schedule previously referred only to allowances. That might have left some doubt about expenses. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that no member should be out of pocket because of police authority business and that it should be possible to pay expenses.
The second amendment is consequential upon the first and on the other amendments to the schedule. It allows for the possibility of different allowances for different types of member. For example, I know that magistrate members of police authorities often prefer not to receive any payment other than out-of-pocket expenses. This paragraph would allow for that. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his two amendments. My amendment, which is grouped with those two, goes a little further. Although we do not disagree with the Government amendments, we think there ought to be a clearer and more open way of settling the allowances to be paid to the chairmen and members of police authorities. We believe that the proper analogy, since the majority of members of police authorities are also members of local authorities, is the local authority analogy.
Therefore, we propose that the allowances to be paid should be authorised by regulations made under Section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. It seems to us that there is still considerable scope for both secrecy and inequity in different parts of the country between the allowances paid to members of police authorities. Amendment No. 42 would tidy up the situation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment would make the allowances of police authority members subject to regulations which are made under Section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. That section governs the payment of allowances to local authority members. Its provisions are considerably more complex than those which would apply under paragraph 20 of Schedule 2 of the Bill. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord might be content to rely on the provision of Schedule 2 with the amendments that the Government now make. However, I am happy to consider whether it would be helpful to attract all or part of that section. I hope that the noble Lord will feel content with that thought.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved,]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 52, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert:
("(2) Payments made under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph may differ according to whether the recipient is a chairman or other member or was appointed under paragraph 1, 3A or 5 of this Schedule.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 52. line 26, at end insert:

133
("Interpretation
—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a council is a "relevant council" in relation to a police authority if—

(a) it is the council for a county, district or London borough which constitutes, or is wholly within, the authority's police area, and

(b) in the case of a district council, the district is not in a county having a county council within paragraph (a).

(2) In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph whether a county or district is wholly within a police area, any part of the county or district which is within the metropolitan police district shall be disregarded.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 52, line 26, at end insert:
("SCHEDULE 1C
POLICE AUTHORITIES: SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT MEMBERS
Selection panels
1.—(1) There shall be a selection panel for each police area for the time being listed in Schedule IA to this Act.
(2) Each selection panel shall consist of three members, one of whom shall be appointed by each of the following

(a) the designated members of the police authority for the area;

(b) the Secretary of State;

(c) the two members of the panel appointed by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this sub-paragraph.

(3) A designated member may be appointed as a member of a selection panel by virtue of paragraph (a) (but not paragraph (b) or (c)) of sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.
(4) In this Schedule "designated member" means a member appointed under paragraph 1 or 5 of Schedule 1B to this Act.
2. A person shall be disqualified for being appointed as or being a member of a selection panel if, by virtue of paragraph 7A, 8, 8A or 8B(1) (d) to (f) of Schedule 1B to this Act, he is disqualified—

(a) for being appointed under paragraph 3A of that Schedule as a member of the police authority for the panel's area, or

(b) for being a member so appointed.

3.—(1) A person shall be appointed to hold office as a member of a selection panel for a term of two years, or for a period expiring on his attaining seventy years of age, whichever is the shorter.
(2) A person may at any time resign his office as a member by notice in writing to the persons who under paragraph 1 of this Schedule would be required to appoint his successor.
(3) A person shall not cease to be a member by reason only that any of the persons appointing him cease to hold the positions by virtue of which they appointed him.
4. A member of a selection panel may be removed from office by notice in writing by the persons who, under paragraph 1 of this Schedule, would be required to appoint his successor ("the appointer") if—

(a) the member has been absent from two consecutive meetings of the selection panel without the consent of the panel,

(b) the member has been convicted of a criminal offence (but is not disqualified for being a member under paragraph 2 of this Schedule),

(c) the appointer is satisfied that the member is incapacitated by physical or mental illness, or

(d) the appointer is satisfied that the member is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge his functions as a member.

5. A person who ceases to be a member of a selection panel, otherwise than by virtue of paragraph 4 of this Schedule may (if otherwise eligible) be re-appointed.
6.—(1) The acts and proceedings of any person appointed to be a member of a selection panel and acting in that office shall, notwithstanding his disqualification or want of qualification, be as valid and effectual as if he had been qualified.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any regulations made under paragraph 11 of this Schedule, the proceedings of a selection panel shall not be invalidated by—
134

(a)vacancy in the membership of the panel, or

(b) a defect in the appointment of a person as a member.

7.—(1) A police authority shall make to members of the selection panel for the authority's area such payments by way of reimbursement of expenses and allowances as it may determine.
(2) A police authority shall—

(a) provide the selection panel for the authority's area with such accommodation, and such secretarial and other assistance, as they may reasonably require, and

(b) meet any expenses incurred by the panel in the exercise of their functions.

Functions of selection panel
8.—(1) Where appointments to a police authority are to be made under paragraph 3A of Schedule 1B to this Act, the selection panel for the authority's area shall nominate persons willing to be candidates for appointment.
(2) Unless the selection panel are able to identify only a smaller number, the number of persons to be nominated by a selection panel under this- paragraph on any occasion shall be a number four times greater than the number of appointments to be made under paragraph 3A of Schedule 1B to this Act.
(3) A selection panel shall notify the Secretary of State of—

(a) the name of each person nominated by it under this paragraph, and

(b) such other information regarding those persons as it considers appropriate.

9. A person shall not be nominated under paragraph 8 of this Schedule in relation to an authority if, by virtue of paragraph 7A, 8, 8A or 8B of Schedule 1B to this Act, he is disqualified for being appointed as a member of the authority under paragraph 3A of that Schedule.
10 In exercising their functions a selection panel shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring that, so far as reasonably practicable, the persons nominated by them under paragraph 8 of this Schedule—

(a) represent the interests of a wide range of people within the community in the police area, and

(b) include persons with skills, knowledge or experience in such fields as may be specified for the purposes of this paragraph in regulations made under paragraph 11 of this Schedule.

11.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to—

(a) the procedures to be followed in relation to the selection of persons for nomination under paragraph 8 of this Schedule, and

(b) the conduct of the proceedings of selection panels.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, regulations under this paragraph may—

(a) make provision (including provision imposing time limits) as to the procedures to be adopted when inviting applications or suggestions for nomination under paragraph 8 of this Schedule, and for dealing with applications and suggestions received;

(b) make provision specifying the fields referred to in paragraph 10 of this Schedule;

(c) prescribe matters, in addition to those mentioned in paragraph 10 of this Schedule, to which a selection panel is to have regard in carrying out any of its functions;

(d) provide for decisions of a selection panel to be taken by a majority of the members.

(3) Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision for different cases and circumstances.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Secretary of State's short-list
12.—(1) Where the Secretary of State receives a notice under paragraph 8(3) of this Schedule, he shall as soon as practicable prepare a short-list of candidates and send it to the police authority concerned.
(2) Subject to paragraph 13 of this Schedule, the candidates on the short-list prepared by the Secretary of State shall he persons nominated by the selection panel, and their number shall be one half of the number of those persons.
(3) Where the number of persons nominated by the panel is an odd number, the number to be short-listed by the Secretary of State shall be one half of the number nominated reduced by one.

135
13.—(1) This paragraph has effect where the number of persons nominated by the selection panel is less than twice the number of vacancies to be filled by appointments under paragraph 3A of Schedule 1B.
(2) The Secretary of State may himself nominate such number of candidates as, when added to the number nominated by the selection panel, equals twice the number of vacancies; and if he does so, paragraph 12 of this Schedule shall have effect as if the selection panel had nominated the Secretary of State's nominees as well as their own.
14. The Secretary of State shall give to the designated members any information regarding the persons on his short-list which they request and which he has received under paragraph 8 of this Schedule.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 3 [Functions of police authorities]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 3, line 4, at end insert ("and to promote crime prevention activities by itself, the police force for its area and other local authorities in the area").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment that I move yet again is to attempt to make police authorities responsible for crime prevention. It seems to me to be one of the most serious omissions from the Bill that police authorities are not in any way responsible for preventing crime in their area. If the Government were serious about attempting to reduce crime, surely that is one of the prime ways to do it.
Although crime in this country has continued to rise in astronomical fashion over the past many years, there have been notable exceptions. They have tended to be where there are local partnerships between local authorities, police and other organisations. Surely that is exactly the sort of thing that police authorities should be promoting. We have mentioned previously partnerships with some of the more difficult London boroughs. There have been initiatives in Northumbria and some of those areas where there have been great difficulties with car crime, ram-raiding of shops and so on. When people get together and make a conjoint and concerted effort, crime levels are reduced. Crime is very much about community action. This is surely the sort of thing that police authorities should be doing. I cannot understand why the Government resist having this section in the Bill.
The Morgan Report—the Government's Home Office report in 1990—recommended that local authorities should be given direct responsibility for crime prevention. My understanding is that the Government shrank at that stage from making it a statutory obligation on local authorities because it would have meant additional cost to local authorities and perhaps setting up a crime prevention department within the local authority structure. But surely that does not apply to police authorities. There would be no question of any additional cost to the police authority if crime prevention was made one of its responsibilities. It seems to me that that reason for lack of government action on this front has been totally shot away in relation to the provisions of the Bill.
136
This amendment is a further attempt to seek some kind of compromise between what the Morgan Report recommended and what could be contained in the Bill. I do not understand—we have pushed this point at previous stages of the Bill—why the Government continue to resist the idea that crime prevention should be an essential part of a police authority's responsibilities. The work of local authorities is an appropriate place for crime prevention. It is essentially a part of being responsible to the local community.
At present there are very piecemeal arrangements for crime prevention throughout the country. Some chief constables and some police authorities are enthusiastic about crime prevention and some very good results have been produced. Other police forces are much more reactive and perhaps one might even say old-fashioned in their approach to crime and have not placed crime prevention very high in their order of priorities. A much more uniform approach could be achieved throughout the country if crime prevention were part of a police authority's responsibilities.
Only last month, Charles Wardle, the Home Office Minister, said that crime prevention was a very important part of the Government's strategy in dealing with crime. He said:
"The whole community must play its part, either as concerned neighbours or as responsible parents or as individual citizens to ensure that the opportunities for crime are reduced".
He further went on to say,
"Local authorities have an important role to play and the Government wants to see the police, local government and business getting together in a concerted effort to make their area a safer place for those who live and work there".
That is surely a clear function for a police authority. I cannot understand why the Government continue to resist the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, everybody agrees that crime prevention is a vital part of police activity. Indeed, I do not see how there could be,
"an efficient and effective police force"—
to use the words in line 3 on page 3—unless crime prevention were a part of it. However, I should not have thought it necessary to write that specific duty into the statute. If one were to do that, many other activities would need to be written in as well.
I find the wording of the amendment rather strange. The provision comes to this: police authorities have a duty to,
"promote crime prevention activities by itself".
I am not sure what those words signify. The amendment then says,
"the police force for its area".
That is all right. But it goes on,
"and other local authorities in the area".
I do not see how they come into the question of crime prevention except in a limited way where, for example, there is a weights and measures inspector appointed by the local authority and one or two other similar officials. For the reasons I have given I should not expect my noble friend to accept the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the amendment deals with the question of statutory obligations and what should and should not be written into the Bill. I am bound to say that it is difficult to see, as my noble friend Lord Renton

137
said, how one could have an effective and efficient police force which did not have any form of crime prevention policy. The effect of the amendment would be to add to the general duties of police authorities a specific duty relating to crime prevention.
The general duty set out in subsection (1) of new Section 4 of the 1964 Act, which is provided by Clause 3, is to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force. With the addition of a reference to effectiveness, that is identical to the existing provision in the 1964 Act as it now stands.
I am sure that every force and every police authority, and indeed local authorities, acknowledge the importance of crime prevention. I am sure that as part of their normal functions they try to promote it to the best of their abilities. But I do not think it would be right, in a provision which specifies the general overall duty of a police authority, to single out one specific function; that is, crime prevention. I do not for one moment deny its importance. But if we link it in this way to the overall and overriding duty of a police authority we risk appearing to demote all the other functions of the police authority and the police force.
I entirely support the concern of the noble Baroness for the importance of crime prevention. I hope—indeed, I expect —that it would feature in the objectives which will be set by police authorities and that the excellent work which goes on at the moment between police forces, local authorities and other agencies in the field of crime prevention will continue. However, I suggest that it would be wrong to single out this specific function, however important it is, in describing the general overall duty of a police authority.
The noble Baroness referred to the Morgan Report. I remind her that that was the work of an independent working group. It was a report to government and not a government report. The Government wholeheartedly welcomed the report's endorsement of the partnership approach to crime prevention and acknowledged the important contributions of the key players—the police, the local authorities, the probation service, the voluntary sectors and local business. But we do not believe that the Morgan approach of giving local authorities statutory responsibilities for crime prevention is the right way forward. A great deal is already being achieved at local level without the need for specific legislation. In this specific case it would detract from the virtue of other practices by singling out one area as needing statutory responsibility.
I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that we are not far apart on this matter. It is a question of what is and what is not written in the Bill. It is not a question of what is and what is not being done.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I do not see crime prevention as a distinct function of the police. I see it as something that should pervade the whole of police work. If one goes back to Rowan and Mayne, the first commissioners of the Metropolitan Police in 1829, their opening words to the police service at that time were that the primary object of an efficient police force was the prevention of crime. Those words are graven on
138
the heart of every Metropolitan police recruit. It is only after one has failed to prevent crime that one goes on to detect it and seek to punish offenders.
I therefore see crime prevention as being something that should be at the top of the list and as something which pervades all police duties rather than being a distinct and separate function. However, it is clear that we shall not prevail on this occasion and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 3, line 7, after ("state") insert ("after consultation with persons representative of police authorities and persons representative of chief constables").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 47 I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. We are back to the issue of national policing objectives and performance targets. The amendments deal with a limited issue; namely, the question of consultation.
I must make it clear at the outset that we are wholly opposed to the idea of national policing objectives set by a politician in London who is for the moment Home Secretary. In my view it is that degree of relentless intervention which will cause nothing but ill will and confusion in the future. The reason for that is the list of priority tasks or national objectives defined from time to time by the Home Secretary of the day.
At the moment we are told that crimes of violence are to receive priority attention. As I said during the Committee stage, that sounds entirely sensible until one realises that crimes of violence include murder, rape and manslaughter—which already receive a high degree of police attention—and go down to common assault, the most limited form of criminal offence in relation to crimes of violence. All those crimes, when cleared up, will score high on the performance indicators. But the war against drugs, which is not defined as a national policing objective, will not earn one a high place in the league table.
To that argument the noble Earl responded by saying that when consulted by ACPO, drugs were not defined as being a desirable national policing objective. That makes sense in relation to one part of the argument because not all police forces face a major drugs problem. But in South London—I take it merely as an example—we have seen what is taking place. We had the murder of one police officer and two other police officers were seriously injured. We know that in parts of South London a drug culture exists. There is a degree of drug abuse among a substantial proportion of the population and we know that a large number of drug traffickers are active in those areas.
It is ironic that the war against those criminals is not to be a national policing objective. That being so, even if the Metropolitan police are highly successful in dealing with that contagion—because contagion it is —it may still find itself towards the bottom of the league table because other forces have been remarkably successful in charging people with common assault as a result of a series of minor fracas in public houses. That seems to be totally foolish.

139
I cannot see over any period of time that the national policing objectives are likely to remain part of the pattern of policing in this country. Like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, I suspect that we shall be having another police Bill before possibly even the end of this century.
I put that on one side and come to the issues specifically raised in the amendments. Having made it clear that I dislike, and redislike intensely, the whole idea of national policing objectives, we now have to work on the assumption that we are going to get them. That being so, it seems desirable for us to discuss the arrangements by which they will be set. It is highly desirable that they should be set only as a result of consultations which will take place with representatives of the police authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers. That is an extremely modest request given the fact that there has been strong opposition in the police service to national policing objectives. This is the least the Government can do. I very much hope that they will take the opportunity and accept the general thrust of the amendments. I beg to move.
5 p m
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I rise in support of these amendments. For my last 10 years in the police service I suffered with the setting of objectives by a succession of commissioners which often had very little relevance to what one was trying to do in one's own division or part of London. I am very conscious that national objectives will fall into the same kind of trap in that they will often have very little local relevance. If they have little local relevance, people are not committed to them. There is no enthusiasm, it is disheartening, it breeds cynicism and so on. There are great dangers in setting objectives for the police service on a national basis.
However, some of my concerns have been ameliorated to some extent by the strengthening of the local position and by the proposed government amendments which seem to a certain extent to take into account the concerns of chief constables and of local authorities. Even in so doing one will have people making representations relating to their own part of the country and it will be impossible to set objectives which are other than vapid and generalised. I cannot believe that they will concentrate police effort in any direction. It seems to me that this is a rather cynical political device for Home Secretaries to respond probably to the latest concerns of the populace, such as dangerous dogs or some of the other matters on which we have had legislation over the past year or two which subsequently has had to be unscrambled in various ways.
I continue to be unhappy about the reality or relevance of national objectives although there has been some movement towards consultation with those who will have to carry them out. I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the amendments.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment simply out of concern not only for my noble friend and this Government but indeed for governments of any political complexion. It has been
140
apparent over a period of time that politicians generally tend to overlook, ignore or fail to take account of people who are experts in their fields, whatever they may be. That is regrettable. No politician can conceivably know everything. They are advised by as good a Civil Service as we can get, but civil servants are not necessarily well versed and well tuned in the more specialist areas of life. It would be of help to any government or department to take on board the views of people who are engaged for specific jobs and hold high office. That is the only reason I support the amendment. Other reasons have been expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. They are better versed than I in other aspects of the amendment and of the Bill. I hope that my remarks might be borne in mind by my noble friend because I think that they are relevant and fairly important.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in discussing these amendments perhaps we can also consider my amendment, Amendment No. 82, which is part of the same matter. They all require the Home Secretary to consult representatives of police authorities and chief constables before determining what will be his key objectives for policing each year. They make what is already happening in practice a statutory requirement.
The amendments seek to deal with a concern which has been expressed by several of your Lordships about the Home Secretary's role in setting key objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that he does not like them. He is entitled to that view. It has been argued that, in setting the key objectives, the Home Secretary may be interfering with the position of chief constables and police authorities and that, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, the objectives may be an irrelevance. I do not believe that that is the case. The Home Secretary has always had an influence on operational policy. There is nothing new in that. He has issued guidelines, Home Office circulars and so forth for many years. I think it is right that he should have some say in these matters in order to fulfil his responsibilities for law and order and his accountability to Parliament for police expenditure in England and Wales. But operational policy is not the same as operational direction. The way in which, and indeed the extent to which, operational policy is carried out remains a matter for the chief constable and for him alone. That is the current position, and it will remain so under the Bill.
In line with this argument is the fact that the Bill requires the chief constable to have regard to the Home Secretary's key objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not like that. But it does not instruct the chief constable what to do. Although the key objectives represent the major policing concerns in England and Wales which the public have expressed, the extent to which they are applicable will inevitably vary from force to force.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was worried about drugs and asked why drugs matters were not part of the key objectives. He will remember that one of the key objectives will require police to target and prevent crimes which are of particular local concern. That gives ample scope for metropolitan forces, where drugs are a

141
problem, to target drugs under that objective. But drugs are not an overriding priority of equal concern to all forces. We did not therefore set detection or prevention of drug related crime as a national key objective, but it can be a local objective and, indeed, in many cases I have no doubt that it will be.
We have always recognised that the Home Secretary will not set key objectives in isolation. No sensible Home Secretary is likely to try to determine national policing objectives without consulting the people at the sharp end—such as the chief constables and the police authorities. That just would not make sense. In fact, this is exactly what he did before he determined the trial run objectives for 1994–95. And, in practice, it is precisely what he has always intended to do in the future.
In accordance with the sound principle that what is intended in legislation should as far as possible be clear on the face of Bills, we accept that it should be a requirement for the Home Secretary to consult representatives of chief constables and police authorities before he sets key objectives. That is the effect of Amendment No. 82. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a simple and straightforward way of meeting your Lordships' concerns on this matter. Amendment No. 81 would require the Home Secretary's objectives to be couched in general terms. That is another amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
It might be argued that an objective which is to apply to all police authorities is necessarily general. However, the aim of the amendment seems to be to provide that the Home Secretary would not be able to set measurable objectives. I cannot believe that this is right. The aim of the key objectives is to reflect major national concerns about policing which the public have expressed. Given, as I have explained, the Home Secretary's responsibility for law and order and his accountability to Parliament for policing matters, it must be right that he should at least be able to set out clearly those major areas which he expects police forces across England and Wales to address. It is right, too, that the public should know what these are, and that they should be able to see how the police have measured up to them. Without clear objectives, it would be next to impossible to set performance targets.
I can assure your Lordships that the Home Secretary has no intention of setting objectives which are more restrictive or precise than those which he has proposed as a trial run for 1994–95. These are themselves derived from the list of performance indicators to which all forces are working, and we do not expect the key objectives to change radically from year to year. We do not, therefore, expect them to constrain chief constables' activities in a way which would weaken their operational independence.
Amendment No. 83 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would require the Home Secretary's order determining key objectives to be subject to negative resolution by either House, rather than simply being laid before Parliament after being made.
I do not believe that that would be right. By virtue of my Amendment No. 82, the Home Secretary will have consulted representatives both of police authorities and
142
of the chief constables before he determines his objectives for the year. These representatives will have had the opportunity to express their views on what he proposes. With great deference to your Lordships, and indeed to another place, this seems to us the right way to proceed, rather than to go through a parliamentary debate on the matter.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 84, 89 and 90 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, performance targets are not a matter for the police authority alone as these amendments suggest. Taken together, these amendments would remove from the Secretary of State the right to direct police authorities to establish performance targets. Amendment No. 53 would remove any obligation on the police authority to comply with a direction from the Home Secretary to set targets. But it is reasonable that the Home Secretary, who has also set the key objectives, should have the right to direct police authorities in their setting of performance targets. And police authorities would have to have regard to this. Without this, police authorities would be free to set targets as high or as low as they wished—or not to set any targets at all—thus frustrating the Home Secretary's desire to improve performance across the police service as a whole.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that my Amendment No. 82 would be a suitable addition to the Bill, which would ensure that consultations over these matters are discussed and take place before these objectives are set both for the representatives of the police authorities and the chief constables.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to his Amendment No. 82, which meets our point as regards consultation. But the Bill still does not address the blunt absurdity of the national policing objectives. Perhaps I may deal with the response of the noble Earl as regards drugs. He said that a force can make the war against drug offenders part of its local objectives, and that is perfectly true. But the league table will be a national league table. It will be published in the newspapers. The forces which are at the bottom of the table will be described as inefficient or less efficient than those at the top of the league table. There is no way in which the noble Earl can get over that point. It is absolutely central to what the Home Secretary is proposing.
There is no comparison between the policing problems of Dyfed-Powys and those of Islington, Hackney and Southwark. It is absurd to suggest that there is any similarity. What worries me about this matter is that the more socially responsible the chief constable, the greater the danger that his force will appear at the bottom of the league table. We already know who is going to be at the top or among the top three; it will be Dyfed-Powys, which polices a rural and largely settled population in Wales and has a very remarkable clear-up rate because of the character of the population it polices.
But some of the most fundamental policing problems in this country are faced by the Metropolitan Police and the police forces of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire

143
and Merseyside. I say to the noble Earl that the more resources they devote to dealing with the problem of drugs in their communities, the more likely it will be that their forces will appear at the bottom of the league table. It will be suggested that those forces are less efficient than the ones at the top. That is extremely foolish. It will be damaging to the police service and lead to a very substantial debate in many local communities. People will be worried that their local forces are not doing better, whereas in fact they are grappling with immensely more difficult problems.
Perhaps I may give another example. Consider the hundreds of police officers who have been sent in the past few days to deal with the IRA problem at Heathrow. That is not a national policing objective. The more officers who are taken away from issues relating to national policing objectives and sent to Heathrow to deal with IRA terrorism, the less likely it is that the Metropolitan Police will appear high in the league table. What is the point of all this foolishness? It has nothing to do with the real problems facing the police service in this country. It will lead to a damaging debate in many local communities. That is inescapable given the character of the Government's proposals. I regret that. I very much hope that a more sensible government in future will take action to amend these very undesirable provisions.
I have made my position clear on the point of consultation. I am grateful to the noble Earl for having met us. We shall look at the detail of what he has said to see whether it is necessary to come back on this matter at Third Reading. Having said that, I welcome the fact that on this limited issue he has met us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert:
("() any objectives determined by the Chief Constable,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I simply expected to rise to my feet to say that I warmly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but, as he did not move his amendment, perhaps I may briefly make a point here. We are seeking to amend Section 4 of the Police Act 1964. In subsection (2) the duty imposed is simply, "shall have regard to". That is not a very onerous duty. Rather surprisingly, it is imposed on the police authority to take account of or to have regard to the objectives determined by the Secretary of State. I wonder why that is necessary, because I thought they were bound to do so anyway under the Act. That is not a very major point.
Further, in subsection (2) (b) one would have assumed, without going too far, that the police authority would naturally have regard to any objectives determined by itself. One wonders why it is necessary to put that in the Bill. My last point is a more serious one. Since the duty is imposed on the authority to have regard to what the Secretary of State has determined and also to what it has itself determined, there seems to be a glaring omission of the chief constable.
At this stage of the proceedings, I do not think that I need repeat how absolutely crucial the role of the chief constable is. As I have said, it seems unnecessary that
144
such duties should be imposed upon a police authority, but if it is thought to be necessary to impose upon a police authority the necessity to have regard to its own views and to those of the Secretary of State, I should have thought that it was even more necessary to require the authority to have regard to,
"any objectives determined by the Chief Constable",
who is, after all, the most crucial figure in all this. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to tell me that he will at least consider what I regard as a serious point. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, has just said. Notwithstanding what was said in the previous debate, I cannot see the objection to "having regard to" the views of the chief officer. That seems a reasonable suggestion and I have no doubt that the Minister will deal with it when he replies.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we had a long discussion in Committee about the word "agree" in relation to the chief constable. We were told that it was not possible in legal terms to use the words "in agreement" because that would be legally binding and might be challenged in court. Therefore, we tried to come up with other amendments that would involve the chief constable more closely in the setting of the local objectives for the policing plan. We are suggesting that the plan should be drawn up,
"having had regard to the views of the Chief Constable".
I should have liked something even stronger and for the provisions to state that the plan should be drawn up "in co-operation with the chief constable". The Government are offering "consultation", which is much weaker than,
"having had regard to the views of".
That does not seem sufficient. As we know, mere consultation can be a total charade. It does not necessarily mean that the least bit of attention will be paid to the views of somebody who has been consulted. That is why Amendments Nos. 51, 54, 63 and 64 require the police authority to draw up a plan,
"having had regard to the views of the Chief Constable".
We hope that that will to some extent ensure that an authority will not do something totally idiotic and go down some odd route of wanting a particular style of policing in its area.
Perhaps I may reminisce for a moment. When I was the chief superintendent at Chiswick, some very powerful local people who knew all the strings to pull in the Department of Transport managed to get traffic lights installed where we could not and other things like that. Those people were always badgering me about motorists speeding down their road. They thought that I could put about six police officers down that street. Eventually, I invited them all into the police station, plied them with tea and biscuits and read them a firm lecture about the fact that I was lucky if at any one time I had six police officers for the whole of Chiswick and Brentford, including two extremely difficult local authority estates.

145
My concern, therefore, is not so much about Left-wing authorities seizing control of policing, but much more about the members of middle-class police authorities, who know how to work the machinery, deciding to draw up plans or set objectives relating to their own views of how their lives should be made more comfortable. It is extremely important that the views of the chief constable should be clearly seen to influence the plans of the police authority; otherwise there may be a total distortion of what happens in a particular area. Therefore, I think that the amendments in this group, requiring the policing plan to be drawn up and the objectives to be set,
"having had regard to the views of the Chief Constable",
are essential.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 55. I very much support what has been said already. My choice of phrase is,
"will have regard to the advice of the Chief Constable".
I do not know whether that is a better alternative. Perhaps my noble friend could consider it.
It seems obvious that as the policing plans have to be prepared by the chief constable under what will be new Section 4B(3), the chief constable's advice should be sought on the objectives. In Amendment No. 56, my noble friend is seeking to achieve the same objective, but in a slightly weaker way. It seems to me that the advice of the chief constable would also be useful with regard to the performance targets. Not every noble Lord has touched on that point. I think that the technical advice of the chief constable needs to be sought before the performance targets can satisfactorily be set by the police authority. I should have thought that that would fall into exactly the same sort of heading as the setting of objectives.
I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to another point in relation to Amendment No. 55. It is important that the various directions should be sufficiently flexible so that they can cope with the unexpected. I am told, for example, that tight objectives and tight performance targets might have made it practically impossible for the Gloucestershire police to handle the extraordinary mass murder case on which they are now working. Nobody could have foreseen that a year ago. Therefore, one wants to be absolutely certain that the provisions are sufficiently flexible. I think that that is sufficiently important for it to appear somewhere in the text of the Bill. The question of whether that should be where I have suggested is quite another matter, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to pay some regard to it.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I rise only briefly to say that, although I do not wish to support any particular form of words, I hope that my noble friend will accept that it is extremely important for the Government to take any reasonable opportunity that they can to underline the unique role and importance of the chief constables. Although the Government do not intend to undermine that, I fear that they may well be
146
doing so in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that they will bend over backwards to try to take that fear on board and to allay it by some form of words on the face of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree totally with my noble friend Lord Carr about the extreme importance of the chief constables. I know that they have been worried about their operational independence and so forth. We have tried to allay those fears in many respects by our amendments. There is no question but that the operational independence of the chief constables must be reserved and preserved. As I have said, I understand my noble friend's concerns about this and we have tried to address and allay those concerns as far as possible. I remind him of this fact—I know that he knows it—that Clause 5 specifically puts the operational independence of the chief constables on the face of the Bill. Whenever one makes alterations such as we are proposing, it is right that people are apprehensive about what will happen in the future. I do not think that there is very much between us on these matters.
We have always taken the view that there must, of course, be consultation between the police authority and the chief constable about the local objectives which we would expect the chief constable to be proposing in his draft policing plan. Even if there were no consultation, the chief constable neither would nor could be bound rigidly to meet the objectives, but there should be consultation.
We propose, therefore, that it should be a requirement for police authorities to consult chief constables before the police authority sets its local objectives. In Amendments Nos. 48, 49, 51, 54, 55 and my Amendment No. 56, as well as in Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, it is proposed to achieve that by adding a requirement to involve the chief constable to the existing requirement to consult the local community.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone was concerned to have the chief constable's advice. I cannot see how one can consult the chief constable without obtaining his advice. My noble friend's point ought to be covered by that provision. This is the right way to proceed. It ensures that the chief constable's views are taken into account before the local objectives are set, while leaving the ultimate responsibility with the police authority. I hope that your Lordships will accept my Amendment No. 56 in the spirit in which it is tabled.
I turn to Amendment No. 55. I think that this is both unnecessary and inoperable in practice, although I sympathise with what it is seeking to achieve. I have no difficulty with the first part, which requires the police authority to have regard to the chief constable's advice. Amendments Nos. 51 and 64 would have the same effect. But I think that this is made unnecessary by my Amendment No. 67, which imposes on the police authority the duty to consult the chief constable before issuing a policing plan which differs from his draft. As the policing plan must cover performance targets, consultation between the chief constable and the police authority will clearly take place at this point, if not before.
My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil was concerned about the chief constable putting forward

147
objectives. It is not for the chief constable to put forward objectives; his view will be taken into account by his police authority when drawing up its local objectives and at national level by the Association of Chief Police Officers and by the Home Secretary when he draws up national objectives.
I have considerable difficulty with the proposal that the Bill should require the local objectives and the targets to allow sufficient flexibility to take care of any unexpected policing requirements. My noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to Gloucestershire. One can never plan for the unexpected. All that one can do in the policing plan is to say, "During the next year this is what we intend to do. These are the lines that we hope our police force will be able to address".
Of course they must be allowed room for manoeuvre and all chief constables must have that responsibility in order to deal with the unexpected, whether Gloucestershire, Heathrow or wherever. If the local objectives and the targets are to mean anything they must be specific. It must be clear what the police authority and the chief constable are seeking to achieve and how that achievement will be measured.
Of course there needs to be flexibility. Flexibility is already built into the whole process by the very fact that both the police authority and the chief constable must have regard only to the objectives. They do not have to follow them slavishly; they must have regard to them. The whole point of inserting this provision is to enable the chief constable, and indeed the police authority, to depart from the provisions of the plan if operational policing requirements make it necessary to do so. An obvious example of a situation where it may not be possible to meet the local objectives is where unexpected policing requirements during the year require the chief constable to redirect his resources. I am sure that Gloucestershire is a typical and good example. But the word "unexpected" means that one cannot describe, either in the plan or in the local objectives, the kind of event which might require departure from them, other than in the most general terms.
I do not believe that it would be right to try to prescribe how police authorities and chief constables might wish to set out in the plan their proposals for dealing with the unexpected. By virtue of its being a plan rather than a rigid blueprint, flexibility is already built into it. Therefore, I do not believe that it is either necessary or appropriate to insert such a provision into the Bill. I believe that the provision that is made by my Amendment No. 56 is a substantial advance and I hope—
5.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask a question. In addressing the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the Minister said that he had no difficulty with the phrase:
"the police shall have regard to the advice of the chief constable".
He went on to say that he found other features of the amendment unacceptable but that he was happy with those words.
148
If that is the Minister's view, what is the objection to the several amendments which use almost identical language; namely,
"having had regard to the views of the Chief Constable"?
This is an extremely important issue. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, the word "consultation" is not enough. Government and others offer to consult, but often the result of that consultation leaves an impression that no one seriously listened to what was said.
The Minister said that he is happy with the words used by his noble friend Lord Mottistone. Surely he will concede that these amendments meet exactly the point to which his noble friend referred. That will put at ease the minds of many chief officers and others who are seriously anxious about the Bill as drafted. Will he say merely that he will look at the matter between now and the next stage to see whether it is possible to meet their views on this matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the chief constable will prepare a plan and present it to the police authority. Before the police authority changes that plan, which is its right, it will consult with the chief constable. It will say, "This is what we intend to do", and the chief constable can say what he thinks about that. If, despite what the chief constable says, the police authority decides that it wishes to make its plan in such and such a way, that is its right. It will be consulting the chief constable about its proposed plan. I find it inconceivable that one can consult the chief constable without listening to and taking his advice. The two are almost the same.
Of course, I shall certainly look at the matter before the next stage of the Bill to see whether there is any difference. If there are ways in which we can alleviate the anxieties I shall be prepared to look at them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I blame myself for not having made my initial question sufficiently clear to my noble friend. I sought to find out whether it is necessary for the Bill to contain a provision that every police authority shall have regard to objectives determined by the Secretary of State and by itself. Without putting the provision in this part of the Bill, I believe that it is highly likely that the police authority will take account of the views of the Home Secretary and will certainly be likely to take account of its own views.
I proceeded to say that if it were thought necessary to make that provision, about which I am doubtful, the omission of the chief constable from this part of the Bill is serious. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, put the matter correctly—in no way do I stand on the particular drafting of the amendment. She said that it was necessary to involve the chief constable more closely, which is my aim entirely.
My noble friend is offering consultation. Almost every Act of Parliament on the statute book is littered with the requirement of consultation. Everybody that anybody can think of is due to be consulted under one Act of Parliament or another. I doubt whether that is of very much value.
It is a duty which is easily discharged. It is exceedingly easy for anybody with minimal skill to

149
consult people without their being aware that they are being consulted. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not seek to rely too much on consultation as an adequate discharge of the need to keep the chief constable in the picture in this regard.
I do not wish to harass my noble friend unduly because I realise that the Bill has presented him with an immense task and we are grateful to him for the way in which he has fulfilled it. But I wonder whether something is amiss here and I should be grateful if my noble friend would give the matter a little further thought.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that I understand the anxiety of my noble friend. He said that the chief constable will have to have regard to the objectives set by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and he could not believe that the chief constable would do anything else. But, of course, the performance of those objectives will be measurable and it is important that chief constables should have to have regard to them.
Perhaps I may remind the House what those objectives are because they are not sinister and terrible, as some people seem to believe that they are. One objective is to maintain and, if possible, increase the number of detections for violent crime. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out when speaking to an earlier amendment, that would apply in the same way to the people of Dyfed-Powys as it would to the people of Islington. Other objectives are to increase the number of detections of burglars of people's homes; to target and prevent crimes which are a particular local problem in partnership with the public and other local agencies; to provide high visibility policing so as to reassure the public; and to respond promptly to emergency calls from the public. They are the key objectives, which are not intrusive but they are measurable.
Then we must have the local objectives. They will appear in the policing plan. The Bill imposes on the police authority a duty to consult the chief constable before a policing plan is issued which differs from his draft. My noble friend Lord Peyton says that sometimes it is difficult to know whether one has been consulted. If a police authority says to the chief constable, "Look, we want to change the plan. What do you think about it?", it is inconceivable to believe that any chief constable who has any sense—and the majority of them have a great deal of sense—would not realise that he was being consulted, because he will be given the opportunity to say what he thinks about that revised plan.
Of course I shall look again at this matter to see whether there are ways in which we have misinterpreted the views or anxieties expressed. I repeat that the chief constable is an extremely important and fundamental part of the success of any police force. His operational independence is without question. He will be consulted on the policing plan and the objectives. For those reasons, I believe that it is inconceivable that the chief constable cannot give his advice. But I shall consider the matter.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not wish to repeat everything that I said. The consultation which my noble friend described would be adequate, but there are many different kinds of consultation. Sometimes that consultation is meaningless. Even somebody as perceptive and sensitive as a chief constable may not realise that a letter which he barely bothered to read because it did not seem very important was passing for consultation. But I shall leave that matter. I am grateful to my noble friend for his assurance that he will look again at this issue. I believe that there may be something missing, but I am grateful to him.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, perhaps I may make just one point which is important. We are all in favour of dealing with the position of chief constables. I am grateful for Amendments Nos. 67 and 82 which have been tabled by my noble friend. I hope that, although the Minister has undertaken to think again on some of these issues, those two amendments will be incorporated into the Bill this evening because there seems to be total agreement about them. I hope that, if that is agreeable to the House, it will be done.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 3, leave out lines 11 and 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to delete paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of the new Section 4 to be inserted into the 1964 Act. That subsection deals with performance targets. I have tabled the amendment in order to clarify and define what those performance targets will be. In other words, it is an exploratory amendment.
When discussing the previous group of amendments, my noble friend Lord Ferrers said that performance will be measurable. I hope that we shall go into that in more detail. Amendment No. 50 is grouped with a number of other amendments which seem to have a quite different purpose. When we discuss this amendment I hope that we shall confine ourselves to discovering what the performance targets will be and how they will be measured and enforced.
Paragraph (c) refers to the setting of performance targets. New Section 28B, which is to be found near the top of page 9, states:
"the Secretary of State may direct police authorities to establish specific levels of performance ('performance targets')".
As I say, performance targets are not defined. They are not mentioned in the 1964 Act—and perhaps I may say in passing that that was a wise Conservative measure. They are not defined in this Bill.
I have heard a great deal of anxiety expressed not merely by people concerned directly with the police but by members of the public. Some people fear that it means that police authorities and police forces will be judged by the number of convictions under any particular heading which they manage to secure against members of the public. The police must not only prevent

151
crime; they must detect it and bring criminals to court. But the mere obtaining of convictions should not be regarded as the principal measure of efficiency.
I can well understand that if there is a particular drug problem in a police area, the police should be encouraged to deal with it. The same applies to problems of burglary, violence and even motoring offences. But to say that performance is to be measured by the proportion of convictions secured against the imagined or even established number of crimes of that type committed, seems to me to be perhaps using the wrong judgment.
I should be very grateful if my noble friend could enlighten us on the question of performance targets. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, I have to advise your Lordships that if the amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 51 and 52.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I, too, am very concerned about setting performance targets. I have spoken before about clear-up rates and the extent to which figures can be fiddled. It would be much better if one actually had the number of people who had been arrested for specific offences rather than clear-up rates. There are all sorts of ingenious ways of fiddling the figures which are theoretically legitimate, but which can produce very disparate results in terms of clear-ups. I am also worried about league tables and the way in which the press could make hay with the performance of different forces.
I should like to return now to the crime prevention issue. It may well be that the force which is most successful in preventing crime, because it is putting its resources in that direction—and that is surely something that the public would welcome—may have fewer resources put into the various ways in which clear-up rates can be improved. Therefore, it may appear at the bottom of the table whereas it may in fact have been very much more effective in terms of the sorts of things that the public would actually like; for example, a reduction in the number of burglaries, car thefts and so on.
There are very simple ways in which one can prevent crime by deploying small amounts of extra resources. For example, if one has effective home beat officers and combines them into small teams, one can produce quite dramatic results in terms, not just of a reduction in burglaries and car thefts, but also by a reduction of all those things that make people's lives miserable, such as racial harassment, petty vandalism, drunkenness and hooliganism, which can be deterred and prevented by having more uniformed patrols—even a small number—in an area.
I shall give as an example my experience in Chiswick. On one of my council estates, I gave one of my mature home beat officers two young officers. They formed a very active team which networked with local authority people, voluntary organisations and so on. They produced a 40 per cent. reduction in reported crime. Of course, it was petty crime and not the sort that hits the headlines. However, it was the sort of crime that
152
made people's lives miserable. Those officers also provided, for the first time, protection for an Asian family who had been endlessly harassed by their rather brutal white neighbours. Moreover, Asian shopkeepers began to feel the benefit of having a few extra uniformed police officers in the area. None of the latter would have appeared in the kind of performance targets that are normally set, which tend to be in relation to measurable activities rather than in relation to those which actually improve the quality of people's lives.
I am very sceptical about the kind of performance targets which can be set in relation to a service industry. It is not like a factory where you count the number of completed widgets or whatever which come off the factory line. The whole service is much more to do with human relationships and improving the quality of life. I am extremely doubtful about the usefulness of the sort of performance targets which can be set in relation to jobs such as policing.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure, but I think that we are discussing Amendments Nos. 52, 65, 85 to 88, and 91 to 94, with my noble friend's amendment. Indeed, they are all grouped together.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must confess that I was puzzled as to why the other amendments were grouped with my amendment. My amendment is confined to the question of performance targets, and the other amendments deal with further consultation and various matters that we have already discussed to some extent. I would be most grateful, as I am sure would other noble Lords, if my noble friend would, first, confine himself to the question of performance targets.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite understand that my noble friend wishes to confine this part of the debate to matters regarding performance targets. I explained to the House that there will be key objectives and what they will be. Such objectives will be subject to performance targets. It will mean that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be able to say, "I hope that we will be able to have an improvement of a certain percentage in some of the areas in question". He may say that the percentage improvement will, for example, be between 2 per cent. and 6 per cent. It will be up to the police authority actually to say what those targets will be. It may say, "We will set the target for our police authority at 4 per cent; that is what we will try to aim for". My right honourable friend will set the range of targets within which the local authority will be able to set its own target. Then, it will be possible for the performance of the police authority to be monitored.
My noble friend Lord Renton suggested that performance targets could, for example, cover the number of convictions. That would not, in fact, be the case. I say that because it would be an absurdly narrow range upon which to decide the efficiency or otherwise of a police authority. There will be a target for each key objective. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of those key objectives: to maintain and, if possible, increase the number of detections for violent crime; to increase the number of detections for burglaries of

153
people's homes; to target and prevent crimes which are a particular local problem in partnership with the public and other local agencies; to provide high visibility policing so as to reassure the public; and, finally, to respond promptly to emergency calls from the public. It will be up to the local authority to determine what sort of target it will set in order to try to achieve such objectives. I hope that I have explained the position adequately to my noble friend.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. However, I must say to him with the greatest respect, because I know that he is very conscientious, that it does not go very far. It really goes towards detection, and that is all that we now know. Nevertheless, it is good to know. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51:
Page 3, line 11, at end insert (", having had regard to the views of the Chief Constable,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl indicated earlier that he proposes to reconsider the matter between now and Third Reading. I do not propose to repeat the arguments, except to say that there is a strongly-held view among chief officers that this is a very significant amendment. They do not consider the word "consultation" to be satisfactory. They consider that the form of words in the amendment is significantly preferable. That being so, and given the fact that the noble Earl indicated earlier that he was not opposed to what his noble friend Lord Mottistone suggested when he used very nearly the same language, I hope that he will come to the conclusion between now and Third Reading that the amendment is reasonable and that he will introduce a government amendment along the same lines. Having said that, I shall not move the above amendment or any of the similar amendments. I wait, with hope, to hear what the noble Earl has to say on Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 3, line 12, after ("whether") insert ("in compliance with a direction").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment deals with matters which we have been discussing. The Home Secretary will indicate the range of improvement which he expects to see. Within that range, police authorities, in consultation with their chief constable, will be free to decide on specific performance targets. We envisage that the range may be different for different kinds of police authorities. The Home Secretary may want to set one range for small rural forces and another for metropolitan forces.
My Amendments Nos. 52 and 65 also seek to clarify the point that performance targets are not established under Section 28B, although they may be set in compliance with a direction under that section. Performance targets are a key element in our strategy to improve police performance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 55 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 3, line 32, after ("shall") insert:
("(a) consult the chief constable for the area, and
(b)")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 3, line 42, after second ("the") insert ("financial").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 and 67. I undertook to see whether we could strengthen what had always been our intention by inserting in the legislation a requirement for the police authority to consult the chief constable over the matters we have been discussing earlier this afternoon. We have considered this further, in the light of your Lordships' concerns and those of representatives of chief constables, who met my right honourable friend the Home Secretary last week to discuss this and other matters. As a result, we have accepted that it would be right to make it clear on the face of the Bill what we had always intended should be the case.
As far as policing plans are concerned, therefore, it will be a requirement for the police authority to consult the chief constable before seeking to make any amendments to his draft. This means that a police authority could not simply replace the chief constable's plan with one of its own; nor could it make any changes to the chief constable's draft without consulting him first. As I explained earlier, I consider that with such a requirement a police authority will be bound to seek the advice of the chief constable. As I have explained, I will consider your Lordships' views on that matter, but I can give no undertakings because, as far as I can see, the amendment covers the points that were of concern. Nevertheless, as I have said, I will consider the matter further.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that we have gone a reasonable way on this matter. Responsibility for the policing plan must remain with the police authority. But the amendment ensures that the chief constable has the opportunity to voice his own views and that these are heard and considered by the police authority. Coupled with the chief constable's operational independence, and the fact that he is not bound rigidly by the plan, I think that this considerably strengthens the chief constable's position in his relationship with the police authority. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and I have raised this matter with the noble Earl. I do not believe that the amendment meets all of our concerns by a long way. Nevertheless it represents an improvement and for that I express my gratitude.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 3, line 43, leave out ("intended") and insert ("proposed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 4, line 2, after ("whether") insert ("in compliance with a direction").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert:
("() Before issuing a local policing plan which differs from the draft submitted by the chief constable under subsection (3) of this section. a police authority shall consult the chief constable.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 4, line 17, leave out from ("out") to end of line 20.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 73, 122, 123, 124, 125 and 220. These amendments deal with the annual reports which chief constables make to their police authorities. The present position is that each chief constable must make such a report to his police authority, and must send a copy of that report to the Secretary of State. Under Clause 3 of the Bill we had proposed that there should be one published document, which would contain the annual reports both of the police authority and of the chief constable. Some chief constables and some of your Lordships expressed concerns that this would, in some way, devalue the chief constable's report and make it a subordinate document. That was never the intention, nor do I believe that it would have been the effect. It would simply have meant that there was one published document for people to read containing a comprehensive account of the policing of the area.
However, I understood the anxieties which your Lordships expressed and, in order to satisfy those who were concerned about this matter these amendments will in effect restore the present position and make the chief constable's report a free standing report. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, will notice that her own amendment on this point is identical with the government amendment. The chief constable will be required, as now, to send a copy of his report which he makes to the police authority to the Secretary of State. He will also be required to publish his report in such manner as he thinks fit. That should satisfy any possible concerns that a chief constable might be inhibited about the contents of his report.
The new clause of the noble Baroness proposed in Amendment No. 73 goes a little further, however, in that it would apply to the chief constable the same obligation as is already applied by new Section 4C to the police authority; namely, to assess the extent to which the local policing plan has been carried out. However, the
156
policing plan will, wherever possible, be agreed between the police authority and the chief constable. It is certainly not rigidly binding on the chief constable as I mentioned before, and indeed the uncertainties of policing are likely to mean that it is necessary to depart from it in the face of unforeseen circumstances. Subject to those safeguards for the chief constable's operational independence, we have established that as a plan—as a set of proposals which may later require to be adapted in the light of circumstances—and the last word on the content of the plan rests with the police authority. On balance, we therefore think it is right that the obligation to account for the extent to which that plan has been followed during the year should rest with the police authority.
For that reason I think it is reasonable to specify that the policing plan should be covered in the police authority's annual report. I am slightly reluctant to match that by a similar statutory requirement on the chief constable, even though in practice I have no doubt that he will deal with such matters to the extent necessary in his report. But I doubt whether we should require him to cover the same ground as will be obligatory on the police authority in its report. The chief constable's responsibilities are wider than those of the police authority, and it has been the concern of the Government throughout the preparation of this Bill to preserve his operational independence. On balance, therefore, I would recommend to the House that we should not accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, and should impose no statutory requirement on the chief constable as to the matters which he is to include in his report. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I welcome this amendment from the Government and I shall not move my amendment. The Government's amendment constitutes a recognition of the independence of the chief constable and of course we welcome that. However, the sadness is that the status of the chief constable is not recognised in relation to the amendments that we discussed earlier on the local policing plan objectives and other matters. I would hope that the fact that the Government have moved this far in relation to the equal status of the chief constable might encourage them to think again about the earlier amendments. However, I thank the Government for acceding to our request on this particular matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Chief constables]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert ("which shall not contain reference to performance related pay and fixed term appointments for chief constables unless by agreement between the Secretary of State, persons representative of police authorities and persons representative of chief constables.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the questions of performance-related pay and fixed-term contracts. As the noble Earl will be aware, this is an issue of the highest degree of importance. At present a police authority can remove a chief officer only if the

157
Secretary of State agrees. We are now giving a police authority the power to impose a fixed term contract on a chief officer.
The noble Earl has repeatedly said during the debate that it is his view that the operational independence of the chief officer must be sustained at all costs. However, the reality is that once fixed term contracts are introduced a chief officer can be pressured by a police authority to take the same view as it does on some question of operational policing, with the risk that if he is in the last year of his contract he may find it necessary to pay a substantial amount of attention to what the authority says. In my view, in that situation we are destroying the operational independence of the chief officer. It is a most ominous move and the House should reflect on the full consequences that may result from this new procedure.
Like so many unsatisfactory features of the Bill, this aspect stems from the Sheehy Report. The Sheehy Committee was appointed by Mr. Clarke when he was Home Secretary, the principal requirement for membership of that committee being no direct knowledge of policing at all. If one had any knowledge of the subject one was not appointed to the committee. We are now responding to the Sheehy recommendations by discussing fixed term contracts, which carry direct implications for the operational independence of chief officers. It is an appalling move, and in future years the House may look back and see this departure from the present situation as one of the most serious mistakes that we have made in respect of police legislation.
Having said that, I should like to ask the noble Earl a number of questions. Fifteen minutes ago I received a letter from the noble Earl on this point. It raises a number of significant issues and I have not had enough time to reflect upon its contents. I do not want to make heavy weather of the matter, but it is unfortunate that a letter should arrive in the middle of a debate on an issue of such fundamental importance as this. However, I shall now turn to the series of questions which I want to put to the Minister.
Fixed term contracts will apply to all officers of ACPO rank. It is intended that they should eventually also extend to superintendents. In Scotland fixed term contracts for superintendents are to be introduced at once, but not in England and Wales. No doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, will be able to explain why it is right to adopt one procedure in England and Wales and a totally different one in Scotland.
The problems involved should not be underestimated. There is a substantial risk that officers of the rank below that at which fixed-term contracts are introduced will decide not to apply for promotion. If one is a superintendent aged 35 or 36 why should one apply for promotion to assistant chief constable if, once one becomes an assistant chief constable, one will have to have a fixed term contract? If one has children at school one possibly has an obligation to send them to university and pay their fees. One may feel that there is a risk that at the age of 42 or so one could find oneself in a situation in which one's contract is not extended.
158
For those in the private sector it is not necessarily a disaster if one's contract is not extended because one can move on and work somewhere else. However, where will a police officer in his early forties find another job? He will not find it in the police service because it will be made clear immediately that his contract was not extended by his employer. The authority will not have to give any explanation as to why the contract is not being renewed. The officer may have fallen foul of a powerful member of the police authority. There may have been a dispute on an operational policing issue, such as the way in which hunt saboteurs are to be handled in an operational situation, or in relation to New Age travellers or a public order demonstration. In any such cases an officer may find himself making powerful enemies on the police authority. That is a risk which is inescapable in the procedure which is to be laid down.
Why are we to have fixed term contracts? Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to help us in this matter. We have the Sheehy recommendations. That is where the arrangement originates. Side by side with the Sheehy Report is the Oughton Report on career management and succession planning. Mr. Oughton is involved in the Efficiency Unit of the Office of Public Service and Science. The report was submitted to Sir Robin Butler and Sir Peter Levene in November last year.
What the report says about fixed term contracts is not the most encouraging message for the police service. Paragraph 7.14 states:
"Helen Murlis of Hay Management Consultants (in The Use and Experience of Service Contracts at Senior Management Levels …) has identified four main kinds of employment contract used in the private sector".
This is what is said about fixed term contracts:
"where renewal or otherwise is provided for towards the end of the contract—typically in the last year or six months before the contract is due to end. Contracts that are renewed may or may not be for a new term of the same length. This form of contract is rarely used in the UK private sector and such use as there is appears to be declining".
If it is declining, why is it recommended that it is introduced in the police service? That is an interesting question which I hope the noble Earl will be able to answer.
The quotation continues:
"The principal reason for this is that executives have found the arrangement unsatisfactory, disliking the insecurity of waiting until the last year—and sometimes very late on".
That is a procedure which is being recommended for the appointment of assistant chief constables and chief constables in the police service of this country. Why, given the contents of that report, are we being asked to adopt precisely that procedure?
Paragraph 7.19 states:
"How far one moves along the spectrum from current terms towards the extreme of fixed term contracts is a matter for judgement. We have identified the clear disadvantages of a fixed term contract arrangement and we do not propose that it is either desirable or necessary to go that far".
It is being recommended for the police service and we are being asked to approve it this afternoon.
There is also a quotation from an agency chief executive who was consulted about the report, who said:

159
"A 3 year contract makes me feel less secure and more wary; discourages me from putting all my cards on the table, … and encourages staff to believe that they can sit tight and resist change until my contract is over".
That is the Oughton Report. That being so, what are the Government going to do? Will they persist with the Sheehy recommendations despite the Oughton Report, or will they modify their approach in the light of the report and the general arguments which have been brought forward since the proposal was first made? This is a matter of high importance to the police service. It is essential that this House insists on getting the matter right.
Subsequent to the debate, I shall gladly read the noble Earl's letter which deals with discussions which he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers. But he will understand that in the 20 minutes which have elapsed since I received it I have not had an opportunity to form a clear view on it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I, too, received a copy of the letter about 20 minutes ago. It is therefore difficult to be sure that we are still talking about the same animal in relation to fixed term appointments. However, I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about the problems of fixed term appointments in the police service.
The false analogy with the business world has haunted the Bill. Being a police officer is much more like becoming a doctor: if one gets struck off there is no prospect of future employment. In some ways the consequences of a fixed term contract which may terminate in someone 's mid-forties are that effectively that person has no prospect of future employment in his or her chosen career. It is not like the business world where there are many other firms, businesses, factories and places to which one can apply. A police officer has nowhere to turn to if his or her contract comes to an end. That is why fixed term contracts have been viewed with such disquiet in the police service.
Such contracts do not motivate those in the ranks below if one does not have fixed term contracts at all levels. People will be reluctant to apply for posts as assistant chief constables, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. One may not therefore have the best motivated, best officers applying for the highest ranks in the police service.
Those are specific problems in relation to fixed term appointments. However, I wish in particular to endorse the Scottish problem. I cannot understand why poor Scotland again is being used as a guinea-pig when England is not. I understand that the changes to the rank structure and conditions of employment will not apply to Northern Ireland in the same way, but we shall come to that point when we discuss future amendments. It seems curious that different parts of Great Britain are being treated in different ways in the Bill. I cannot understand that. It is not only for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, but also for the Minister to explain why Scotland appears to be being treated differently from England in some respects.
In view of the letter that we have just received, it is difficult to discuss the question of fixed term contracts.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not object to Scotland being treated differently if she is treated better; that appears to be absolutely logical, right and proper. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, is present. Although we are only discussing Amendment No. 135, the principle ties in extraordinarily well with the amendments relating to England.
The Scottish police are frightened by the provisions mainly because of the effect on recruitment and the quality of the police. The great attraction of becoming a policeman is, of course, that one has a fixed 30-year term before receiving a decent pension. It is a tremendous attraction, and one which is being put in danger. Under the proposed system a large number of people will say, "If I tool away at the lower rank at which there is no danger, then all will be well". That is an appalling situation.
I cannot understand why much of the Bill is being introduced. The present system has worked extraordinarily well. I wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Harris that there is no real case for fixed term contracts in the police. With regard to a chief constable, it is possible to argue that a fixed term is useful because one never knows when promotion might be above a person's ability. However, I should have thought that in the police service one would know a person's potential. There might be a case for fixed term contracts for the chief constable.
I have read quickly the letter which I, too, have received. I thank the Minister for it. The Government appear to be moving away from a three-year period to four years with an extension to seven years. The provision has not been thought out in any shape or form; otherwise such ridiculous matters would never have been put in the Bill. There is no argument whatever for fixed term contracts for those below the rank of chief constable. The argument for them with regard to assistant chief constables has not been made.
I do not believe that one can say much more on the subject. The Bill seems to be totally ill thought out. The Government are amending it daily. It has all the marks of a very bad piece of legislation.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 135 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I am one Member of your Lordships' House who has not received the letter which was so much discussed on moving the amendment. Is there an identical letter from the Scottish Office on the same subject? If, as I now gather, the letter deals not with the principle but merely with the period of fixed term contracts that would not make the principle any more acceptable.
Before I develop my argument briefly, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and my noble friend Lady Hilton that there may be some misunderstanding. I shall be surprised if Scotland introduces immediately the principle of fixed term contracts at a time when we are busily reorganising local government in Scotland. If the Government succeed in getting that legislation onto the statute book the new authorities will come into being in 1996. It seems to be

161
insensible to introduce the fixed term contracts immediately in Scotland when we are in the middle of that reorganisation.
I make it absolutely clear that I am firmly opposed to the principle of fixed term contracts in the police force. I was sorry when I heard the representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) and, to a lesser extent, the Superintendents' Association say that they accepted the principle of fixed term contracts, albeit for assistant chief constables and chief constables.
The principle of fixed term contracts for chief constables and assistant chief constables is a dangerous approach, as the noble Lords, Lord Harris, and Lord Mackie of Benshie, said. We are moving to a stage—to be humorous for a moment—when we are about to treat chief constables and assistant chief constables in the same way that we treat football managers. As an ex-director of a football club, I have been involved in sacking a few football managers in my time. The procedure is that as soon as you become fed up with your football club manager you leak to the press that his contract will not be renewed. Before you know where you are, there is a queue of people telephoning you and whispering to you, and before the poor guy is sacked you have his replacement in your hip pocket. We put the chief constable in that position. He gains a four, five or even seven-year fixed term contract. But at the end of the penultimate year it is decided that that contract will not be renewed. He immediately becomes a lame duck chief constable. There are no "ifs" or "buts" about it. He or she loses all his or her authority with the police force. Discipline goes out of the window and the confidence of the population in the police area for which that chief constable is responsible is seriously undermined. Then there is a situation where people are queuing up for the outgoing chief constable's job.
In another part of the Bill, the position of the chief constable becomes ludicrous because he is given the responsibility of advising the police authority who from among his or her senior officers should run the police force for a period of no more than three months during the time the police authority is searching for a chief constable's successor. What a way to run policing.
I have never heard the case argued for fixed term contracts. I leave with noble Lords the only explanation I have heard of the fixed term contract argument from Mr. Paul Fox. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, Paul Fox was a member of the Sheehy Committee of inquiry. I give him this much credit—he was, if not the only member, certainly one of the few members prepared to appear on television to defend the Sheehy proposals. If I had still been a Member of another place, I would have remembered not only the programme on the proposals but also the company that screened the programme, the time it was screened and the date, and I would have been guaranteed a mention tomorrow morning. However, being a Member of this place, I forget such matters.
But I remember the programme. Paul Fox was asked what the thinking was behind the fixed term contract at that time for superintendents and above. It has to be understood that Paul Fox is an impresario involved in leisure and entertainments. He said: "Well, I have been
162
in the entertainment world all my life and I have always worked to contracts". There you have it. Because Des O'Connor has a contract the chief constable has to have one. That is no way to run police forces throughout Great Britain. The provision does not apply to Northern Ireland.
Far from extending the period of the contract—whether it be the initial contract or the renewal—the sensible approach is to get rid of the idea altogether. Policemen are not managing directors; chief constables are not managing directors. They are not involved in companies. There is nothing worse than a chief constable, as he nears the end of his contract, having one eye on the renewal and the other eye on policing. That is outrageous.
The noble Earl has been superb this afternoon in his co-operative spirit across the Floor of the House. He has an opportunity to write his name in headlines tonight and tell us that he is removing this from the Bill altogether. Then we can consign to the dustbin the madcap idea of fixed term contracts for assistant chief constables and chief constables.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as my neighbour, the noble Lord Mackie, mentioned, my name is attached with his to Amendment No. 135. Thus it would be appropriate for me to support his excellent comments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, on the problem. The policemen to whom I have spoken—and that includes those in my area of Angus or Tayside, which is unique in its way—even in Tayside have fears which have been expressed very well by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie.
I would not wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, in equating fixed term contracts for chief constables and other senior police officers with the success or otherwise of his notable football club. Even though I was 8,000 miles away last week, I noticed that for the noble Lord's beloved football team the game was cancelled due to snow. That clearly cannot be equated with fixed term contracts or managing necessarily.
However, I believe that police forces and the way in which they perform their duties are far removed from what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, mentioned. I believe that Amendment No. 135 goes a long way to meet the fears that are felt by me and many noble Lords from Scotland.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, it was proposed that from this Front Bench my noble friend should respond to the debate. However, as a specific matter relating to Scotland has been raised, it may be appropriate if I say something.
The matter was raised during the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. As I understood it, his anxiety was that, while the provision for England, which is to be found in Clause 14(4), also indicates that fixed term contracts might be available in relation to superintendents, he had understood my noble friend to indicate that the Government did not propose to do that immediately this side of the Border. Noble Lords may care to look at columns 486 and 487 of Hansard for 21 st

163
February 1994 to see that I made clear that it is the same position as we are striking in relation to Scotland. The provision in Clause 46 is in identical terms to that to be found in Clause 14(4). The way in which we propose to implement it is precisely the same as that proposed for England and Wales.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord clarify one point further? Although there is no intention of applying fixed term contracts other than to chief constables—which is what he was saying--neither is there any intention of removing from the Bill the ability to apply them further down.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I thought I had made it as clear as I could. There is no intention to introduce fixed term contracts in relation to superintendents. As regards chief officers, the timetable for implementation will be exactly the same on both sides of the Border. That is the simple position and I have already placed the matter on record at Committee stage. I do not think that I can give further elaboration.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask about the letter we have received aid whether the changes for England also apply to Scotland. I am not an expert in such matters but, as I understand the letter, it seems to me that the proposals offer rolling appointments rather than fixed term appointments. Will the same arrangements apply for Scotland?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always dangerous to try to be helpful. We have been discussing these matters for a long while and there was anxiety about fixed term appointments at the Committee stage. Since then, we have taken note of what was said at that stage and have had discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers. We have tried to find ways around the difficulties. One of the problems was what would be put in the regulations which will apply to fixed term contracts. I was going to say during this debate what I thought would appear in the regulations. In order to be helpful, I said: "I must let the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord McIntosh, and other people know what will be in the regulations in order not to bounce noble Lords".
Of course, what happened was that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, castigated me for giving him a letter with only 15 minutes to spare. I quite agree that there is something to complain of; I signed the letter this morning or this afternoon and something must have gone wrong with the pigeon post, which resulted in your Lordships' receiving it so late. For that, I apologise. If the moral lies anywhere, it is: "Don't try to be helpful. Let the matter go through its natural course". I apologise for the error of irritating the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but perhaps I may be acquitted of discourtesy in the intent, which was to try to be helpful.
Perhaps I may deal with the question of fixed-term contracts which I know have given rise to a good deal of anxiety. The Government announced that in future chief constables and assistant chief constables should be appointed on fixed terms and that pay should be related to performance for all ranks of officers. In order to
164
implement these proposals my right honourable friend will require that these aspects of chief constables' and assistant chief constables' conditions of service should be specified in regulations that will have to be laid before Parliament. The intention of the first two amendments that we are now discussing is that the Home Secretary will have those powers only if they are agreed to by representatives of police authorities and chief constables.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 69 and 104 which deal with England and Wales before I address the related Scottish points. I re-emphasise what my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser has said that the starling point in Scotland is exactly the same as in England. The terms of the letter, which has so agitated everyone, applies to Scotland just as much as it does to England. If I may, I shall return to that letter in a short while. While the Home Secretary will be required to obtain consent to his proposals, no means is provided to establish which persons can be said to be representative for the purposes of these amendments. My right honourable friend will continue to consult the police authorities, the Association of Chief Constables and other police staff associations before he introduces or amends police regulations. He is, and will continue to be, required by statute to do so. The Government place great emphasis and value on the consultation process. But 'we cannot agree to a proposal that the Secretary of State's authority to regulate in respect of matters for which he is accountable to Parliament should be constrained by the need, first, to achieve agreement.
Relating pay to performance is a perfectly natural and reasonable proposition. It distinguishes especially good performance from average performance and provides an incentive to people to improve the effectiveness of their contribution. It is done in many other parts of society. It benefits both the organisation and the individual. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, says that he does not like fixed-term appointments. I understand that. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, says that authority and morale go once it is known that a chief constable is what may be called "on the way out". I do not agree with that. Even now, there are plenty of occasions when everyone knows that a chief constable is to retire in one or two years' time. Morale and the chief constable's authority do not go. Some people may say, "It will be nice to have a change"; others may say, "What a great pity. He is a wonderful chief constable". But I do not accept that the morale of the force goes; nor do I accept that the chief constable has one eye on his contract and the other on his policing, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. I believe this to be a perfectly natural progression.
I come to the point that I know worries the noble Lord. We consider that fixed-term appointments for the top managers of the police service are an important element of the new managerial arrangements which will be introduced as part of the reform of police personnel management. Fixed-term appointments, among other things, will emphasise the importance of performance and accountability in the police service, and they will

165
reflect the established arrangements which are quite common in other walks of life, including the public sector.
I should make it clear that it is not the purpose of fixed-term appointments to disadvantage chief constables. The purpose is to ensure that both parties have a clear opportunity to review periodically whether it is in the interests of the force and the individual for him to continue in a particular post. It would not be unreasonable for a police authority for a number of good reasons to consider a change of chief constable, but under the current arrangements a police authority may have to continue to work with a chief constable, whether or not it likes it, whether or not he is as good as it thinks he should be, or he is someone whom it would prefer to replace, for 10 to 15 years or even longer. The same point applies to assistant chief constables. Fixed-term appointments provide an effective and dignified means of managing those circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was worried about superintendents not wishing to become assistant chief constables or chief constables if they were to be on fixed-term appointments, to which principle they might take exception. There is bound to be that risk if we cannot ensure that they have continuity and confidence in the system. That is why the point made by the noble Lord, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is a very important one. I accept that fair and reasonable arrangements need to be in place to safeguard the interests of chief constables and assistant chief constables who, having completed fixed-term appointments, are unable to secure other appointments and yet do not qualify to receive pensions.
We have discussed that and other issues relating to the sensible management of fixed-term appointments with the Association of Chief Police Officers. We have suggested various things to them. It was those suggestions that I put into the letter, in my great effort to try to be accommodating, which so agitated and irritated everyone. We have suggested that the minimum period of appointment should be four years, and that fixed-term appointments should be reviewed annually on a rolling basis; in other words, an appointment would be for four years. After the first year the appointment can be renewed for another four years, and after the second year it can be renewed for another four years. However, the final appointment cannot last for more than seven years. Therefore, he will know that at seven years that length of appointment will come to an end. After seven years (or 10 years for assistant chief constables) the post will have to be re-advertised, and the post holder will then be eligible for re-selection.
We are also considering what arrangements should be made to compensate people for the risk that is to some extent inherent in a fixed-term appointment, that it may not be renewed or a new appointment secured before the person has qualified to receive a pension. I believe that that satisfies a good number of the points about which the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, was concerned. One does not get a four-year appointment and wonder towards the end of the fourth year whether or not it will be renewed. The chief constable will know
166
that he has a four-year appointment and that next year and the year after he will have a four-year appointment, if that is the agreement between him and the local authority.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl the following question. Is it not true that one is introducing more uncertainty? After the first year the chief officer has to suck up to the authority to get another four years; in the second year he does the same and so on until it comes to the final period which brings him to seven years.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, really has some extraordinary ideas. If he believes that chief constables have to spend their time sucking up to police authorities because otherwise they will not be reappointed, the choice of appointment was probably wrong in the first place. All we are trying to do is to make it perfectly clear that a fixed-term appointment is made and runs for four years. At the end of the next year it runs for another four years. But of course if the chief constable has so fouled his copybook or shown himself to be so incompetent that the police authority says, "Look, we do not want you to continue after that", he will know that he has only three years. That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has not yet had an opportunity to consider fully these proposals, but I have reason to believe that they will be acceptable to that body.
I understand the concerns that have been expressed about operational independence. I fully appreciate the need to ensure that there are safeguards to prevent any police authority from acting capriciously, because that would be intolerable. We believe that the proposals just outlined provide the right kind of safeguards. The detail of these important personnel management issues must be settled in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the police authorities. We have benefited from listening to what they have already had to say about fixed-term appointments and performance-related pay for chief constables. We shall continue to develop those arrangements in discussion with them.
During the Committee debate on 15th February, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked me, with what I am bound to say was some vigour, what were the Government's proposals in respect of the long-standing requirement for officers aspiring to the Association of Chief Police Officers' rank to have served in another force. I said that I would consider the point and that I hoped to be able to report to the House by Report stage. We have now developed proposals which we shall be discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers. These are that to be eligible for consideration for an assistant chief constable post an officer must have served as a superintendent for at least two years outside the force; and to be eligible for consideration for the chief constable post an officer must have served as assistant chief constable for at least two years outside the force.
These proposals vary slightly from the existing requirements in that they refer to experience which has been gained outside of the force. This means that central

167
service postings and, indeed, experience gained outside the police service can count towards the qualifying period. The existing Police Regulations require experience in some other force, which we now consider to be too restrictive.
I hope that that satisfactorily clears up the point about which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was worried.
I come now to the Scottish amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lord Lyell. This would have the effect of restricting the introduction of fixed term appointments to the ranks of chief constable and assistant chief constable only in respect of officers who are serving in Scottish police forces.
The amendment also addresses the renewal of fixed term appointments and compensation when the appointment is not renewed. But I hope that noble Lords will accept that what I have just said about our proposals for the management of fixed term contracts satisfactorily meets the concerns which lie behind those aspects of the proposed amendment.
The superintending rank provides the senior managers of the police service. We consider that fixed term appointments may well have similar advantages for the superintending ranks as those which I have described in respect of the top managers of the police service.
The main point of Clause 46 is to specify that fixed term appointments cannot be introduced for officers below the rank of superintendent. Clause 14(4) does the same for England and Wales. We will not extend fixed term appointments to the superintending ranks until we have had an opportunity to judge the benefits in the light of experience with the ACPO ranks. But we need to be able to extend fixed term appointments to the superintending rank; if it is sensible to do so. That is what we propose.
This is a longer speech than I would wish to have made. I have tried 1.0 allay some of the anxieties that your Lordships and others have expressed. I accept that fixed term appointments are different. Of course they carry risks, but there is no reason why those should not be containable risks and no reason why this provision should not be of benefit to chief constables and police authorities. I hope your Lordships will agree to that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I acquit the noble Earl from any discourtesy as regards the letter which helpfully arrived 15 minutes before this debate began. As he will realise, it is mildly difficult in the middle of a debate to start reading a detailed letter on a matter of such fundamental importance. I make no criticism apart from that. The noble Earl's private office is always extremely helpful to us.
As the Minister will realise, I have no intention of pressing this matter today, given the fact that the letter which he has now sent to us and the speech which he has just delivered have to some extent changed the character of the situation that we are debating. Obviously we shall have to look at what is proposed.
Perhaps I may just say one thing to him. He used the phrase "the incompetence of the chief constable". He said that the police authority might wish to remove a
168
chief constable on the ground of incompetence. Some noble Lords seemed to find that a rather attractive argument. But that is not the issue at all. Of course there may be incompetent chief constables, just as there may be incompetent Ministers of the Crown. That is true. But the fact of the matter is that, by and large, chief constables and police authorities get on rather well together. They always have done and we hope that it will continue.
Let me make a point which may be attractive to some noble Lords opposite; namely, the issue of the South Yorkshire police horses during the miners' strike. The noble Earl will recall that that issue eventually went to the courts. The police authority took the view that for very understandable reasons it had strong sympathies with the miners who were in dispute. The police authority of South Yorkshire decided to stand down or abolish the police horse section of the South Yorkshire force on the ground that those horses had been used in policing demonstrations by working miners. I have no intention of going back into the rights and wrongs of that issue. But I wonder what would have happened to the contract of the chief constable of South Yorkshire if this procedure had been on the statute book. It is not a question of the competence of the chief officer.
The danger in what is being provided for in this Clause is that it strikes at the heart of the operational independence of chief officers. The noble Earl can speak as long as he likes on the subject of what is proposed, but the real danger of what is proposed in this clause is that in the future chief officers will become merely chief executives of some police authorities—not all.; I am sure that the working relationship with many will remain unaffected. However, as soon as an issue of high public controversy arises, where some members of the police authority believe that the force is not handling, the matter on an operational basis in a way that they find attractive, the danger is that that chief officer's contract is at risk.
I believe that this is a quite intolerable provision. Let there be no doubt about it. I believe that we are creating a most dangerous situation. I feel that the House and Parliament will long regret introducing procedures of this kind. I have spoken about one issue affecting a police authority Left of centre. There are plenty of other examples of police authorities which are Right of centre and may have strong feelings about how hunt saboteurs should be dealt with. The problem is that we are not talking about management but about operational independence. I still believe that what is provided here is ominous and we shall regret it.
Nevertheless, the noble Earl has put forward a series of changes in what was previously the Government's position. The Oughton Report demolished totally the case for fixed term appointments, as I indicated. Nevertheless, I welcome what the Government said on this issue. Our objection to it is still one of principle. We are opposed to what is being provided. But given the fact that the noble Earl has now come forward with his letter and that the Association of Chief Police Officers, as he says in that letter, is still considering the matter, I prefer to come back to the issue on Third Reading. With the permission of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Deputy and assistant chief constables]:
[Amendment No. 70 not moved]
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 71
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Chief superintendents and chief inspectors
In section 7 of the 1964 Act in subsection 1 after "in addition to chief constable, deputy chief constable and assistant chief constable, the ranks of ' there shall be inserted "chief superintendent", and after "superintendent" there shall be inserted "chief inspector".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an issue of high importance. It affects the abolition of a number of ranks —of chief inspector and chief superintendent. The police service has only nine ranks and it is to be reduced to six. When the question is asked, "Why is the number of ranks to be reduced?" we are referred to our old familiar friend Sheehy. We are told that another of its recommendations is that that should be done. No doubt that is found to be appropriate in the private sector, but it bears absolutely no relationship to a disciplined service such as the police service.
As I understand it, the argument of the Government —or the argument of Sheehy, because this is one of the few recommendations in Sheehy which has been introduced in the Bill—is that there are too many middle ranking officers. Nevertheless, since 1990 there have been reductions of 155 in the number of chief inspectors, 120 in the number of superintendents and 84 in the number of chief superintendents.
As I indicated, the police service is the only disciplined service comparable to the Armed Forces. For instance, in both it is an offence against military law to take any form of industrial action. What is needed is a clearly defined rank structure which can deal with day-to-day operational issues and with difficult public order situations. I refer to a major public disturbance or a disaster where officers from many forces may have to work side by side in dealing with what may be a human tragedy or often extreme violence. Officers from three or four forces may be required because they are in a mutual aid situation. Of course, one force can reinforce another when dealing with a specific situation.
What is being suggested is that we abolish both the rank of chief inspector and the rank of chief superintendent. There will therefore remain only six ranks in the police service. Perhaps I can give an example, if I can have the noble Earl's attention for a moment. I apologise to him but the argument is important and I am sure that he will wish to reply to it as helpfully as he always tries to do. A difficult public order situation arises producing much confusion. Many scores, if not hundreds, of police officers are involved and there is a substantial amount of violence. In the new situation there will be no chief superintendents, no chief inspectors; only superintendents or inspectors. In that highly confused situation—many of them arise—there are three or four officers holding the same rank of
170
superintendent. Who will be in charge? Do they start discussing who is to be in charge when extreme violence is being visited upon their men and women officers?
Perhaps I may give another illustration. I do not know whether the noble Earl saw the film "Zulu". It concerned a battle at Rourke's Drift in which the whole Zulu nation came upon a small detachment of troops from the South Wales Borderers and Royal Engineers. The two actors, Stanley Baker and Michael Caine, were both playing lieutenants. The question arose as to who was to be in charge; who was to be the officer in command; who was to give directions. They decided it on the basis of the seniority of their commissions. I wonder whether that will be the way in which this issue will be addressed if an episode of extreme violence occurs on a picket line or a demonstration involving possibly thousands of people.
It may be that several officers of the same rank are present. Who will be in charge? Those issues must be addressed and clear answers given. Once again the Government are flying in the face of all professional opinion—as they know. If Ministers ignore professional opinion—in the final analysis that is their right—they must answer specific questions of this sort. What will happen if events get out of hand, as happened in Red Lion Square—there have been many others—is that there will subsequently be some sort of judicial inquiry. Senior police officers will be brought to account as to why they took certain actions and did not take others.
All I am saying is that by striking away these ranks from the police service the Government are creating what may be a dangerously confused situation at a time when there is serious civic turmoil. I wonder whether even now they are prepared to reconsider the matter. If not, they will once again be accepting a heavy degree of personal responsibility for what follows. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, during my 34 years of service I saw many ranks in the police service come and go. At one stage there were superintendent grades I and 2. There were station sergeants. The Met. then introduced deputy assistant commissioners. It abolished superintendents at one stage and then reintroduced them. I am therefore used to ranks coming and going, but normally one at a time and it did not have a serious dislocating effect on the police structure.
For many years I have also been an advocate for the Metropolitan police reducing the number of ranks. In fact, currently it has 11 ranks as opposed to nine elsewhere in the country. I have seen the virtues of removing at least one of those. The police service tends to be over conscious of promotion. There is sometimes a tendency for too much rank consciousness. Information flows from top to bottom and can be affected if there are too many ranks. When one has a force through which people move rapidly because there are a great number of layers, there is a tendency always to be looking at the next rank rather than concentrating on one's current job.
But it is possible to overstate those problems. What is currently being proposed is seriously disturbing. I have also always been in favour of delegation of

171
authority, which in one of the other justifications for flattening the hierarchy. It is said that it is important to move responsibility downwards. My experience as a manager was always to give as much responsibility as possible right down to the rank of constable. One sees much more effective policing if it is done at the level at which people know what is happening.
All those points apply within the managerial everyday situation and analogies can be drawn with other organisations. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, it does not apply when one is in the centre of a public order situation, or command on the streets, at football matches, state occasions and major demonstrations when it is absolutely essential that one has all the links from top to bottom without too great a span of command.
At Committee stage I spoke of the problems of policing Brentford football ground, with which I became familiar over some three-and-a-half years as senior manager. I can assure the House that it concentrates the mind when one is standing on the terraces in a cold north-east wind trying to sort out hooligans and moving one's small force of 30 or 40 officers around all four stands in a football stadium. It is essential that if one is to do that and control minor spots of trouble one must have links with different parts of the ground. Those links are normally at chief inspector level. They are the link between the basic operational policing carried out by constables, sergeants and inspectors who are given assigned tasks to do in a specific area of the ground. But there must be somebody who can decide that one inspector's group of officers can afford to spare half-a-dozen men to help in some other part of the ground where trouble is brewing. That needs to be done at a tactical level. It is not a question of superintendents conducting the situation from a distance like an orchestra. It must be done on the ground where one can see what is happening.
To take another analogy, one may have a state visit coming down Victoria Street—the kind of thing with which we are all familiar. Large numbers of police officers line the route, in groups of 20 or 30 constables, a couple of sergeants and an inspector responsible for one stretch of the street. One cannot expect the superintendent or commander to see the whole of Victoria Street and when a minor problem arises one needs the chief inspector to act as a link to be able to tell one inspector to release half his men to help the next door serial. That cannot be done by individual inspectors deciding to lend their officers; anarchy would ensue. What happens is everybody wants to be involved and the whole route-lining situation breaks down completely. Everybody tries to deal with that spot of trouble because they enjoy being involved. Control of the situation is then completely lost. It is essential to have a localised operational link where one can see what is happening. It is not a question of doing it strategically or at management level at the far end of Victoria Station when the trouble is occurring at this end of Victoria Street.
The other function that is absolutely essential is the fact that the police service is a 24-hour service. The basic unit of policing is normally what is called a relief
172
or shift of police officers which consists of a large number of constables and a few sergeants. One normally has an inspector who is the relief inspector who runs his team which covers the ground for an eight-hour period. Under the shift system there are normally four such teams of officers running the 24-hour policing in any territorial part of this country. But if those individual teams are to pursue common objectives, if they are to pass on information, if they are to deal with particular local problems, one needs someone at the operational linking level; not at the managerial strategic level of superintendent or chief superintendent.
One essentially needs someone at that halfway point where they are very much in touch with what is happening on the ground—which pubs are causing trouble, where the current spate of burglaries are--to ensure that there is liaison and a flow of information from one team of officers coming on and the next one going off. That is what does not seem to be understood when these managerial analogies of pushing responsibility downwards are used. It needs co-ordination in the police service over both space and time. The police service is extended over very large areas. It is perhaps easier in London where on the whole the spaces are not so large, but if one imagines having to do the same kind of co-ordination and ensuring that the whole thing works in some of the wilder parts of this country—particularly in Scotland; I am sure that my Scottish colleagues will support what I am saying—it is essential to have those linking levels of command.
It is not just a question of setting a strategy right at the top and then everyone doing their best at the bottom to carry it out. One needs people to co-ordinate and to ensure that people work together, that there is a flow of information and that things are controlled. That is what does not seem to be understood in this suggestion that the police service generally should be reduced from nine ranks to six. It is extraordinary that it can actually be thought that one can run elaborate situations such as the Notting Hill Carnival, where one has 5,000 or 6,000 police officers, and that that number of police officers can be managed with only six levels, including the chief constable. It will not work. I am seriously concerned about the reduction in numbers as proposed in the Bill.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, we have been listening to the voice of frontline experience. And there is no substitute for that. But as one who has had some experience in designing and making work economical hierarchical organisations, both at headquarters level and in the field, perhaps I may also say something about the amendment which also stands in my name.
I am amazed and indeed dismayed that the Government should have incorporated into this Bill a tinkering-about with the very limited number of ranks of the police. A proper and comprehensive rank structure has, from my experience, many very positive advantages. It provides a sound basis for operational command which has enough flexibility to cope with any expected or unexpected developments and it reflects, or it should do, the scale and range of responsibilities of the holder of that rank, just like the captain of a Royal Navy warship who may be anything from a lieutenant to

173
a captain, depending on the size of the ship. It ensures proper remuneration for any increase in responsibilities. It assists in administration and dispensing of discipline. The noble Earl will appreciate this as much as I do. It is quite clear who under any situation is the boss. Finally, and very importantly, it constitutes an important ingredient in self respect, morale and motivation by providing a stimulating career structure and by indicating to all concerned when an individual has made successful progress and advancement in his or her chosen career.
To cut the police ranks to six which, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, in any case number only nine, with slight variations in the Metropolitan Police and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in contrast with about 18 in each of the Armed Forces of the Crown, would run counter to all the advantages I have just mentioned. By removing the chief rank from both superintendent and inspector it would not accurately reflect extra or wider responsibility and the key middle man of operational command would be reduced to only one—the superintendent's rank. It is just like the Army having only one rank between captain and brigadier. Then by calling a hitherto chief superintendent a superintendent and a chief inspector just inspector it would almost certainly in time reduce the remuneration for many while not reducing their responsibilities. It would certainly hit morale and motivation by increasing the time spent in each rank and thus severely reducing career prospects.
I cannot see very much point in doing away with the deputy chief constable's rank if, as is admitted by the Home Office, it may be very necessary to have that appointment in some, if not all, of the forces in this country. In the case of the Armed Forces there is only one instance where the appointment is not matched by rank. That is commodore, Royal Navy, and that has not been considered to be entirely satisfactory.
Altogether this petty tinkering with ranks seems to be a totally needless exercise, introduced for what purpose it is not at all clear. I believe it will seriously reduce operational flexibility and will harm morale and motivation without any consequent benefits to the organisation. I am not saying that the police cannot do anything to sharpen and streamline their management structure. I am quite sure that they can, and there is a lot that they can do. But if the aim of the exercise is to cut management numbers on purely financial grounds or to streamline the organisation in search of greater efficiency, it would be far better to reduce the number of managers and the links in the management chain, which is not at all the same thing as the rank structure.
In my experience, no command decisions or submission for decisions should have to go through more than two management or command levels, but this can easily be achieved by not having a full hierarchical system under each rank, which has, I believe, in any case been abandoned by the police some time ago. as we have heard, the numbers of middle chief superintendents have been significantly and. So, for example, inspectors can report direct receive orders direct from superintendents, or
174
chief inspectors can do the same with chief superintendents. That is a far more sensible way forward than doing something which undoubtedly will demoralise the force by striking at their very esprit de corps and incentive, something at this time which I suggest the Government do at their peril. It is for that reason that I strongly support the amendment to the Bill. I ask the noble Earl not to confuse ranks with management posts and to think again before a tampering which will go right to the heart of police morale.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to speak about the Scottish situation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, has been kind enough to discuss the matter with a number of us. As I understand it, the reason for the reduction in the number of ranks is to suit small police forces. In Scotland the Glasgow area is the only one that has a very large number of policemen and needs all the ranks whereas Ayrshire and Galloway are very small and do not need all the ranks that we have. That can be very easily resolved through the negotiations over money and the establishment of the force which take place every year. The number of senior ranks and their stations are obviously sorted out each year.
The Government have had some admirable advice from professionals on the matter, and if they will not listen to that, they should go back to the time when they read C.S. Forester and his lovely stories about Hornblower. Time and again Hornblower was foiled in his admirable planning by the arrival of a captain senior to him on the list. If we are going to introduce that kind of procedure in the police force, it will introduce chaos if an officer has to look up a list to see whether he will take orders from someone who is a superintendent of lesser standing than he is. That argument is bad and foolish, and it is a serious one.
I cannot see why the Government are taking this course. There is no trouble about keeping down the number of senior people in a small police force. Certainly, the numbers are needed in the great conurbations of western Scotland or in the east in the cities, where there are large police forces and large crowds and all the situations which have been so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. The Government must think again. I hope they feel at this stage that they will listen to the voice of experience coming from the Benches beside me and do something as they have done in practically every other case in this Bill.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I very much endorse what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said. Taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, if a small police force does not require all the ranks, then the establishment does not include the ranks that are not wanted. In the same way a small ship has certain kinds of officers and petty officers, but it may not have them all. It is very easy and flexible to have such a system; but one does not want a basic Act of Parliament to sweep away three out of only nine ranks. It is quite extraordinary ! I shall not repeat all that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said. He knows about these things. If the Home Office has to be

175
advised by a businessman on how to organise a uniformed, disciplined force, it needs its head examined.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, quite apart from the last excellent comment from my noble friend, my noble neighbour Lord Mackie just alluded to Scotland. But he was too humble. He did not allude to the area known to him, to myself and to my noble and learned friend on the Front. Bench. Perhaps I may put the matter into English terms by comparing the semi-rural areas where I and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, live, as something akin to Cumbria or perhaps East Yorkshire; whereas Strathclyde, with its enormous population and problems of policing, might be something akin to Kent where one has a mixture of both rural and highly urban and complicated policing is needed.
I ask my noble and learned friend as regards the Scottish element of Amendment No. 130, to look at the comments which have been made, certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, but above all by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. We do not have state visits—certainly not in Angus. I understand that there is to be a state visit this year to Edinburgh and no doubt her excellent and humorous comments will be noted in their respective areas. I say to the noble Baroness that I shall always look at what is away from the main event particularly as regards her comments about inspectors wishing—I believe I quote her correctly—to "join in". The noble Baroness has experience of these matters. Her comments as well as those of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, bear very heavily on this particular amendment with which I and many of my noble friends on these Benches wish to be associated.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, we have come to the heart of the matter in the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, as regards the difference between small and large police forces. As the noble Earl knows, at the present time the Government have control over the number of officers in each rank. The minimum number of officers is laid down in the establishment levels prescribed for forces in England and Wales by the Home Secretary and in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
There is provision in this Bill which relaxes these controls presently being exercised by government and passes to the chief constable the responsibility for deciding the number of officers which he wishes to have in each rank. There is also provision in the Bill for introducing single-line budgets; namely, financial limits, as they are commonly called.
What we have as a result of this proposed legislation is control being passed to the chief constable for deciding how many officers are in each rank in his or her force and the financial control of that force as well. Against that background it is sensible to leave the rank structure to the chief constable. If he wants to have, as in the case of Strathclyde at the moment, 36 chief superintendents and, as regards other smaller forces, four or five—and in some cases only three—then so be
176
it. That ought to be a matter for the chief constable. Indeed, that is the power which the Government are giving through this Bill to the chief constable.
The chief constable is also responsible for the budget of his or her police force. If he or she spends more money on chief superintendents, it is fairly obvious that the money is not there for constables. That would then be a matter for the police authority and the chief constable. But for the Government to take to themselves the right to abolish these three ranks is a mistake. I say particularly to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that the rank structure of the police force has developed over the years not to provide a career structure, but because of the operational necessities of the police force. Had there not been a need for chief superintendents, chief inspectors and deputy chief constables, they would never have been created in the first place. It is because of the continuing need of the operational requirements of police forces that the rank structure has been developed.
The Government are getting themselves involved in an area in which they need not be involved. Because of the new powers which they are giving to chief constables, it is sensible to leave to them decisions as regards the rank structure of their respective forces. It is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, that in Dumfries and Galloway (and in a very small force of 200 officers) there would obviously not be the same requirement for some of these ranks as there is in such forces as Lothian and the Borders, Strathclyde and Tayside which are very widespread. Grampian is very much the same with massive rural areas to police. I suggest in all sincerity that the Government ought to reflect on this and leave to the chief constables to decide the rank structure.
My final point is in the form of a question. When I spoke previously on this matter I made the point that my understanding was that the badges of office were to remain. In other words, the badges of the chief superintendent, the chief inspector and the deputy chief constable would remain and could be worn. The salary structure was also to remain.
I noticed that negotiations last week at the Police Negotiating Board about the pay of chief superintendents broke down and that the matter is to go to arbitration. I do not know the reason for the breakdown, but I have no doubt that it has something to do with the legislation that we are discussing. I wonder whether the noble Earl can confirm or clear up my doubts about whether the badges of office are to remain and whether, until such time as the negotiations at the Police Negotiating Board on the new salary structure are completed, the salary structure is to remain as well. It seems to me that if the badges of office, insignia and salaries are to remain, it would be sensible to leave the ranks as they are. Indeed, I think that it would be sensible to leave the whole thing to the chief constables to decide. When all is said and done, the Government are, in my view, sensibly delegating to the chief constables much more power to decide how many officers there shall be in each rank.
7.30 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, although Amendment No. 130 also bears my name, following the eloquence and expertise that we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, there is nothing that I can add except to say that it goes without saying that I support the amendment.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, there is no doubt at all that if the Government want to maintain the morale in the police force, they must accept the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister replies, as he is about to do, perhaps I may comment on one matter which concerns me which has not yet been mentioned. I am not an expert on the police. I have merely served on a local authority which was a police authority, but I was not a member of the police committee, although I frequently attended its meetings.
My understanding of the proposal—the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, reiterated most of it, but not all—is that having fewer ranks would give a chief constable greater freedom within the overall budget to arrange the structure as he or she wants—and it might be a "she" one day. If a given chief constable allocates all the ranks in the sort of hierarchal structure of which the noble and gallant Lord spoke with such experience, he lands his successor with all those ranks and all the incumbents have to be given a job. Presumably, the chief inspector in a fairly small authority has certain responsibilities which cannot really be changed. Indeed, perhaps they cannot be changed in a larger authority.
My understanding of the previous discussion was that it might be possible with fewer ranks to allocate the jobs differently, with officers retaining their pay and, as I understand it, their badge of office, without necessarily having to have the same job simply because they are in a certain rank. It would be advantageous if there were more flexibility in the proposed arrangements.
Most noble Lords have considered this matter from the point of view of the police and that is the view that they have expressed to the House. I am trying to consider it from the point of view of the police authority and the public generally. Is there a way of retaining the status and ranks which the police clearly enjoy and which those operating the police service find helpful while at the same time making it possible to move people around from year to year, from circumstance to circumstance or from the command of one chief constable to that of another? Sometimes chief constables are landed with their predecessor's arrangements and find it difficult to change them.
Perhaps this issue does not arise in the Army in the same way because the officer in command of the Army is not given a budget with total freedom to decide how many staff to have and of what rank. It is slightly different under the new arrangements. When my noble friend replies, perhaps he will tell us whether he sees any way of compromising on this matter because it seems to me that there are advantages which nobody has yet considered.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whenever one does anything like removing a rank structure, it causes a tremendous amount of concern. When the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, was speaking so impressively, I was taken back to the time when the regiments in the Army were amalgamated. I remembered some of the debates that took place then in your Lordships' House in which considerable anxiety was expressed. But the regiments were amalgamated and the Army continued. I do not think that we have suffered that much, other than that there has been a certain amount of territorial anxiety about the fact that something that used to be local to certain areas of the country would no longer be so local.
I accept that such matters cause anxiety and I sympathise with anyone, and particularly with the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, who has served in the police and knows all about it, as they see the prospect of a rank structure being changed and various ranks being removed.
I am not sure whether the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, was right to compare this with the military. The police are different. They do not have the same military structure as the Army, although the police have a disciplined structure also.
In his enormously generous way, my noble friend Lord Mottistone said that I ought to have my head examined for proposing this. I always enjoy my noble friend's interventions, but if I am going to have my head examined, I must tell him that I would not put it into his tender care.
The purpose of removing these ranks is fairly straightforward, although it may not be readily digestible by some of your Lordships. It is to enable the further streamlining of the management hierarchy by simplifying the structure. That will provide clearer and more direct communication, enable those police officers with the greatest ability to move more quickly through the ranks and provide chief constables with the opportunity for exchanging middle management posts for more police officers on the beat. Here, I agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy that if there are fewer positions in the hierarchy, people will move up that hierarchy more quickly. That will give the chief constables more flexibility about who to place where, as opposed to ensuring that a post is occupied by someone of a specific rank.
The need for streamlining force management structures has been accepted for some time by the police service. Many forces have gone some way to reducing the number of middle management posts. Six or seven years ago people might have thought that it was unnecessary to reduce middle management posts, yet it has happened and the police service is better as a result of it. It is now possible to have more constables on the beat, which is something which everyone is concerned to achieve.
The existing rank structure, which has six separate ranks from sergeant to assistant chief constable, hinders forces from achieving the optimum management restructuring. Experience from all walks of life, when reform of hierarchies has been proposed or implemented, is that unless the tiers of responsibility are

179
streamlined, the management functions tend to expand to fill the available rank structure. Most people recognise that there are too many higher ranking police management posts. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, expressed a concern about that which I respect and understand. I was talking the other day about rank restructuring to a chief constable—not of a small force —and he said that he was not at all worried about it. He thought that it was perfectly acceptable. That shows that there are different opinions about the matter.
The noble Lords, Lord Ewing and Lord Bramall, referred to deputy chief constables. We are abolishing the rank but not the appointment. In other words, it will be possible for a chief constable to designate an assistant chief constable as deputy chief constable to take over when he, the chief constable, is not there. In relation to a previous amendment the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said that the deputy chief constable would have to return to the Home Secretary for approval. The only approval that is necessary from the Home Secretary is when the assistant chief constable occupies the position of deputy chief constable and acts in lieu of the chief constable for more than three months. Then he must have the Home Secretary's approval. The appointment of deputy chief constable can be given to one assistant chief constable for any length of time, or it can be given to one assistant chief constable for a certain period and to another for a different period. Therefore, the appointment is not disappearing, merely the rank.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, spoke of the public order chain of command. That is quite clear. Of course, there are difficulties in relation to public order situations but there is a distinct hierarchy. The appointment will be of a gold, silver and bronze officer, which depicts clearly where the chain of command lies. That supersedes the rank structure and is already the position.
The anxiety raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, relates to roles and not to rank. Force structures will make it clear which officers have responsibility for which functions. That is a management function and is not dependent on rank. The police rank structure changes will take place in the context of a thorough review of police force responsibilities. It is not a question merely of keeping the current levels of managerial responsibility but having fewer ranks. The new rank structure will be applied in conjunction with a reassessment and reallocation of the roles and responsibilities at all levels.
We must have clear and effective management. That is no less important for large forces than for small forces. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, "This is fine for small forces but not for large forces". The same principle applies; what is necessary for small and large forces is a clear management structure.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, was concerned about badges of office. We expect ACPO to reach agreement on insignia which will apply in Great Britain. It is for the police service to decide whether to carry the same insignia. Pay will continue to be negotiated in the police negotiating board and it will be implemented subject to agreement by the Secretary of State. No serving officer will have his or her pay reduced as a consequence of restructuring.
180
I return to the point that I made at the beginning of my reply. The whole purpose of the restructuring is, first, to cut out the middle management layer, to slim it down, as is being done with great success by many police forces. The second purpose is to enable the best people to move more quickly through the ranks, which they will do if there are fewer ranks rather than having progressively to go through one rank and another until they reach the top.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this restructuring, difficult though it may be and causing pain as it will, is likely to lead to a more effective and efficient police service.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall respond briefly. The Minister said that the restructuring will lead to a more efficient police force. What a pity it is that the Association of Chief Police Officers takes the contrary view. It is at least possible that it has a fair degree of experience of this issue.
The Minister said that one of the objectives of the exercise is to streamline the structure and to reduce the number of middle managers. He said that the numbers have been cut. Indeed they have, as I pointed out when moving the amendment. Once again the Government are totally ignoring the professional view of senior members of the police service. The Government are taking risks as regards public safety in many communities, which may experience the kind of violence that we have seen in this country all too often. They may experience dangerously confused situations without anyone being clear who is in command and human life could be at risk. That is wholly unacceptable and therefore I invite the House to make a decision.
7.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 71) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hooson, L.

Acton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Addington, L.

Hylton, L.

Airedale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Allen of Abbeydale

Jeger, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bramall, L.

Judd, L.

Cross, V.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

David, B.

Lyell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Desai, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of Essington, L.

McNair, L.

Erroll, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Meston, L.

Falkland, V.

Mottistone, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Foot, L.

Nicol, B.

Forbes, L.

Ogmore, L.

Glenamara, L.

Onslow, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L

Halsbury, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ridley, V.

Haskel, L.

Rochester, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Russell, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

181

Seear, B.

Trevor, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Selkirk, E.

Walpole, L.

Shepherd, L.

Westbury, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Whaddon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

White, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hooper, B.

Annaly, L.

Howe, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Huntly, M.

Arran, E.

Kenyon, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kimball, L.

Astor, V.

Kitchener, E.

Balfour, E.

Knutsford, V.

Barber, L.

Leigh, L.

Bethell, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cadman, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Parkinson, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Craigavon, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Prentice, L.

Cranborne, V.

Renton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Seccombe, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Selborne, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Sharples, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dormer, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Faithfull, B.

Stockton, E.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Finsberg, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Goschen, V.

Tollemache, L.

Hacking, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Harmsworth, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Harvington, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 71 names. The Clerks recorded 70 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.54 p.m.
Clause 9 [Questions by local councilors]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("section 3A of') and insert ("Schedule 1 B to").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has been spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Report stage is resumed not before five minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Race Relations (Remedies) Bill
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to remove the limit on the amount that can be awarded by an industrial tribunal as compensation for racial discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976. It provides also for interest on compensation awarded under that Act.
This Bill originated in another place as a Private Member's Bill introduced by Mr. Keith Vaz, the honourable Member for Leicester East. In the other place the Bill was regarded as an uncontroversial, all-party measure. It was supported by Members of the three major parties, as well as the Official Unionists and the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists. Mr. Vaz tells me that he received the support also of 28 national religious groups, 10 trade unions and 50 other community organisations. In addition, the Bill was supported fully by the Government. The honourable Member for Leicester East should be congratulated on his initiative and on using his precious Private Member's time to get the matter moving.
The need for the change lies in an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which was made last year. That amendment in turn arose from a decision of the European Court of Justice in the case of Marshall v. Southampton and South West Health Authority. The decision of the European Court of Justice was that a limit on the amount of compensation payable in sex discrimination cases was incompatible with Community law; and that, furthermore, the court should have powers to award interest on compensation payable under the Sex Discrimination Act.
That decision was implemented by means of regulations made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. It has been the practice of successive governments to keep both the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act broadly in line. Indeed, at the time of announcing the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced that he would seek a suitable opportunity to amend the Race Relations Act. That promised amendment is the purpose of the present Bill.
The Bill is narrow in scope and is contained in just three simple clauses. I say that with some diffidence because I have already spoken for almost as long as the Bill took to complete its passage through the other place. Clause 1(1) removes the limit on compensation imposed by Section 56(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976. At present that limit is £11,000. Clause 1(2) provides for the necessary and consequential repeal of Section 76(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 which imposed a ceiling on compensation in cases falling under the ambit of both unfair dismissal and racial discrimination.
Clause 2(1) provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations in connection with interest on compensation awards at tribunals. That will enable

183
regulations to be made in racial discrimination cases which mirror those in the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Remedies) Regulations 1993.
Clause 2(2) amends Section 74(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976. That subsection covers parliamentary procedure in relation to certain orders and regulations. It amends it simply by adding references to the new Section 56(5) and (6) introduced into the Race Relations Act by Clause 2(1) of the present Bill.
Clause 3 is entirely administrative. It contains the short title, repeals commencement and extent. It is to commence two months after the Bill becomes law and does not extend to Northern Ireland.
There is no money resolution attached to the Bill, as its provisions have no effect on public service, manpower or expenditure. Further, under the Race Relations Act the obligations of employers or others, whether in the private or public sector, are not affected by the Bill, so compliance costs will not arise.
Our country believes in equality of opportunity for all. it is only right that the standard of legal redress for discrimination on the grounds of race should be no less than that for discrimination on the grounds of sex. The Bill seeks to keep the provisions for redress in both Acts broadly in line. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
8 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support this uncontroversial all-party Bill, to thank the. noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for her initiative in introducing it to the House, and to express my gratitude to Mr. Keith Vaz for introducing it in another place.
The Bill is modest but important. The subject matter is of particular interest to me because I left the Bar between 1974 and 1976 to help my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead take through both Houses the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. We took a decision at that time—and that only shows how times have changed—that we could only get legislation as radical as the Race Relations Act 1976 through Parliament if we began with a separate Sex Discrimination Bill in 1975. But, of course, the provisions of both Bills were very similar.
Therefore, we began a system in which one had in two separate, watertight compartments a Bill dealing with gender discrimination and one dealing with racial discrimination. Indeed, more than that, there was another Bill which dealt with religious discrimination in Northern Ireland, and that was placed in a third box. The result is that we now have a principle of equal treatment without discrimination being applied differently according to the particular part of the territory of the kingdom in which one happens to be.
Therefore, if one complains of gender discrimination, one has a remedy in any part of the United Kingdom; if one complains of race discrimination, one only has a remedy in Great Britain; and, if one complains of religious discrimination, one only has a remedy in
184
Northern Ireland. The machinery for giving effect to the law differs according to which part of the kingdom one has in mind.
The Bill is only necessary because in the Marshall case, as the noble Baroness indicated, the European Court of Justice compelled the United Kingdom Government to remove the very low limit on damages for equal pay and sex discrimination. Therefore. the Secretary of State and his colleagues have very sensibly decided that they cannot continue to have a distortion in remedies as between gender and race. I greatly welcome that development.
However, it seems to me to be completely incoherent that we should treat the wrong of unfair discrimination differently, in the way that I described, in different parts of the country. Therefore, I very much hope that consideration will be given—of course, I do riot mean in the present Bill—by the Government to the prospect of introducing a human rights or equal opportunities Bill which would create a single concept of equal treatment without discrimination and provide similar enforcement machinery and harmonious remedies.
As one of the architects of the Race Relations Act 1976, I should say that, although I believe the Government have appointed an excellent chairman in Mr. Herman Ouseley and very good commissioners, I do not believe that the legislation has been very effective. One of the reasons has been the lack of adequate remedies which the Bill would help to alleviate. But another problem has been that the enforcement machinery has proved in practice to be very weak. I urge the Government to heed the recommendations made by the Commission for Racial Equality in two reviews (the last of which was in 1992) to strengthen the enforcement of the legislation, especially by enabling the commission to obtain binding undertakings from appropriate bodies, ensuring appropriate monitoring and so on. It would not be right for me to elaborate on that aspect this evening.
I mentioned to the Minister that another aspect which worries me is whether the removal of the artificial limit on damages for race discrimination will be applied to the fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland. It seems to me to be ludicrous if we now have a limit of £30,000 on damages in Northern Ireland for religious discrimination, but no limit on damages for race discrimination in Britain or on sex discrimination throughout the whole country. I did not give the Minister much notice on that point. However, I would be grateful for some enlightenment on it. Having said that, I very much welcome the Bill and the noble Baroness's initiative in introducing it.
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness for the detailed explanation that she gave the House. Of course, it is not a party matter and is entirely non-controversial. As the noble Baroness said, it stems from a ruling by the European Court of Justice that a statutory compensation limit for breaches of sex discrimination legislation is incompatible with

185
EC law. Law, in regard to race relations, should obviously follow the same pattern. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, elaborated on that point. I fully agree with what he said.
I, therefore, welcome the Bill which not only has the support of all parties but also the support of organisations active in the field of race relations, including, as we heard, the Commission for Racial Equality. While welcoming the Bill, perhaps I may say something about race relations in general.
If press stories are to be believed—and, I believe that they are—it seems disturbingly true that, despite the anti-discrimination laws in the United Kingdom and the existence of the Commission for Racial Equality (laws, I may say, that do not apparently exist so strongly in Europe, although there is legislation about gender inequality and discrimination) we, nevertheless, have plenty of evidence of continuing racial harassment and discrimination. Many organisations active in the area which represent ethnic minorities believe that our laws should be strengthened. In particular, there has been talk of the need for a law against racial harassment. According to police reports, in 1988 there were 4,382 cases, while in 1992, 7,793 cases were reported. Moreover, not all cases are reported.
It may be true that laws by themselves cannot change the attitudes of some people: but it is distressing—is it not?—to learn of Asian families being bullied and harassed out of their homes. Although the Bill deals with levels of compensation and it is not the appropriate vehicle, I hope that at some time in the not too distant future we shall be able to discuss possible remedies for such a situation. I feel that sooner or later we shall have to address the problem of racist attacks.
As I said, I hope to be able to return to the subject at some time in the future. In a society that calls itself civilised, it cannot be right that some of our citizens should be intimidated and, in certain instances, actually live in fear. They do so because, through our inaction, we are countenancing behaviour which should be seen as criminal and deserving of penalty. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said, even as regards the present laws, enforcement machinery is extremely weak. Let us hope that we can address that problem also at some time in the future.
Nevertheless I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill in this House and also to my honourable friend Keith Vaz for introducing it in another place. This is a substantial breakthrough in the field of race relations because the ceiling for compensation was far too low. In fact there was even a case reported in the House Magazine some little while ago of a hearing before a Leeds industrial tribunal where the chairman clearly would have awarded higher compensation to the group of Asian workers involved had it not been for the limit imposed by legislation. The Bill therefore is an important step forward. Cases will no longer be capable of being settled by a quick, cheap payout at an industrial tribunal. I am delighted that there has been consensus over the introduction of this measure and I am glad to welcome it from these Benches.
8.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I suspect my noble friend Lord Ferrers would echo my thoughts when I say, if only all legislation could be dealt with as simply and with as little controversy as is the case with this Bill. As is quite clear, the Government welcome the Bill and we are most grateful both to my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon for taking the Bill through this House and also to the honourable Member for Leicester East, Mr. Keith Vaz, for taking the Bill through another place.
As my noble friend made quite clear, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last year the Government's commitment to amend the Race Relations Act so that it should reflect the changes made to sex discrimination legislation by the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Remedies) Regulations which came into force last November following the Marshall case. The aim of this Bill, as is clear to all of us, is to make just that amendment. It offers an early opportunity to achieve our objective. I am grateful for that early opportunity, as often quite a long time elapses after governments make commitments to legislate at a suitable moment, and it is very rare that one has an opportunity to legislate as early as this. I am grateful that such an opportunity has arisen.
I wish to deal with one or two of the points made by both the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. First, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed to the fact that there was different legislation in different parts of the United Kingdom. He particularly pointed to the measures of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 which are designed to deal with unique, severe and complex problems arising from religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. We believe that the situation there with regard to religious discrimination is very different from that of racial discrimination on the mainland and that is why, historically, it called for more stringent measures. It is not thought that there should be any need for legislation on race discrimination in Northern Ireland. But, as regards the particular point about the limits and whether those limits should be brought in line with the removal of limits as regards both race and sex discrimination, certainly I shall bring the remarks of the noble Lord to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
More generally, as regards merging, as it were, both race and sex discrimination Acts together, they are dealt with in separate Acts. We believe that they do in the main work very well in this form, although on this particular occasion it has meant that, sadly, one could have been dealt with by means of secondary legislation and the other by primary legislation. But I do not believe that there would necessarily be any clear advantage in merging the two together and re-ordering them in such a manner. I think, technically, it might be difficult because of the differences of detail which are very significant, and the differences between the concepts of race and sex discrimination. But certainly if that could be done at some point in the future, it is something

187
which could certainly be looked at, but it is always right to point out the major difficulties that would be attached to such an effort.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, talked about the need to strengthen race relations legislation generally. I think both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will appreciate that on this occasion I shall confine my remarks to the employment field, although I take on board very much the remarks they made more generally relating to race relations. Within employment we have an Act which works, and we also pursue a policy of persuasion of a fairly active sort within the department. I commend to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord the work of the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service of my own department which takes a fairly active approach in trying to persuade employers of the value to the community at large and to themselves of taking an active role in seeking to adopt nondiscriminatory recruitment and employment practices for the very simple reason that, if one takes a discriminatory approach in these things, one is missing out on a fairly large section of the community.
While I do not particularly wish to comment on the remarks of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord about race relations in the main, as regards the employment field I should say we believe that the combination of both the Act and the active educative process that we pursue within the department serves a useful purpose. I am sure the noble Baroness will quite rightly be able to cite many, many cases of actual and genuine discrimination. I suspect that even in a thousand years we shall still face discrimination of an unfair sort in all walks of life and we will do our best to eliminate that. But there is never any easy solution that can resolve this merely by the legislative process in this field or necessarily in another.
Having made those fairly general remarks, I end by saying yet again how grateful I am both to the honourable Member for Leicester East, Mr. Keith Vaz, and in particular, as we are discussing the Bill in this House, to my noble friend Lady Miller for taking this matter forward in this House. On behalf of the Government I commend the Bill to the House.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I would like to thank noble Lords who have supported the Second Reading of this Bill. I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has certain reservations about the scope of the Bill, which he does not otherwise oppose. His credentials as someone concerned with human rights and opposed to both racial and sexual discrimination are beyond question. Indeed, he and I have for many years joined in a cross-party campaign for the advancement of women in public and political life.
However, the purpose of this Bill, as I have said, is to keep the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act broadly in line. It is right that an unequivocal message should go out not from the Government but from Parliament as a whole that every
188
citizen and every resident of this country has equal rights and may not be discriminated against. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.18 to 8.55 p.m.]

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 10 [Alteration of police areas.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 7, leave out lines 47 and 48 and insert:
("(a) specify the proposed alterations and describe the general nature of any related provisions proposed to be included in the order,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 74 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 77 and 78.
These amendments concern the powers to alter police areas under Clause 10. Amendment No. 74 addresses the anxiety which was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He was concerned with the provisions of new Section 21A which deal with the procedures which must be followed where the Secretary of State proposes an alteration in police areas. The Secretary of State must give notice of his proposals to any police authority or local authority which would be affected, and that notice must:
"describe the general nature of the proposed alterations".
The noble Lord was concerned that that would allow the Secretary of State only to give the most general description of what was intended and would leave interested parties in the dark about important details which they might need to know before deciding whether or not the alteration was a good idea. It was never our intention that that would happen. I cannot imagine that a Secretary of State would simply give notice that he proposed to amalgamate Force X with Force Y without any further explanation of what consequential changes would need to be made.
I am always anxious to try to meet anxieties which are expressed by noble Lords wherever possible. The amendment will therefore make clear that the Secretary of State, when he gives notice, must specify the alteration which he proposes to make and must describe any related changes which will need to be made. Those will vary from area to area; but they are likely to cover such matters as the arrangements for the transfer of police officers and civilian staff and for the transfer of any property or other assets. That should ensure that interested parties will be in a proper position to judge whether the alteration which is proposed by the Secretary of State is one which they would support.
If there is any further detailed information which is not in the notice which is given by the Secretary of State and which a police authority or council would find

189
helpful, it will of course be open to them to request further details. I am sure that the Secretary of State would be happy to provide any information he can.
When the Secretary of State receives representations he may well want to modify his proposals. Amendment No. 77 makes clear that he cannot proceed with a different alteration without starting the process all over again and issuing a fresh notice to interested parties. He will however be able to modify points of detail. It would be absurd if the process had to start all over again, with a minimum of four months further delay because there was some minor modification which might be welcome to all parties.
Some of your Lordships also expressed anxiety about the powers to include in orders supplementary and transitional provisions, including provision amending other enactments. There is no doubt that such a power is necessary. For example, in the unlikely event that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary decided to alter the Kent police area it is quite likely that some amendment would be needed to references which are contained in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. Such changes would only be made where they were a necessary consequence of an alteration in a police area. Amendment No. 78 makes that clear. I hope that it will reassure your Lordships that the power is only as broad as is absolutely essential for the purpose of giving effect to alterations in police areas. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I welcome the amendments, which go a long way to meet the points that I raised at Committee stage. The provisions will ensure that those concerned will learn more than just the general nature of the Secretary of State's proposal when he is contemplating a compulsory amalgamation. I also appreciate the softening of the power to amend other legislation. I am most grateful to the noble Earl.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would be churlish not to join with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in recognising the extent to which the Government have felt able to respond to the worries which were expressed at Committee stage. In a sense, it is all hypothetical legislation because the Government have assured us that they have no intention of amalgamating any police forces. They have no plans to amalgamate any police forces. It therefore does not much matter what is put into the legislation because such amalgamation will not occur.
We might have a Home Secretary who considers the record of large and small police forces, draws the conclusion—it can readily be drawn from the statistics —that small police forces are rather better than larger police forces and goes in for an extensive programme of alteration, creating more police forces rather than fewer. To that extent there may be some rational basis for the changes which the Government make.
Of course it is better to specify the alterations and to describe the general nature of related provisions. It is helpful to have the assurance that the Minister gave about matters such as staffing arrangements which
190
would be included in such a specification. In particular, it is valuable to have Amendment No. 78, which takes the sting out of the Henry VIII legislation proposed in the Bill as drafted. To that extent we welcome the changes that are made; we shall not oppose them. That does not mean that we and our colleagues in another place might not seek to put further restrictions on the power of the Secretary of State to impose unwelcome amalgamations. However, that is not. a matter for the discussion tonight.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for the appreciation which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, expressed and the more guarded appreciation expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. As I have explained, I always seek to accommodate your Lordships where it is possible. I am glad to have been able to do so on this occasion. I thought that the imagination of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, went into overdrive when he suggested that we might be deciding to split up police forces to make many more. But he is entitled to his flurry of fancies. I think that that would be unlikely. However, I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have accepted the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 8, line 2, leave out ("them") and insert ("the alterations").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, I must point out to the House that if Amendment No. 76 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 77.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 8, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert:
("(a) cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of the objections by a person appointed by him (who shall not be an officer of police or of any Government Department); and
(b) consider the report of the person holding the inquiry before determining whether the proposed alterations should be made and, if so, subject to what modifications if any.
(5) The Secretary of State may himself determine or may authorise the person holding the inquiry to determine the procedure to be followed at such local inquiry and in any case subsections (2) and (3) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to any inquiry under this section as they apply to an inquiry under that section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although I am grateful for the last group of amendments, I remain unpersuaded that the case has been made out for dispensing altogether with a local inquiry. At Committee stage the Minister argued that local inquiries were very long, very protracted (if that means something different from very long) and very expensive. Unlike the White Paper, he did not suggest that they were unworkable.
It must obviously be attractive to avoid the nuisance of having to send, let us say, an inspector of constabulary to stand up to local examination on the grounds for a scheme. However, against that consideration such schemes are of great local concern. I

191
find it a little difficult to reconcile the Government's line on the issue with their enthusiasm for involving the public in policing matters through neighbourhood watch schemes, parish constables and suchlike.
As I said at Committee stage, if a scheme has been devised it stays in being for a long time. It is surely acceptable to take a little time if it helps to get the scheme right. The Minister relied heavily on the fact that a scheme had been known to take 18 months. Therefore the amendment proposes to put the procedure to be followed in the hands of the Home Secretary or the inspector taking the inquiry so as to enable them to devise arrangements for avoiding undue delay, just as the Minister for Transport has been busily doing over roads inquiries. Incidentally, I cannot help thinking that those in other departments who are saddled with the nuisance of local inquiries will be watching the outcome of our present deliberations with interest.
The Minister rather suggested that the affirmative resolution procedure was an adequate substitute for a local inquiry. However, I fear that he did not dispose of the suggestion that that was not really so in the light of experience of affirmative resolutions in both Houses over many years. I do not propose to go over the arguments again, except possibly to emphasis that the orders cannot be amended. Therefore, if one had views about the sitting of the headquarters of the new force, the distribution of the membership of the new authority or the appointment of the senior officials of the authority there is nothing that one can do about it.
I am aware that there is already provision on the statute book in the Local Government Act 1992 for dispensing with a local inquiry. As I understand it, that provision applies where police amalgamation is a natural consequence of a change in local government structure following a finding of the Boundary Commission.
In discussing the Bill we have so far set on one side the consequences for the police of local government restructuring. Clauses 34 and 35 of the Bill about the powers of the Boundary Commission have not attracted a murmur. I am just beginning to wonder whether that is right. In recommending an unrecognisable West Riding and other unitary authorities in Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire, the Boundary Commission has thrown in a recommendation for a unitary police force affecting the existing Humberside and North Yorkshire forces. It did not argue the merits, nor did it consult the police authorities, the chief constables or Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.
The proposal involves considerable operational problems from the police point of view and it is unthinkable that the scheme could go ahead without those concerned being given an opportunity to put their views. How is that TO be achieved? Will it be proceeding under the 1964 Act, or under this clause when the Act is in force? If so, how would that fit in with the timetable of the Secretary of State for the Environment?
I find it all extremely puzzling. The only thing that is clear is that the Boundary Commission, by a stroke of the pen—or to be more accurate, by two lines of print
192
—has brilliantly managed to introduce that period of uncertainty which it was the Government's principal object to avoid; or so we are told.
Going back to the main purpose of the amendment, at all events nothing has happened so far to make me believe that there is any justification for doing away with the local inquiry in what might be described as the ordinary amalgamation proposal. Just think what the reaction would be if, for example, the Home Secretary used his powers, step by step, to roll up all the Welsh forces into one force for Wales without having any form of inquiry during the process.
I add that if the amendment were accepted I for one would see no objection if, at a later stage, the Government thought it right to go back to the negative resolution procedure, just as was done in the Police. Act 1946. That was an Act in which, although it hardly bears thinking about nearly half a century later, I had a rather close personal involvement. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I inadvertently said that Amendment No. 76 would pre-empt Amendment No. 77, but it does not.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, as one might expect, has covered the ground adequately in introducing the amendment. am glad to give it my support. I only wish to add the more political point that if it becomes accepted that local inquiries can be abolished by legislation, then much that we have held dear over a considerable period of time about the necessity to consult the electorate will gradually disappear. I should have thought that that was totally contrary to the Government's proclaimed thinking, in particular in the Citizen's Charter initiative. It is, after all, an essential part of the Citizen's Charter that government departments should be responsible to their clients, to the public, and that they should find ways of listening to their clients' needs and incorporating them into their objectives and performance targets.
Surely this is a case where, in proposing to change the nature of policing provision to people in a particular area, the Government ought, under normal Waldegravian principles, to seek the views of the people concerned. I cannot think that Mr. Waldegrave and the others involved with the Citizen's Charter can have paid attention to what is being proposed here. It seems totally contrary to their principles which are proclaimed as a major part of Conservative philosophy.
Perhaps I may add a further point that there are good precedents for thinking of public inquiries in two different forms. One of them may be long drawn out and protracted, and the other need not be so long drawn out and protracted. The first is the case where there are non-governmental organisations like energy authorities., as in the case of Sizewell power station—there are many other examples which one could cite—making proposals where they have their own private interest but which affects the public interest of many other people Under those circumstances, it is necessary to have the most complete and thorough protection for the people whose public interest is affected by the private proposals.

193
The second, as Halsbury's Laws of England makes clear, is the case where the Government themselves, supposedly at any rate in the public interest, make proposals. In those circumstances there is no reason that there should not be an expedited procedure for a public inquiry and that some of the protracted and long drawn out—like the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I do not know what the difference is—procedures should not be short cut to a certain extent. The purpose of such an inquiry is to inform government about public opinion on a governmental proposal and enable public opinion to play its part in government's thinking. That can be reflected in the political process as well as in public inquiries.
In those circumstances, there is really no good reason that public inquiries should cause delays to proposals which, after all, will themselves last for many years, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said at Committee stage. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the Government should resist such a modest amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have spoken on this issue on a number of occasions in the past. I do not propose to go over my expressions of view once again, except to say that this represents a new chapter in passing all power to the Minister in Whitehall. The rights of local communities to put forward their views at a local inquiry are being removed. As has been said, once government departments learn what a lovely idea it is to get through the abandonment of one type of local inquiry they may move on to other areas. The same arguments that the noble Earl has used —the saving of money, the streamlining of decision-taking and matters of that kind—can be used in relation to a whole array of other forms of local inquiry. I believe that that would be profoundly damaging.
There is all too little confidence in the quality of administration of government in this country. Ministers continue to come forward with proposals of this kind without realising the disenchantment of the British people about whole areas of public policy-making. The noble Earl may have seen an interesting public opinion poll published in the early weeks of this year. That poll showed that trust in politicians was at a remarkably low level. I recall the figures almost precisely. There was more than eight times more confidence in the police than in the political process of this country. I fear that moves of this kind—the stripping away from local communities of their rights to be heard at local inquiries on issues which affect their communities, like the existence of their own separate police forces—will simply intensify the disillusionment with government. I believe that that is particularly regrettable when it comes to a service like the police. We know that Mr. Howard has no ambitions to merge police forces; he has said it so often that it must be true. However, one of his successors may decide to use just these powers.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the league tables, that would arrive some time towards the latter part of next year or early in 1996, would demonstrate
194
—assuming that they demonstrated efficiency, which presumably would be the purpose of having them—that the smallest police forces would be top of those league tables. There is no way that the noble Earl can ignore that fact, because it happens to be true. If a future Secretary of State decides to amalgamate police forces, the ones that will be amalgamated will be those that the Government's own league table demonstrates are the most efficient.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is with some reluctance and shame that I venture to enter into the discussion because I was unable to hear the first part of it. I hope that your Lordships will accept my apology for that.
I point out that the proposals in the Bill on page 8, lines 13 to 16, and the proposed amendment have a very important factor in common; namely, that in either event the last word will remain with the Secretary of State. These are matters which, incidentally, should be seen to be ones in which there is not undue delay or an appearance of prevarication at the top. Bearing in mind that the police authority for each area and the local government councils concerned will have an opportunity to make known their views, I do not see why it is necessary to cause a noticeable but not very great delay and perhaps apparent prevarication by the holding of a local inquiry by an inspector compared with what is proposed in subsection (4) on page 8.
Therefore my inclination would be in the circumstances, which would be fairly rare, to accept the Government's solution to this matter. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, whose experience I respect greatly because I happened to be in the Home Office when he was there, and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I would say that the Government should stand their ground on this issue.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that, if I may say so, was a very helpful intervention. We come back to the problem of public inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that he could not understand why the Government would resist such a modest amendment. I shall try to explain to the noble Lord why we should resist it.
It is worth considering exactly what the procedures in the Bill will involve. Before anything happens, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the alteration in police areas would be in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. He is not going to be sitting in his bath one day and suddenly decide that it would be a good idea to mess around with police areas. He has to satisfy himself that if a proposal is made, it will be in the interests of police efficiency and effectiveness. That is the first, fundamental point.
Once this test has been passed, he must give formal notice of the proposal to interested parties. That means every police authority which would be affected; every county, every district or London borough council which is wholly or partly within any area that would be affected; and such persons as he considers appropriate. That notice must specify the alterations which he proposes and the nature of any associated changes. He must also give his reasons for making the proposal. The government amendments which we have recently

195
considered spell out that requirement in rather more detail. The Secretary of State has to set out fully and clearly what he proposes to do. All that would be open to challenge in the courts if a Secretary of State's reasons were clearly capricious.
Then the interested parties have a minimum of four months—it was to be two months, but the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, persuaded us that it should be four months—to consider the proposals and make any representations which they may think necessary. That seems to be more than long enough for any relevant questions to be considered and aired.
When he receives any representations from people who have been consulted, the Secretary of State must consider them. This means more than just reading them and writing back saying, "Thank you very much, but as a matter of fact I do not agree". Any Secretary of State who tried to act in that manner would almost certainly be brought up before the courts. The Secretary of State has to consider any objections properly, and he has to give his reasons if he does not accept them.
The Secretary of State—if he still wishes to proceed after all that—must come forward with his proposals in an order which must be laid before Parliament. Before anything more can happen, he must secure the positive approval of both Houses of Parliament. Some noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the other day, poured scorn on the affirmative resolution procedure as a safeguard. I entirely accept that it is not common for either House to decline to approve matters which are laid before them in that way. But it is certainly their prerogative so to do. If noble Lords are suggesting that, given the opportunity to consider government proposals and to consider whether or not to accept them, Members of your Lordships' House and of another place would simply ignore the opportunity, however objectionable the proposals might be, it does not stand up to fact. Others may be inclined to dismiss parliamentary scrutiny so lightly, but I would not. My noble friend Lord Renton said that in either event—the public inquiry or what is proposed in the Bill—the Secretary of State has the last say. With respect, that is not so. Under the present arrangements one could have a public inquiry; the inspector could say that he felt that the amalgamation was completely wrong and inform the Secretary of State of his view. But the Secretary of State can disregard that, still lay the order and the amalgamation will go through. Under this arrangement Parliament will have the last word.
I believe it is a thorough process. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, says that it gives all the powers to Whitehall. I do not agree. It gives ample opportunity for full consultation, for representations to be made and for Parliament to have the last say. For that reason, I do not believe that the public inquiry procedure is necessary. I realise that some noble Lords think that it is. I shall therefore go a little further and explain why I think that it is not desirable.
I do not believe that public inquiries would add value to the process. However, they would add delay, cost and uncertainty. I must admit that they would also add a great deal of productive employment for lawyers. I see
196
that as a further disadvantage. Some noble Lords may disagree. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to Humberside. He was quite right. The Local Government Commission recommended abolishing the Humberside forces. However, the Government have not yet reached a view in regard to that recommendation and will not reach a view without consulting the forces and the police authorities affected. It has not yet been decided how that consultation can best be carried out.
The lesson which I draw from the amalgamation processes which took place in the late 1960s is that we should do our best not to repeat that experience. Of those amalgamations which proceeded on a compulsory basis leading to public inquiries, none took less than two years to implement and most took three years or longer. It is also instructive to look at what the public inquiries were really like. The inquiries mostly took between four and seven months. The time which was taken up in preparing for them by all parties and the hold-up caused to any progress towards change was of course much longer. At most of the inquiries there were five or more —in one case there were I1—different lawyers all seeking to present arguments, cross-examine witnesses and generally to impress the person holding the inquiry, I cannot believe that that sort of forum is a sensible way to consider the issues relevant to altering a police area.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will forgive my interrupting. I was involved in the processes and of course he was not. No criticism was directed at the time by anyone involved in the process; no criticism was directed at the Home Office in either House of Parliament by anybody. It was felt—I should have thought rightly—that where a substantial number of barristers were present, as there were in the Lancashire inquiry, it was because a large number of police forces were being amalgamated. Does it not occur to the noble Earl that the need for putting difficult arguments of this sort before an inspector and for an inspector to adjudicate on the issue is far more likely to lead to public confidence in the system than for the decision to be taken by a politician in London?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I realise that if there are matters of concern a number of barristers will be involved. All I am trying to say to your Lordships is that our experience is that it takes a large number of people to put the matters before the inquiry and a long time to resolve the issues. In the end, the Home Secretary of the day does not have to follow the advice of the inspector. Under the proposals that we are putting forward, the Home Secretary cannot do what is proposed until he has the approval of Parliament. I cannot believe that this kind of forum is the right way to consider the issues relevant to altering a police area.
It is also worth looking at the kind of issues which these public inquiries address. In one case the two authorities concerned actually wanted to be amalgamated but they could not agree about how the clerk to the new police authority should be appointed. Because of that the agreement broke down, which led to a public inquiry which lasted seven months. The amalgamation did not take place until three-and-a-half years after it had originally been proposed. In another case the parties

197
involved agreed about virtually everything—except the site of the new force headquarters. That too led to a public inquiry. Other inquiries debated at length the quorum of the membership of a new police authority, the precise amounts of money to be contributed by constituent councils, and other details.
I would also like to point out the effect of the process on the forces concerned. In his annual report in 1966 the then Chief Inspector of Constabulary said:
"It must be emphasised that the delay in reaching a decision on these matters has adverse effects on the morale of the men in the forces concerned".
The following year, in 1967, his annual report said:
"Unhappily I must again emphasise that, in many cases where prolonged delay has occurred in considering and implementing amalgamation proposals, morale of the force concerned has been noticeably affected".
There are, I am afraid, no central records of the cost of these procedures to taxpayers and to rate payers. But those quotations at least make clear to me what the effect was on the forces concerned. I cannot believe that it would be sensible to run the risk of repeating that experience in relation to any possible future changes.
I entirely agree that any proposed changes should be fully considered. I believe that the procedures in the Bill achieve that. In the end, however, you cannot reach a definitive answer about whether a change is right or wrong. That is why the Government do not want to maintain a form of public inquiry which treats these matters as if they are capable of objective proof or disproof. They are not that kind of matter. In considering all these matters and their ramifications, as one does before one comes to your Lordships, and even when one hunts through past documents as well, I was struck by the way this was dealt with in the evidence to the Royal Commission on Local Government in England. One witness was asked whether there was objective evidence on which to base decisions on the size of police areas. The witness said:
"We cannot produce hard statistical evidence. It is a question of judgment".
I agree with that view. It was a view which was expressed by the then Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Sir Philip Allen, on 26th January 1967. He now, of course, glories in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The procedures of the Bill do offer a way of reaching that judgment which is fair and thorough but which is not protracted and expensive.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for going to so much trouble and conducting such detailed research. I do not propose to pursue the matter further this evening. I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that I am sorry that he was not present to hear the case for the amendment. I do not propose to repeat it all again but it must have made it much easier for him for once to come out in strong support of the Government.
We shall follow with interest what happens in Humberside where the period of uncertainty has already started and is causing very considerable anxiety. I should like to think a little more about all this before we
198
reach the next stage but I see no point in pursuing it further this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 77 and 78:
Page 8, line 16, at end insert:
("(5) Where the Secretary of State has given a notice under subsection (1) of this section specifying proposed alterations, the provisions of an order making the alterations may be inconsistent with the notice so far as it describes the general nature of the provisions, and may contain provisions not referred to in the notice.").
Page 8, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert:
("() Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, the power to make orders under section 21 of this Act includes power—

(a) to amend Schedule 1 A to this Act and section 76 of the London Government Act 1963 (extent of metropolitan police district), and

(b) to amend any other enactment, and any instrument made under any enactment, where the amendment is consequential on any provision of the order.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 8, leave out lines 34 to 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would have been tempted not to move this amendment if there had been any understanding at all in the Government's mind or in their speeches about the issue we discussed earlier; namely, public inquiries. It is always wrong to encourage hybrid instruments—perhaps I should not say "always" because I can imagine circumstances in which it might be permissible. Certainly the presumption must be that to give to a Secretary of State, who will almost certainly be in the Commons, the power to overturn the procedures of your Lordships' House, is wrong.
If the Government had been reasonable about public inquiries and had agreed to an alternative procedure which would enable the public to have a say in the Secretary of State's proposals for amalgamation and alteration of areas of police forces, then one might have been a little more tolerant about it. But in practice the Government are operating what I believe they called before the last election a "double whammy". They are cutting out the democratic procedures and making sure that even the restricted ones which they are prepared to admit, and the consultation procedures which they are prepared to accept, can overturn the principles of hybridity which, I must emphasise, are a protection for the general public—the ordinary people of this country —which are enshrined in the procedures of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons.
The Government are prepared to see those overturned as well. The combination of the two is entirely unacceptable. I am encouraged in that view by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, at Committee stage. He said:
"One must expect this sort of provision to be revived wherever an Executive can get away with it. Your Lordships will not, I hope, allow the Government to get away with it on this occasion".—[Official Report, 17/2/94; col. 327.]
I am encouraged also by the fact that on 24th February the Procedure Committee considered the issue of hybridity and was concerned with the report from the

199
Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee which originally, and without making recommendations—it does not make recommendalions—urged your Lordships to look very carefully at this provision in Clause 10. But the Procedure Committee unanimously to my knowledge (I was there) confirmed the undesirability of proposals in legislation to undermine the hybridity protection which ordinary people have in this country.
I ask your Lordships again: can it be acceptable that we should be pretending, by means of legislation, that something which would otherwise be hybrid—in other words, it would otherwise affect private interests in which the most special care should be given to protect those interests in legislation—should be treated as though it were not hybrid? That is not only a denial of democracy, but defiance of common sense and of the English language. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment. Hybridity owes its origin to the fact that from time to time in many past years an Act of Parliament affected private interests; either private property interests or other financial private interests. It was right that Parliament should be given an opportunity, when those private interests were threatened, to enable the parties to produce evidence, hear argument and so on, before a specially appointed Select Committee of, at that time, either House. However, only a years ago Members in another place decided that hybridity was not for them. It remains part of the procedures of your Lordships' House.
It should be remembered that hybridity is not a free-for-all. We should not extend the concept of hybridity on every imaginable occasion. If we had hybridity here, we would find that there would be delay. I used the word "prevarication" when speaking to a previous amendment. I hope that it was an appropriate word. There sometimes appears to be prevarication. I believe that delay would arise if hybridity were extended, with the elaborate procedure that that involves. From the public point of view, that could become something that is undesirable and irrelevant to the duties of the Home Secretary in deciding whether to make an order. Perhaps I may say in passing, referring to the previous amendment, that when I said that the Home Secretary had the last word, I meant that he had the last word in deciding whether Parliament should be asked to approve the order. That is so. We cannot escape from it.
There are occasions when there is full justification for not invoking the hybridity procedure. We cannot really say in this instance that the property and financial interests of particular members of the public are involved. The alterations that would arise and the adjustments that would have to be made in respect of changing police areas are essentially changes that are in the broad public interest, not affecting individuals—either individual people or individual companies. This is an occasion on which I think that the Government are fully justified in excluding the hybridity procedure. It would undoubtedly mean delay. Goodness knows, it can last for months sometimes.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when we considered this matter in Committee, I undertook to consider carefully the points which had been raised before we came back to the matter at Report. Indeed, the House has given further consideration to this matter.
Earlier this afternoon, I introduced some government amendments which spell out in more detail the sort of information which the Home Secretary must give when proposing changes in police areas. We certainly want local people to have a clear idea of what is proposed and a fair opportunity to make their views known. I suggested earlier that local objections can be examined fairly and economically by means of the procedure which is proposed by the Government in the Bill. In resisting the noble Lord's amendment to restore public inquiries, I argued that, on a matter of this sort, which boils down to an issue of judgment in the light of local policing needs, a public inquiry is the wrong way to reach a conclusion.
But the Government do not argue that the Home Secretary should have a free hand in reaching his judgment after considering any objections. He should be required to obtain the support of both Houses of Parliament for his conclusion. That is a substantial sanction. That provision, too, is in the Bill. The Bill permits the oversight by Parliament of orders for amalgamations of police areas by the affirmative resolution procedure.
However, the effect of the amendment which we now have before us would be, in effect, to introduce a different sort of public inquiry. It would be for this House to decide in each case whether a particular order to alter police areas was a hybrid order. But it is quite likely that every such order would be hybrid. If so, an inquiry under the procedures of this House would, if this amendment were passed, be laid on top of the consultation procedures which we have just approved in almost every case.
The procedures of this House for dealing with hybrid instruments are a valuable safeguard. The Procedure Committee confirmed that in its recent report. I suggest that those safeguards should not be imposed mechanically in a matter of this kind.
In this case, we have gone to great lengths to make it easy and inexpensive for local objectors to express their views. We have imposed demanding obligations on the Secretary of State to consider those views and we have provided the most rigorous parliamentary oversight available for this kind of order. It is not easy for ordinary people—and it is not a cheap exercise for anyone--to contribute to the procedures of this House examining hybrid instruments. I really do think that we would he going over the top if we were to superimpose the hybrid instrument procedure on top of the safeguards which are already in the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that that would add considerably not only to the cost but to the delay and uncertainty.
I believe that the logic of the decisions which your Lordships have taken on earlier amendments is that we have accepted that we have provided a reasonable and thorough opportunity for objections to be raised when the Secretary of State proposes changes in police areas. If we have established that those safeguards are

201
reasonable I would ask the House to accept that in those particular circumstances the hybrid instrument procedure is inappropriate.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish to respond to the Minister's speech; but, first, I wish to respond to the extraordinary speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I was so amazed by what he said, because so much of it was out of character, that I wrote down some of it word for word. He said that the amendment would "extend the concept of hybridity on every imaginable occasion". There is no suggestion in the amendment that the concept of hybridity should be extended in any way. The amendment intends that the Bill should not provide that:
"An order … which would apart from this subsection be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument".
In other words, all we are doing is recording what the House in its procedures defines as being a hybrid instrument. We are not suggesting an extension or amendment of the House's procedures
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has missed the point, which perhaps I did not elaborate sufficiently. I intended to convey that if we are to have hybridity on this occasion, in this type of case, it would be a precedent for having it in almost every imaginable type of case. That is why I used those words.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is simply not the case. The Bill provides that orders which would be treated by the existing procedures of the House as hybrid shall not be considered as such. We say that if they would be considered by the existing orders of the House as hybrid, they should be treated as hybrid. We are not suggesting any extension or change whatever in the procedures of the House.
Secondly, the noble Lord said that we would need full justification for not invoking the hybridity procedure. Again, I must disagree with him. It is for this House and for nobody else--not a Secretary of State, not an individual nor anybody outside—to decide what the procedures of this House shall be. In its Procedure Committee report of 24th February, which was accepted by your Lordships within the past month, this House has reaffirmed that it wishes to continue with the hybridity procedure and wishes to continue to discourage the Government, the Executive, in legislative proposals from seeking to overturn that hybridity procedure. Any question of justification for not invoking the hybridity procedure is not a matter for Secretaries of State, for people outside or for another place. It is a matter for your Lordships, and for your Lordships alone. That view has been reaffirmed.
Thirdly, the noble Lord said that such orders would be "not affecting individuals". The Minister said quite the opposite. He said that virtually every order would be considered hybrid under your Lordships' procedure. It is difficult to know which of the two opposing views on
202
the Opposite Benches to attack. I prefer to attack the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because again he assumes that, in seeking to take out that circumvention and overriding our hybridity procedures, we are making a judgment about whether individuals are affected. We are doing no such thing. The procedures of the House determine whether an instrument is hybrid. It is for the House and the House alone to make that decision. I thought that the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were quite extraordinary and in total conflict with the views expressed by your Lordships' Procedure Committee and confirmed by the House within the past few weeks.
The Minister makes a different series of points, which may be characterised as severely practical. He talks about the delay and the inconvenience of maintaining the procedures which your Lordships have in order to protect the interests of individuals. It may be inconvenient. As the Minister said, it may be inconvenient that there should be delay because of the need for public inquiries. It is the business of government to be inconvenienced when the public interest opposes the interests of government. It is right for us to protect the interests of individuals against government. It is right for us to protect the procedures which have developed over many years in the form of public inquiries and the procedures of this House to protect the interests of individuals against the Executive.
I found the Government's reaction to this and the preceding amendment deeply offensive to democracy. There is no point in saying that in your Lordships' House, which is not a democratic House, but it is still true. It is true that what is proposed may not be on the grand scale but it is an offence to democracy. It is only because of the hour and the scarcity of people in the House that I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Functions of Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved. ]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 8, line 47, at end insert:
("() Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities established under section 3 of this Act. and

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief constables of forces maintained by those authorities.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 47. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 9, line 5, leave out ("specific").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 not moved.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 9, line I I, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is in a group which was spoken to earlier, but I wish to ask the Minister about the amendment which attempts to remove a subsection that we do not understand. Perhaps he can explain what the subsection means.
This concerns imposing conditions on performance targets. We do not understand how a performance target, which is a statistical measure, can have conditions imposed upon it; and if it is a statistical measure, which should be a neutral mathematical measure, we do not understand how different conditions may be imposed for different authorities. That seems to run counter to any attempt to provide uniform measurement of performances within police forces, which one would expect to operate to a common measuring rod or tool. We are rather puzzled by the subsection. I apologise for not mentioning the point earlier, but I did give notice of the fact that I was going to raise the question again at this stage. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us an answer.
As I said, it is a question of providing a ruler, a measuring rod, or something like that, and then suggesting that you are going to use different lengths of inches within it when measuring performance in different places. 'That is what puzzles us about the subsection. We cannot understand why one force will be measured with a different measuring rod from another. We should be most grateful to receive an explanation. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall try to allay the noble Baroness's puzzlement. It should not prove to be too difficult to do so. The Secretary of State may require that targets should be set by police authorities. The targets will be set by the authority and not by the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State may set conditions that, for example, the target to be aimed at by police authorities must be an improvement in the clear-up rate of, say, between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. That is the basic consideration behind the provision.
As regards the different conditions for separate authorities, the simple fact is that the Secretary of State may. for example, set a different range of targets for rural areas as opposed to that for urban forces because the circumstances for each are different. The provision gives the Secretary of State the ability to apply different ranges of targets for different sorts of forces.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It does of course mean that it will be very difficult to compare the performance of one force with that of another. We understood that, to some extent, the idea of having objectives was to make comparisons. Nevertheless, I am grateful for that explanation—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, objected to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 92 to 97 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Reports from police authorities]:
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Police grants and other grants]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 10, line 29, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert:
("() The Secretary of State shall issue common rules, which shall govern his determination of the allocation among police authorities of the aggregate amount of grants.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I recognise that, in those amendments, the Minister is seeking to attack the point which we made in a comparable amendment in Committee. However, it is still the case that there is far too much flexibility available to the Secretary of State in the rules which he proposes to issue. The provision in subsection (4) reads:
"In determining the allocation among police authorities of the whole or any part of the aggregate amount of grants, the Secretary of State may exercise his discretion by applying, rules decided upon by him and then applied without modification by reference to the particular circumstances of each authority".
So far, so good. However, subsection (5) says:
"The considerations which the Secretary of State takes into account in making a determination under subsection (2) of this section, and the rules referred to in subsection (4), may be different for different authorities or different classes of authority".
Without the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that gives the Secretary of State complete freedom to say, "I like police authority 'A'. I shall give them much more grant and set my own rules as to why I should do so. I do not like police authority `B'. I shall give them less grant and set quite different rules as to why they should be given less grant".
Quite frankly, Amendment No. 100, which takes out some of the most offensive phrases and inserts,
"such formulae or other rules as he considers appropriate',
does not take one very far. If it was a case of formulae alone—in other words, if there was some attempt to have a common and defensible basis for the allocation of grant—we could understand that, but to insert the words,
"such formulae or other rules as he considers appropriate",
really means that what the Government are proposing is a cosmetic change in the legislation rather than a real change. Under those circumstances it seems appropriate to urge your Lordships that Amendment No. 99, which requires common rules, is preferable to the government amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment No. 99 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 100 and 101.
10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I explained in Committee why the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 99. Although the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, assured the Chamber in Committee that Amendment No. 99 will not have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to adopt rigid rules in allocating grant, I am not persuaded. To me the reference to "common rules" which "shall" be applied implies that the same rules must be applied to each police authority. I find it difficult to square that with funding the Metropolitan

205
Police—who we all agree require additional funding for a whole range of national and capital city functions—or with introducing any funding changes gradually so as to avoid large swings in resource allocation.
As I explained in Committee, the Bill specifically provides a discretion, rather than a duty, on the part of the Secretary of State to use rules to determine the allocation of grant. The Bill also provides the Secretary of State with a power to apply any rules to part of the total grant only. It also lets him treat different police authorities differently. I appreciate that these are wide provisions, but I believe they are essential to achieve the flexibility of funding that will be necessary to accommodate both the funding of the London forces and the gradual move to formula funding. I am afraid I find it difficult to accept that the noble Lord's amendment would achieve the same.
We have, however, made a change to new subsection (4) in Clause 13. Amendment No. 100 and Amendment No. 101, which is consequential on it, have been tabled to meet criticisms made in Committee that the wording of this subsection was convoluted and difficult to interpret. New subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to allocate all or part of police specific grant by adopting rules which depend upon the individual circumstances of each police authority. For example, a fixed amount of grant might be payable for every 1,000 residents or every 100 road miles. That is what the original wording meant. But your Lordships did not like it. Your Lordships considered that it was drafted in such a way that it was difficult, if not impossible, to work out what it meant. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, even said,
"The proposed new subsection (4) of this clause can be interpreted in a number of different ways … This is an opaque subsection".
We have therefore had another look at it and succeeded—we hope—in considerably simplifying it. But we have not changed its effect. It is now perfectly clear on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State may use a formula or other rules to allocate police grant, or part of it, if he so wishes. A formula is more rigid than a rule and would necessarily be applied without modification. Accordingly, the express provision about rules applied "without modification" is no longer necessary. We hope that your Lordships will agree that the new wording is clearer and that we have endeavoured to meet the criticisms which your Lordships have made.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose one can say that the Government are trying, even if they are trying by dint of misrepresenting our amendments. I did not of course say, as the Minister claimed, that the Secretary of State shall issue common rules which shall be applied without modification. The amendment says that he shall:
"issue common rules, which shall govern his determination of the allocation".
That may require more complicated rules. To take the Minister's example of the Metropolitan police and its national, ceremonial or royal functions, that may mean that the rules would have to take into account those
206
ceremonial, royal or national functions. As was said on a number of occasions in Committee, that does not apply only to the Metropolitan police. It can apply to the Norfolk police or the Thames Valley police, or the police force responsible for Balmoral. Somebody will know which that is.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, it is the Grampian police.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lady.
If that is the case and those special conditions apply, the rules should encompass those special conditions. It does not seem unreasonable to say that, even in view of the expense of more complicated rules, the complete discretion which was given to the Secretary of State in the Bill as drafted should be denied him.
The Minister now argues that "formulae or other rules" is more restrictive and less opaque. I shall have to read carefully what he said. I very much doubt it. I agree that "formulae" is a safer term but I do not believe that "other rules" is any less discretionary than the wording in the Bill as drafted.
As I said, I shall read in Hansard what the Minister said and think about the matter. It is not a matter to which I wish to return at Third Reading but if I have to I shall do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 100 and 101:
Page 10, line 32, leave out from ("applying") to end of line 34 and insert ("such formulae or other rules as he considers appropriate.").
Page 10, line 37, after ("the") insert ("formulae and other").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14 [Conduct and efficiency of police officers]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 11, line 42, after ("(3)") insert ("Without prejudice to the powers conferred by this section,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 102 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 132 and 133.
When we discussed this matter at Committee stage I gave an undertaking in the light of a probing amendment to look again at the status and role of the warning in the new arrangements we are introducing for misconduct and inefficiency. I have considered the matter carefully and remain of the view that, while there is indeed a place for warnings within the scope of the new arrangements, that place is at an earlier stage than when a matter of conduct or efficiency is deemed to be sufficiently serious to bring the officer concerned before a formal hearing.
I recognise that a number of your Lordships were anxious to establish that for Scotland Clause 45 did not rule out the possibility of an officer being dealt with at a misconduct or inefficiency hearing in any other way than is set out on the face of the Bill. That is why it was thought necessary to table Amendment No. 133. However, the provision at Section 26(2A) does not constrain the exercise of discretion by the hearing. Once

207
the officer taking he hearing has considered the facts presented he may decide, for example, that there is no need to impose any formal sanction or that a warning would be sufficient. This provision does not prescribe outcomes. It merely indicates that the more serious outcomes cannot be reached unless the procedures prescribed in the regulations have been followed.
That being said, I was anxious to ensure that proper provision was made to enable warnings to be administered at the appropriate time. That is what Amendments Nos. 102 and 132 will ensure on both sides of the Border. Any regulations which are made by virtue of Section 33 of the 1964 Act and Section 26 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 covering the conduct and efficiency of constables will be able to include a provision that warnings may be used for less serious lapses of performance or conduct in broadly the same context as this sanction is used within the present disciplinary arrangements. However, there will be no obligation to prescribe in regulations a detailed procedure which must precede an issue of a warning.
I have taken a little time to explain the amendment in the hope that with that fuller explanation it will not prove necessary to return to the issue at a later stage.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I am pleased to hear that the more informal system of giving a warning at an early stage is still allowed under the Bill. I therefore do not wish to pursue the matter any further. I am reluctant to dabble too far in Scottish matters.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway raised the matter at an earlier stage. I am sure that he will be grateful, as I am, for my noble friend's explanation. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. However, the Minister went through seven of the eight items in the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. In the course of his remarks, my noble friend mentioned that with the previous seven elements there would be an element of sanction. If the procedures have gone through the scales down to a caution, does a caution carry a sanction? Does a warning not carry a sanction? Perhaps the Minister will be able to deal with that matter tonight in one word.
I shall read carefully what the Minister said. Amendments Nos. 102 and 132 give the assurance that we sought.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 12, line 20, at end insert:
("(3B) The Secretary of State, police authorities, chief officers or other persons, should, on all matters concerning conditions of service, consult with the Police Negotiating Board (on negotiable matters) and the Police Advisory Board (on professional matters).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there are three amendments in the group. They all refer to the Police Negotiating Board and appear in the same group. However, the amendments deal with quite different issues. I shall therefore address each issue separately.
208
Amendment No. 103 attempts to ensure to some extent that police forces do not go in separate directions. The Bill gives discretion to police authorities and chief officers to vary conditions of service within their force areas. The amendment seeks to ensure that before such variations, the authorities and chief officers at least consult the Police Negotiating Board or the Police Advisory Board.
There would be anxieties if forces developed too disparate conditions of service. One might have some forces in which officers had noticeably worse conditions. Those forces would therefore have difficulty in attracting bright, ambitious officers to transfer from other forces to join them. It may be a flight of fancy. but one might have a police authority which wished to mark out its police force in a distinctive fashion rather like the 18th century regiments which were set up by rich colonels—young sprigs of the aristocracy. They dressed their regiments in yellow trousers and pink jackets. One can imagine Ruritanian uniforms developing in some force areas with masses of braid, badges and brightly coloured uniforms, rather like some of the American police forces. Perhaps we might not wish to see that in this country. Amendment No. 103 is an attempt to preserve uniformity throughout the police service, while not fettering too greatly the discretion of the police authorities and chief officers.
We addressed Amendment No. 126 earlier. It attempts to place pensions on the same footing as other aspects which are dealt with by the Police Negotiating Board. We addressed that at an earlier stage and there was no clear answer why pensions were dealt with separately. We feel strongly that pensions should have the same kinds of safeguards as other aspects of people's conditions of service.
Amendment No. 127 is an attempt to fetter the Secretary of State and ensure that he does not reject or amend agreements that have been made by the Police Negotiating Board or awards of the Police Arbitration Tribunal, say, for reasons of national importance. Those could include the financial state of the nation.
There have been occasions in the past where the Police Negotiating Board or the Police Arbitration Tribunal has made an award to the police service which has seemed satisfactory to all parties. Considerable demoralisation and upset has been occasioned by a Home Secretary who has then decided for some reason not to accept that award or negotiated agreement. I think, quite reasonably, it is expected that if the Secretary of State is going to reject such an agreement, it should be for some reason which is of sufficient importance that it can be described to the police service in terms which the police understand. Reasons of national importance would be understood and would do much to maintain morale when a pay award or some other award had apparently arbitrarily been rejected. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the intention behind the first of the noble Baroness's amendments, Amendment No. 103. It seeks to ensure that there is proper consultation with all interested

209
bodies before any regulations affecting police pay and conditions of service are made. It is quite right that such consultation should take place and that all those with a contribution to make should have the opportunity to make their views known before changes are made.
But provisions to that effect are already in place. Section 2 of the Police Negotiating Board Act 1980 provides for consultation on matters within the remit of the Police Negotiating Board. Before making regulations on such matters the Secretary of State must consider any recommendations made by the board and must furnish them with a draft of the regulations. Section 46 of the Police Act 1964 requires the Secretary of State, before making regulations on matters not covered by Section 2 of the 1980 Act to furnish the Police Advisory Board with a draft of the regulations and to take into account any representations which the board may make. So the position is already that sought by the noble Baroness. I do not, therefore, disagree with the spirit of the amendment but I think that it is unnecessary.
With regard to Amendment No. 126, the procedure, which has been in place since 1980 and which replaced a similar procedure which operated before the setting up of the Police Negotiating Board, is that the Secretary of State has to consult the Police Negotiating Board before making regulations relating to pensions. It is also open to the board to make representations to the Secretary of State on pension matters. This amendment would permit the Police Negotiating Board to negotiate and, if necessary, to seek arbitration about pensions issues.
The current arrangements have stood all parties in good stead for many years. They have never caused difficulty for any of the constituent bodies of the Police Negotiating Board. When the Edmund-Davies Committee considered questions relating to police negotiating machinery, it recommended that pension matters should continue to remain non-arbitrable, and the present position accords with that recommendation. The committee took the view that the arrangements, which it recommended, were essential to safeguard the Government's legitimate concern to oversee pension settlements in view of their permanent and repercussive nature across the whole of the public sector.
Amendment No. 126 would not, at the end of the day, provide for the Police Negotiating Board to exert any more influence than it is able to do under the current statutory consultation procedures. In either case, the Secretary of State has the right to reject advice or recommendations and act as he sees fit, subject to parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations he proposes to bring into force.
If the anxiety which lies behind the noble Baroness's amendment is that of securing fair treatment for police officers in dealing with their pension provisions, then I can say that the current procedures provide it. As I have said, Parliament will always have the last word in relation to any proposed new or amended regulations.
Amendment No. 127 seeks to restrict the Secretary of State's present powers in relation to regulations governing police pay and pay-related conditions of service. Under the existing arrangements the Secretary
210
of State is required, before making any such regulations, to take into consideration any recommendations of the Police Negotiating Board, or an award by the Police Arbitration Tribunal which has the same status, and to furnish the board with a draft of the regulations before they are made. He is not, however, bound to accept the recommendations. If he considers it appropriate, he may make regulations which do not accord with the recommendations of the board. Where the Secretary of State decides to reject or vary a Police Negotiating Board recommendation he will of course inform the board of his decision and the reasons for it. But it is not then open to challenge by the board either on the ground that these matters are not of national importance or on any other grounds.
Any regulations which the Secretary of State may make are, however, subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament is the proper place for decisions of this sort to be subject to review. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that that is the position and that is as it should be.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that response. In relation to Amendment No. 103 I was not quite clear whether or not he had addressed the issue of the discretion of police authorities and chief constables. However, I will read his response with some care. I am grateful to him for his explanation on the other two amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Appeals against dismissal etc.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 12, line 28, leave out from ("dismissed") to ("by") in line 29 and insert (", required to resign or reduced in rank").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 105 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 107, 108, 112 to 114, 136 to 138 and 140 to 142. When the Committee was considering the recommitment of Clauses 2 to 4 of the Bill on 1st March I said that I would introduce amendments to give police officers who had been reduced in rank an avenue of appeal to the Police Appeal Tribunal. These amendments, which also cover the similar position in Scotland, achieve that end. I commend them to your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, argued with considerable force the severity of the financial and other consequences which could arise in certain circumstances where an officer had been reduced in rank. It would be rare for a police force to take action as severe as that which he outlined unless the officer's offence had been very bad, but I accept that the consequences of such a reduction in rank might be sufficiently severe for the individual concerned to justify the grant of a right of appeal outside the force. That is what these amendments do. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl dealt with this matter on re-commitment. We have been debating this Bill for so long that it is almost impossible to remember when it was. Nevertheless, in the statement he made on that occasion he indicated that the Government were prepared to meet

211
us on the point. It was a matter of real concern to at least two, and possibly all three, of the police organisations. The noble Earl has met us completely, and I am most grateful to him.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I too wish to say that I am pleased that my noble friend has taken this step forward on questions of disciplinary hearings and appeals by police officers. I hope that we will be able to take a further step later in the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 12, line 29, after ("resign") insert ("or is reduced in rank, or made subject to a permanent bar on promotion, or is fined a sum exceeding one week's pay").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows on from the amendment just moved by the Minister and agreed to by your Lordships. Provided that the Bill remains in its present state, it will be possible for police officers who are found guilty of a disciplinary offence to appeal to a tribunal if they have been sentenced to dismissal from the police service, if they have been required to resign or if they have been reduced in rank. Amendment No. 106 would allow an appeal also for those police officers on whom is placed by a disciplinary tribunal a permanent bar on promotion or a fine of more than one week's pay.
I believe it is arguable that all those police officers who are convicted of a disciplinary offence should have the right of appeal, provided that the penalty awarded to them is of a significant size. I suggest to your Lordships that the awards that I have just mentioned—a permanent bar on promotion or a fine of a week's pay—are extremely significant and that they merit the right of appeal.
A senior officer or even a middle-ranking officer on whom a permanent ban on promotion is awarded may not feel that he has been very severely punished. He may be an officer in his forties or fifties. He may have reached the rank of inspector or superintendent and he may be content to continue in the service at his present rank, irrespective of the ban that has been imposed. But if he is a young officer and if he is a constable, the matter is much more serious. As is only too obvious, a constable cannot be reduced in rank by a disciplinary hearing because he is already at the lowest rank. Therefore, for a constable the concession made by my noble friend the Minister is of no use whatever. But a punishment of a permanent ban on promotion is extremely serious.
I suggest that a young police officer who is permanently prevented from promotion will be very unlikely to find himself able to remain within the police service. If he is forced by the invidious position in which he finds himself to leave the police service—again, as has been mentioned by noble Lords many times in the course of today—he will find it very difficult to obtain alternative employment because it will he known both among the police services and in the private sector that he left the police service because an important punishment was awarded against him at a disciplinary tribunal. Therefore, I believe that such
212
people who are punished in that serious way should have the right to appeal. It is only common justice that they should have the right to appeal.
Again, on the second ground, I feel that appeal is justifiable. A constable who is punished by a fine of one week's pay will find himself out of pocket to the tune of £400 and the maximum fine awardable is £700. That is a very serious punishment for a constable arid I believe that there should be a right of appeal against it.
The whole proposal reminds me of the days of National Service, when it was said that military justice came in two sorts, just like military clothing: officers and other ranks. One could envisage a situation in which two police officers—say, a sergeant and a constable—might be convicted of some act of misbehaviour. The sergeant might be reduced to the ranks and would have the right of appeal under my noble friend's recent proposal. The constable would not be reduced to the ranks because he was already in the ranks and he would be subjected to a heavy fine. The first one would have the right of appeal and the second would not have that right. There is there an anomaly which I believe my noble friend the Minister would do well to address. ] beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I delay your Lordships at this advanced hour only to add one further consideration to what was urged so concisely by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. Your Lordships will not have failed to notice that the appeals we are considering are appeals not only against the penalty which is imposed but appeals against the finding of fact upon which a decision was based—a finding of fact which may cast a shadow on the officer for the remainder of his life wherever he goes and whatever he does and which will certainly be on his file officially for what could he a number of years.
The curious effect of the criterion in the Bill is that the right of appeal against the finding of fact depends upon the penalty imposed. Let us take the example cited a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, of two police officers both involved in the same incident; both subjected to disciplinary proceedings. One of them is visited with a heavy penalty, either because of his rank or because of his previous conduct. He will have a right of appeal against the finding of fact. It may be that on appeal the finding of fact will be reversed. The burden will be totally removed from his shoulders. The other, perhaps because there were mitigating factors, will have no appeal because the penalty imposed on him is only a light penalty. He will be saddled with that finding of fact for the rest of his life. It is a situation worthy of Lewis Carroll. For that reason also I hope that the noble Earl will consider seriously the amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, in the Committee stage my noble friend kindly said that he would give due consideration to all the arguments raised on this matter. It is fair to say that it is manifestly obvious that that has happened. My noble friend will

213
probably feel that he made considerable concessions towards the argument as in the previous amendment. For that we clearly must be grateful.
However, I feel that the points raised by my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, should be taken on board to the extent that it is not right for an anomalous situation to exist as between two members of the police force. One perhaps does not need to say more than that. I do not see why this anomaly should exist.
In Committee my noble friend said that I did not seem to mind how long justice took to be enacted. I believe he said that justice delayed is justice denied. I do care; I care very much. I should have thought that the system could be looked at rather than the Act. It is undesirable to take a long time to listen to appeals and collect together further evidence. If it does take time to ensure that fairness is done, then it must be regarded as time well spent. I suggest that justice expedited swiftly is justice misdirected. I hope that my noble friend will be able to consider these matters again, and perhaps sort out the anomaly which seems to exist, at a later stage in the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not find that too much of an anomaly exists here. In the last amendment I signified that the Government were willing to provide access to a police appeals tribunal to a police officer who had been reduced in rank. But these amendments raise other issues. The first is the matter of including in the Bill a reference to a permanent bar on promotion. Such a bar is not one of the penalties listed in Clause 14(3) about which the Secretary of State must make regulations and without which such regulations it is not a penalty which chief officers can then impose. I suggest that it would look odd if the Bill were to provide access to an appeals tribunal in relation to a penalty which there is no intention of allowing chief officers to impose.
The second matter covered by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Bethell is the provision of access to a police appeals tribunal in any case where an officer is fined more than one week's pay. I really see no need for access to outside appeal in such a case. Not only will the officer have already been able to appeal to his chief constable but the amount of any fine is normally limited by regulation. Access to a tribunal is not available at present as of right. An officer is free to appeal to my right honourable friend about such a matter but my right honourable friend would only rarely appoint a tribunal to advise him in such a case.
My noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, referred to the example of the sergeant who is busted to a constable for an offence while a constable who is also with the sergeant is just fined. Both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord said that the sergeant has the right of appeal and the constable has none. They complained in schoolboy language that "That's not fair". But there is quite a good reason for this. The reason why the sergeant has the right of a tribunal is that he is liable to a very much greater penalty, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, explained previously. The constable is
214
liable to a lesser penalty for the reason that he is a constable and for the reason that he cannot be busted further.
I really would suggest to your Lordships that it would be unreasonable for him too to have access to a tribunal. We ought to try to remember what we are doing here. It is to try to simplify the procedures of discipline. In this kind of case a constable will have the right of a hearing in front of an assistant chief constable and two superintendents. If he objects to the fine or the penalty that he has applied to him he can then appeal to his chief constable. If his chief constable agrees with the fine or penalty he will be in the position of having four senior members of his police force all saying, "That man was wrong and that is the penalty which should apply to that man". I really think that it is not reasonable in those cases for there to be an appeal tribunal. I hope my noble friend will see that.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the concession which he has made on this clause. Once again my noble friend and those who have supported the amendment find themselves discussing it at a very late hour with a small number of your Lordships present. In the circumstances, I think it would be wrong to take the matter to a Division at this stage, although it may come up later.
I should yet again, because I am obliged to do so, declare my interest in that I am an adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. I should add that the members of the Police Federation view with some foreboding the ideas put forward by my noble friend and the whole philosophy, which he mentioned again a few moments ago, that the disciplinary provisions of the Police Act need to be simplified or need to be made more flexible, which is one of the themes of all our debates on the police provisions of the Bill. It is very apparent to members of the police service that justice in the disciplinary cases that will be brought against police officers may well be made more flexible at their expense. That is their fear. I am bound to say that these fears have not yet been allayed by anything that my noble friend has said. However, on the specific point of the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 107 and 108:
Page 12, line 35, leave out from ("dismissed") to end of line 36 and insert (", required to resign or reduced in rank").
Page 12, line 39, leave out from ("order") to end of line 41 and insert ("dealing with the appellant in a way—

(a) which appears to the tribunal to be less severe than the way in which he was dealt with by the decision appealed against, and

(b) in which he could have been dealt with by the person who made that decision.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Schedule to be inserted in Police Act 1964: appeals tribunals]:
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 53, leave out lines 10 to 13 and insert:
("(c) one shall be a person chosen from a list maintained by the Secretary of State of persons who have retired from the police service as chief officers of police within the previous five years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 110 and 111. These amendments relate to the composition of appeals tribunals. Again, the proposals put forward by my noble friend seem to have been made at the expense of the staff association of police officers, whether of chief police officers, superintendents or of those of more junior rank represented by the Police Federation.
At the moment, a police tribunal consists of a qualified legal expert, a member of a staff association and a chief police officer. What is proposed is that the qualified lawyer should remain; that a present or past chief officer should take the place of the member of the staff association and that there should also be a member of the police authority. In other words, we are left without the member of the staff association.
My amendment would reinstate the ex-member of the staff association and also insert a magistrate as a member of a five-person tribunal as opposed to a three-person tribunal. I do not understand why the Government have thought it necessary to remove the presence of a representative of the staff association from the tribunal.
On 17th February, when we were discussing these points in Committee' at roughly the same time, my noble friend the Minister said that the presence of a member of a staff association was an irrelevance. He did not think that such a person was competent to judge whether or not the accused officer was fit to remain in the service. If that is really the Minister's view, I wonder how he can square it with the whole procedure of industrial tribunals which exists in our country and where there is, on almost every occasion, a member of a trade union or staff association on an appeals tribunal. Is this issue really to be tackled head-on right across the board or is it only in the police service that a member of the staff association is not to be included in appeals tribunals?
Either a very radical reform of the whole basis of appeals on this question is to be considered by the Government or the police are being singled out. At the moment members of the police service feel that they are being singled out. Therefore, I beg my noble friend the Minister to say that he can envisage seeing a member of a staff association reinstated or left, as is the present situation, as a member of the tribunal.
At Committee stage he said that a five-person tribunal was unwieldy. If he finds that unwieldy, can he suggest how a three-person tribunal can look after these appeals with a member of a staff association included? Has he anything to offer? I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's views on this matter before deciding whether to test the opinion of the House on this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, much as I appreciate the way in which my noble friend's amendments have been thought out, they are not ones which I am disposed to advise your Lordships to accept. He is of course concerned to reinstate a member of a staff association on the tribunal. As my noble friend has been correct
216
enough to inform your Lordships that he advises a staff association, it is not surprising that he has tabled an amendment of this nature.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend accepts that in this House I speak for myself and that when I declare my interest, I am doing so in order to declare my interest. I speak for myself in this matter. It would be surprising if I were to speak in any other way than according to my own personal beliefs.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and entirely accept that, as with all noble Lords, my noble friend speaks for himself and not on behalf of anyone.
The fact is that the tribunal consists of a qualified lawyer, an ex or serving chief constable and a member of the police authority. The chief officer of police who sits on the tribunal, and who will in most cases be likely to be a retired police officer, will have experience of the command of a force and he will have served in all ranks of the police service earlier in his career. He or she will be able to give an informed view as to whether or not the officer concerned has met the standards of the police service. The inclusion of more than one representative of the police in the membership of the tribunal is unnecessary and would result in an over-large tribunal which might have difficulty in forming a corporate view of the case.
If my noble friend wants an additional member of the staff side on the tribunal, he will then say that we have to balance that with a magistrate member. That would give a tribunal of five members. I can only repeat what I said previously: a tribunal of five members would be unwieldy and would not make for efficiency.
The purpose of the provisions is that the tribunal will contain a qualified lawyer, a chief constable who will know what is expected of the police and who has been in the police service, and a member of the police authority (which is the organisation that is responsible for policing in that area) who will know the standard that is to be expected of those policing that area. I think that that is the right sort of membership for a body dealing with such matters. I do not think that it is right that we should incorporate additional people because the point is not to ensure that there will be on the tribunal a person who may come from, as it were, the same stable as the person who is being considered by the tribunal, but that the tribunal should be properly composed of people who have adequate responsibilities and adequate knowledge. I suggest that the tribunal, as proposed, would cover all those neccessary aspects of policing in the community and by the knowledge of the chief constable.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend has said. It bears out what he said in Committee on 15th February. He said that one is concerned as to whether that person is a sufficiently competent and reputable person to be a member of the police service, and that a representative of its staff association would be an irrelevance in that respect. I do not agree that a member of a staff association would be an irrelevance in

217
respect of deciding whether a police officer should be dismissed or otherwise punished by the disciplinary hearing. I believe that he would be of help to such a tribunal. However, that is not something on which one could reasonably seek to divide the House at shortly before 11 p.m. Perhaps the matter will arise at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 114:
Page 53, line 33, leave out from ("appealed") to end of line 34 and insert ("against, and as from the date of that decision or, where that decision was itself a decision on appeal, the date of the original decision appealed against.").
Page 53, line 36, after ("force") insert ("or in his rank").
Page 53, line 38, after ("force") insert ("or in his rank").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 105. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 54, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert:
("() The costs of an appellant shall be defrayed out of the police fund of the relevant police authority unless the tribunal directs otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 115 is even more serious than those to which I spoke in the past few minutes. In the Bill as amended, a police officer found guilty of an offence will no longer have the right to have his appeal paid for out of police funds. At present such an appeal is funded out of police funds, but under the Bill those funds will not be available.
That provision is wrong. It is contrary to natural justice because it will discourage many police officers who believe that they have a good appeal from bringing the matter to a tribunal. The cost of such an appeal is considerable. I am advised that the cost of a one day appeal for a person receiving professional advice is as much as £2,000. If an appeal lasts longer, it will cost several thousand pounds on a pro rata basis. Perhaps my noble friend will comment on that.
I ask myself what kind of convicted police officer will be able to afford that sum of money having recently been through the trauma and moral and material cost of having been found guilty of a serious disciplinary offence. I do not believe that many will be able to afford the cost. It is unreasonable to expect someone in that position to be able to find the money out of his own pocket.
I believe that a prisoner in one of Her Majesty's prisons can have the legal costs of his appeal met out of public funds. Perhaps my noble friend will take that on board and elucidate. It would be bizarre if what were available to a convicted prisoner were not available to a police officer.
I commend the amendment in particular to your Lordships. I believe that if nothing is done about the situation, morale in the police service will suffer to a great extent. A large number of people are ill-disposed towards the police and are looking for ways of bringing
218
actions against them. If the appeals of police officers must be paid for out of their own pockets, the police service will not benefit as a result. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I support my noble friend simply because I am slightly puzzled. At present the police can have their appeals assisted substantially by the police fund. The Bill reverses the position, and I do not understand the benefit of that to anyone. I agree with my noble friend. I do not believe that it is fair to put the police into a category different from other citizens.
In Committee I said that I found this provision to be unacceptable. The noble Earl said that although I found it to be unacceptable not everybody agreed with me, and certainly the Government did not. We are not dealing with everyone. We are dealing with the police. I suspect that not many policemen agree with this proposal
If an appeal is spurious surely the court could say that the appellant should pay his own costs and award costs against him. However, I do not believe that a police officer should be put at risk of having to dip into his own pocket to a very large extent because that may taint his view as to whether or not he wishes to appeal.
I hope that the Minister can go some way towards accepting the amendment. It is a gentle amendment which certainly does not wreck the Bill in its entirety. The Government would be demonstrating a great deal of good will if they took away the amendment and thought again about this matter. I am sure that the Minister cannot commit himself immediately but I ask him to reconsider this issue.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the normal practice in a case heard before a tribunal is for each side to bear its own costs. It is proposed that that should be the practice for the new appeal tribunals.
My noble friend Lord Bethell referred to convicted police officers. He asked whether a convicted police officer could afford to pay the costs and said that even convicted prisoners do not have to do so. I remind my noble friend that nobody is being convicted. It is a disciplinary matter which has come before the assistant chief constable, two superintendents and also the chief constable. They may have decided that the officer's conduct has been such that he is no longer suitable to be a member of the police force. That is a matter for their professional judgment. In addition, the policeman can appeal to a tribunal. It is not a question of being convicted in a court but a disciplinary matter, which is totally different.
My noble friend said that he did not think that a police officer should have to pay for that out of his own pocket. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret asked why he should dip into his own pocket in order to present his case. A tribunal will consider whether a police officer who has been reduced in rank, dismissed or required to resign by his chief officer, is fit for the police service, either at his former rank or at all. It seems right that anyone who wishes to challenge the chief officer's decision in that way should be expected to have sufficient confidence in the merits of his own case to be prepared to pay his own costs. All the costs of the tribunal will be met by the police authority. The

219
appellant would have to meet only his own costs. We should expect a tribunal to award costs in any case in which the appellant won his case or in which it found that there was merit in the appeal.
I must tell my noble friend that the past few years have seen a rise in the number of appeals to the Home Secretary from appellants who have been relying solely on technical grounds rather than on the merits of their case, or on grounds with very little real merit at all. That clogs up the system for those who have a genuine grievance. That is not right.
One comes back to the principle that this is a question of discipline where a person is considered by four senior officers to have been the wrong person to remain in the police forces. If he wishes to challenge that, it is only right that he should be prepared to accept that challenge, knowing that if he is successful it is almost certain that costs will be awarded in his favour.
11 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the small mercy of an assurance that a successful appellant will most likely have his costs awarded out of public funds. That is a step forward. However, I am not sure that one can so easily brush aside the problems that face a police officer in such a position. One may well say that an appellant should take upon himself the responsibility of covering the cost of the appeal, but I wonder how many police officers have the wherewithal to pay for an appeal.
There are many qualities which one is required to achieve in order to enter the police force—for example, a certain height, strength, intelligence and acumen—but forensic skills are not one of them. Therefore, it will be important for police officers appearing before tribunals to have, if they so wish and if their careers are on the line, the assistance of a legal adviser and professional help to ensure that their cases are properly presented. That costs money; indeed, it may cost several thousand pounds. I do not know how many police officers in that situation would have such a sum of money to spare to cover the costs involved.
I return to the difficulty which we all face this evening. It is now 11o'clock; there are not many of us here; and it is the second time that this has happened. Indeed, the same situation arose on 17th February in Committee. It will not, therefore, be appropriate to divide the House on the point, although I believe that there is much support for the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 116:
After Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE 3A
AMENDMENT To TRIBL NALS AND INQUIRIES ACT 1992: POLICE
APPEALS TRIBUNALS
In Schedule 1 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (Tribunals under genera1 supervision of council) after Tribunal 36, there shall be inserted—
"36A. Police Appeal Tribunals established under section IS of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on 17th February when we last discussed the issue I remember that we were debating it as Big Ben chimed the hour of midnight. I recall remarking that perhaps the noble Earl and I might reconsider the matter at a more intellectually stimulating hour and that he might then revise his view. It is a sad commentary on the world in which we live that whenever I express an optimistic hope it transpires to be misplaced. The light which illuminates the subject for the rest of us has still not penetrated the Government. The noble Earl very generously gave me his time for a discussion and kindly wrote to me afterwards. However, we appear to have made very little progress.
The purpose of the amendment is to bring police appeals tribunals within the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. At the outset I should declare an interest in that I am privileged to chair that council in succession to a number of distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. For those noble Lords who are not familiar with the Council on Tribunals, perhaps I may briefly describe its purpose and functions.
It was the Franks Committee on tribunals and inquiries which reported in 1957 that placed at the very centre of its recommendations the establishment of a council on tribunals —indeed, there were two: one for England and Wales and one for Scotland--to keep the constitution and working of tribunals under continuous review and to make recommendations in relation to statutory inquiries. Effect was given to the proposal in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 with two subsequent up-datings in 1971 and 1992. For the record, the only reservation is that there is no separate council for Scotland, although the council has a separate Scottish committee.
In relation to tribunals, the council has supervision over those set out in the schedule to the Act. At the last count, there were 65 tribunal systems in the schedule, ranging from industrial tribunals and mental health review tribunals to the sea fish licensing tribunal, which is convened very infrequently; indeed, it is not convened at all at present.
Similarly, the wireless telegraphy tribunal was established in 1947 and has never been convened at all. On the council there are 15 of us, all part-time. We comprise lawyers, academics, former senior administrators and people with experience on tribunals. We are served by a full-time secretariat. We are purely advisory, with no executive functions. By statute we have to be consulted about procedural rules for certain tribunals, and beyond that we make representations when we have evidence of a need.
We are required to report at least annually to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and our reports are made public. I would be surprised if this debate were not referred to in the annual report for the ensuing year. Beyond that, our most devastating sanction is to invite the Minister to lunch, but we rarely need a sanction as we have good relations with most of the departments and other authorities with whom we deal and they appear to find our suggestions helpful.
I hope your Lordships will forgive that excursion into the ambience of the council, but in the course of the discussions on this Bill 1 gained the impression from

221
time to time that in the Home Office at least not everyone was fully acquainted with the subject matter of this debate. I hope I may outline briefly the history of the issue. The Police Act 1964 established an appeal against a disciplinary finding to the Secretary of State. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 provided that,
"The Secretary of State shall … appoint one or more persons",
to hear appeals. Your Lordships will observe the word "shall". The provision was mandatory. Section 19 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, then the 1971 edition, defined a statutory inquiry within the jurisdiction of the council as,
"an inquiry … held in pursuance of a duty imposed by any statutory provision".
So the persons appointed by the Secretary of State constituted a statutory inquiry within the supervision of the council and the council duly supervised, and no one ever questioned the propriety or the desirability of that arrangement.
The Police Act 1976 changed the situation, quite unintentionally. I have it in mind that it was changed by a government of whom I was a member. What we did was unintentional. Section 12 amended the 1964 provision to provide that the Secretary of State may appoint one or more persons to hear appeals. That was re-enacted in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984. It was never intended that that should remove the inquiries from the supervision of the council and it was only later that it was noticed that it had had that effect. But of course those persons were no longer appointed in pursuance of a duty but only of a discretion and so they did not fall within the statutory definition.
But there was a simple way of rectifying the position to what it had been and to what everyone had always considered it to be. The Tribunals and Inquiries Act provided that, even if an inquiry was not held in pursuance of a statutory duty, it could nevertheless be designated a statutory inquiry for that purpose by ministerial order; and when the problem came to light the Home Office readily agreed in 1985 that that should be done, and that story is set out in the annual report of the council for 1985–86.
The Home Office never delivered on its promise. I have not been told why but I am sure it was a pure oversight. So this Bill appeared to provide a ready opportunity to rectify the matter. When the question was raised with the Home Office, for the first time ever it said it did not think it was appropriate. In the debate in Committee the noble Earl said that the main concern of the council is with major tribunals with a permanent existence and their own staff—an argument which formed the burden of his subsequent letter to me. Alas, that is simply wrong. Some of the tribunals under the supervision of the council meet regularly and they have a staff which devotes the whole or the majority of its time to the work of the tribunal. That would be true of industrial tribunals, although their members are selected from lists for each individual sitting. The members are part time; some of their chairmen are part time and some are full time.
But an educational appeals committee, for example, which decides on admission to and exclusion from
222
schools, is convened as and when it is required in a particular place, at a particular time from such people as are qualified to sit, such as members of the local authority and who happen to be available on that day. Such staff as they lay claim to are a clerk, who is usually any available employee of the education authority or the school trust.
Probably more than half of the tribunals supervised by the council are convened on an ad hoc basis as the occasion arises. Some are convened, as I have already indicated, only very rarely. I intend no disrespect in saying that it is precisely the tribunals which do not sit regularly, do not occupy the same premises on a regular basis and do not have a full-time staff which may be more at risk of giving rise to questions of training, accessibility, listing and all the other matters which occupy the attention of the council.
Indeed, I am not sure what is the distinction between an ad hoc tribunal and one which has a continuous existence. Is there some metaphysical essence of tribunalness which continues to exist when a tribunal is not sitting and which subsists in some platonic cave in the case of some tribunals and not others? Would Bishop Berkeley accept that some tribunals continue to exist when there is no one about in the Quad? The distinction is not an easy one to grasp; but if there is any criterion of continuity or ad-hocness there is a whole spectrum under the supervision of the council.
All this concerns tribunals. I accept that I may have been partly responsible for starting this hare by entering into a discussion about tribunals. The Bill speaks of police appeal tribunals, but if the Home Office envisages that what we are speaking about is essentially a transitory institution, then I suppose that they would be inquiries rather than tribunals. It is of the very nature of an inquiry that it is ad hoc and transitory. But no one argues that that should exclude the supervision of the council from inquiries. Indeed, the Act under which we exist is the Tribunals and Inquiries Act.
The other argument which the noble Earl advanced —although in fairness only in passing—is that the police appeals tribunals will have no links either with central or local government. That is a puzzling argument. Members of the tribunal are to be appointed by the Secretary of State and some from a list compiled by the Lord Chancellor. It is true that they will no longer advise the Secretary of State because their decisions will be self-authenticating, like the vast majority of tribunals.
The Bill is not clear as to who would convene a tribunal on a specific occasion. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us when he replies. Perhaps it is to be the police authority. Whoever is to have the duty of receiving the notice of appeal and convening the tribunal, it will be a duty imposed by statute, and this will be a statutory body.
The merits of the argument amount to this. The Franks Committee recommended the establishment of a council on tribunals so that the public, and particularly those most immediately concerned, could feel confident that some independent minds were directed to ensuring that tribunals and inquiries which they supervised offered the best attainable service and a high standard of

223
justice. I believe that purpose has largely been achieved and that that is generally recognised. That is why the Police Federation would like to see police appeals tribunals accorded that advantage.
The Council on Tribunals is not intent on gobbling up every tribunal in sight. Sometimes when we are consulted about a new tribunal or new form of inquiry we say that we do not consider that it is appropriate for supervision and that no purpose would be served by that. But this is a classic example of what was envisaged by the Franks Committee. What puzzles me is why the Home Office is so reluctant to accord it. Why is it so anxious not to submit the tribunals to supervision? I could not help wondering whether the debate was about metaphysics or some other agenda. I find it hard to believe that the Home Office has suddenly developed a passion for metaphysics. I ask myself: is the debate really about resources? But I could not fathom what resources are involved. There are no resource implications. It would cast no economic burden on tribunals or those who convene them. The Council on Tribunals would not be likely to revise its budget in the light of one addition to the schedule.
By process of elimination I was driven to conclude that the debate is about changing the status of police officers as office holders charged with a public duty and carrying public authority to employees who do not have offices but jobs and whose liability to be hired and fired is at the highest a question of internal management—a phrase which was used more than once by the noble Earl in the course of our earlier debates.
Perhaps the tribunal is not a tribunal but an internal decision point which is no concern of the public and of justice. It has become clear more than once in the course of these debates that the Bill is not about rights. The Home Office prefers a hierarchical structure in which people know their place and not their rights. That includes police authorities, chief constables, senior officers and junior ranks.
I am sure that the noble Earl does not subscribe to that perspective of the world. I would not believe it of him for a moment. I do not believe that this is his Bill —as at one stage he was at pains to point out to us. He and his officials have to argue their brief as best they can. However, the arguments which they have produced will not carry that burden. Metaphysical arguments do not stand up, and we have heard no others. I am content to submit this amendment to what my noble friend Lord Callaghan described as the independence of mind which characterises your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, in view of the last few speeches I should perhaps begin by stating that I have no interest to declare. Nor do I believe that the hour between eleven o'clock and midnight is necessarily too late for intellectual discussion. Despite that, I shall be extremely brief.
There is no doubt that if the Franks Committee did not achieve all that it hoped to achieve in its report the establishment of the Council on Tribunals has been of considerable importance. It has done two things which the Minister distinguished in his elegant speech in
224
Committee in reply to such an amendment. The first thing which it seeks to do is to supervise the making of procedural rules for tribunals. There is no doubt that the council has kept under review the procedural rules and the constitutions of many tribunals. But no less is it important that the council should ensure that legal justice is achieved through the complaints of individuals and through reports of the council on an annual basis.
I believe that over the years the Council on Tribunals has achieved a great deal in ensuring public confidence in the way in which tribunals operate. It may be largely a question of impression and experience. My impression, based on my experience, is that this police appeals tribunal has all the essential features of a classic tribunal in which the police are involved and the public need to have confidence.
At Committee stage the Minister said that its rules would be modelled on the principles laid down by the Council on Tribunals. That is the first of the two tasks which I suggest the council has. That is excellent. But it is no less desirable, in my view, that this new police appeals tribunal should be subject to the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. I do not believe that it is an answer to say that this is merely an ad hoc body and that there is no permanent staff. Those are two points which the noble Earl made in his speech at the Committee stage. On the contrary, that seems to me to indicate an even greater need for the tribunals to be supervised by the Council on Tribunals. It is even more important, not less important, that they should be subject to review.
I quite understand that administratively it may be more difficult to supervise ad hoc tribunals than it is to supervise permanent tribunals with a large staff and impressive premises. But that, I suggest, is not a good reason. Administrative convenience or inconvenience has always been regarded as an argument against anything that the Franks Committee suggested. In this case, I suggest that that is no answer. Indeed., if, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said at the Committee stage, since 1964 comparable committees have been subject to the supervision of the Council on Tribunals, it cannot be said that administratively it is either impossible or unduly difficult for them to be supervised by the Council on Tribunals.
I very much hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government's position in regard to this. I do not believe that any convincing argument—however elegant—has so far been put forward that justifies excluding this type of tribunal from the list. It is for that reason that I support the amendment
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment. The character of the tribunals has been changed radically as a result of the omission of the staff association representatives. I did not speak on the previous amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bethel], but I think that there is, as a result of that omission, a substantial sense of injustice felt by many members of the Police Federation. That being so, it strengthens the argument for oversight by the Council on Tribunals. There is—perhaps "suspicion" would be too harsh a word—some substantial

225
doubt about the character of the new bodies. For the life of me, I do not begin to understand why the Government have adopted the attitude they have.
It seems to me that there are no major resource implications, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, rightly said. That being so, I am puzzled as to why the Government are not prepared to move in the direction advocated by the noble and learned Lord.
I hope that the noble Earl will reflect on the issue. He has a significant problem on his hands as regards the federation and the character of the new tribunals. It seems to me that the most modest move in that direction would be to accept an amendment on the lines of that put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, was kind enough to come to talk to me about the matter the other day. I was grateful to him for that. I long to be helpful and accommodating to him, particularly when he is supported by what I might describe as the howitzer of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, at his side.
However, as I understand the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, it is twofold: first, that because until 10 years ago police disciplinary appeals tribunals fell within the scope of the council, they should now do so again; and, secondly, that there will be no proper oversight of the conduct of the tribunals if they are not within the area of the authority of his council. Although the noble and learned Lord has been, as always, very persuasive, I find it difficult to agree with him on either point.
The police appeals tribunals set up under the Bill are entirely different bodies from the current police disciplinary tribunals. What may or may not have been agreed for the current bodies is, I think, irrelevant to what is right for the police appeals tribunals that are set up under the Bill. I find it difficult to agree with him that these tribunals will be at risk of not functioning properly if they are not overseen by the council. They will have to operate under rules which will have been laid before your Lordships' House. They will be set up by a police authority which will be concerned to ensure that the tribunal's proceedings are properly conducted. They will be chaired by a lawyer of at least seven years' standing who will be approved by the Lord Chancellor as competent to carry out such a chairmanship. Appellants would, if they considered that the tribunal had not been properly conducted, have recourse at law, which would avoid similar mistakes being made by other tribunals.
I believe that the council does a valuable job in ensuring the proper functioning of the major tribunals that have become a feature of our society. But I question what advantage there would be either for police officers or the public interest in extending their responsibilities to cover these somewhat ephemeral and locally-based bodies. I find it difficult to see how the council would even become aware that one of these bodies created by the police authority especially to deal with a particular case had come into existence at all or who would
226
respond to any inquiries which the council might choose to make when those appeal bodies had no permanent existence.
A police authority might set up an inquiry that took place for possibly a day or more and then vaporise when its work was over. It is an ad hoc body and its composition is unique to that case. I do not see how the Council on Tribunals would know that a tribunal had been set up, where it had been set up, when it would sit or of whom it would be composed. It does not seem to me that, valuable and eminent though the council is—especially under the leadership of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer—it is a suitable vehicle to be involved with police disciplinary tribunals.
The noble and learned Lord made light of his work by saying that his most burdensome task was to give Ministers a lunch. If that is his most onerous duty, I can only say that he must have an easy time; and I would like to thank him for having made the life of my ministerial colleagues, albeit not myself, that much less oppressive than it normally is.
I find it difficult to think that this is the proper thing to do. Your Lordships have argued strongly about it. In the light of what has been said by your Lordships, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, I am prepared to have another look at the matter, but I cannot give any guarantee that I will be able to give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, any more satisfaction than I have been able to date. I do not want to raise his hopes too much, but I am content to have another look at it, if that meets with his approval.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the noble Earl cannot say fairer than that. It may be a little premature to say that it is a pleasure doing business with him, but the future will tell us that. I would be happy if he thought about it further.
Perhaps I may rectify one or two misapprehensions under which the noble Earl appears to labour. The fault may have been mine. At this late hour I rather skipped over some of the functions of the council. The council does not have the function of reviewing particular decisions of a tribunal. That is a matter for further appeal tribunals or, in the last resort, the courts. It is not a matter for the council at all. What the council does is review such matters as the need for training, the provision of proper premises, and making the tribunal user-friendly and ensuring that when people come to a hearing they are not on the verge of a nervous breakdown and have not been kept waiting longer than necessary. It is matters of that kind to which the council normally directs its mind. The noble Earl says that he does not know how the council will learn that this transitory inquiry exists. But it is no more transitory than, for example, an educational appeal committee, which, as I ventured to indicate earlier, is convened as, when and where there is a need for it. Those who convene it then tell the council about it. We have arrangements that work perfectly well. As I tried to indicate, most of our arrangements work on the basis

227
that there is no need for acrimony or discord because people are happy to receive the suggestions of the council. They find them helpful.
I am sorry if I gave the impression that we spend the whole of our time having lunches with Ministers. I was trying to convey that normally we have very good relations both with Ministers and officials. Usually a letter is sufficient for the purpose. Sometimes they want a discussion with us. In the last resort, occasionally we offer a lunch. I should be very happy to offer hospitality to the noble Earl if ever he thought it right.
Normally we are listened to and that is why it has been so frustrating in the course of these debates to discover that there are those who simply do not listen. But that may have been our fault. Perhaps we have chosen inopportune times to put our arguments and perhaps we have put them elliptically. I am happy to hear that the noble Earl will reflect further on this matter. If I can assist his reflections, I should be happy to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Clause 19 [Common services]:
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 1 18:
Page 14, line 28, at end insert:
("() Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities, and

(b)persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment refers to an amendment which has been taken before. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before midnight.

  NORTHERN IRELAND: PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES
  WESTMINSTER AND LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCILS: SUPPORT GRANTS
  WESTMINSTER AND LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCILS: SUPPORT GRANTS
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL: HEAVY LORRIES, LONDON
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL: HEAVY LORRIES, LONDON
  A. 66 CARRIAGEWAY
  A. 66 CARRIAGEWAY
  LONDON UNDERGROUND TRAINS: GRAFFITI
  LONDON UNDERGROUND TRAINS: GRAFFITI
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  TANZANIAN ILLEGAL ENTRANTS
  TANZANIAN ILLEGAL ENTRANTS
  LOCAL PRISONS: POPULATION AND OVERCROWDING
  LOCAL PRISONS: POPULATION AND OVERCROWDING