Sitting of 16 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
      Read the Third time, and passed.
      BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
      Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions

  Housing Association Rents
  Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average housing association rent.
  Mr. Wicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average rent for a housing association dwelling in 1978–79 and at the latest available date.
  The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): The average housing association rent in England on 31 March 1993 was £34.03 per week.
  Although the data were not collected on a comparable basis, the average housing association registered fair rent in England and Wales in 1978–79 was £10.08 per week.
  Mr. Miller: Does the Minister accept that, following the proposed cuts in the Housing Corporation budget, those rents will increase significantly—probably well ahead of inflation? That must be added to the difficulties facing local authorities, particularly lean and well-managed authorities such as Ellesmere Port and Neston. Does the Minister accept that, if those factors are added together, his policies will have dire consequences for people who need low-cost affordable homes? Will he reverse his policies and act positively in the interests of tenants both of housing associations and of local authorities?
  Sir George Young: I find it hard to take seriously the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has just made. On Monday, the House was invited to vote to give an extra £213 million to my Department, part of which would go to the Housing Corporation budget. I regret to have to tell the House that the hon. Gentleman voted against the provision of that sum. Against that background, I am surprised that he has the nerve to ask about resources for the Housing Corporation.
  Mr. Wicks: Given the average rent figures, and not least the higher figures in many metropolitan areas, does the Minister believe that ordinary families can now afford to be in unsubsidised housing association accommodation? Is not the effect of the policy to drive up housing benefit expenditure? How does that square with the declared policy of the Secretary of State for Social Security to drive down such expenditure?
  Sir George Young: I believe that £34 a week is a reasonable rent for housing association property, especially as so much of it is of good quality. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself a question. If he wants to keep rents down, he will find that there are fewer homes being built to meet the needs of those who have a housing problem.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Is not the real issue the speed with which we move towards market rents, to ensure that any assistance through housing benefit is given directly to those who need it, rather than through subventions to the corporation, which are spread among rich and poor alike?
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. We have made it clear that we believe that a more effective use of public resources is to move away from indiscriminate bricks and mortar subsidies towards more sensitively directed personal subsidies. It inevitably follows that the housing benefit bill will rise, but we believe that it is a more sensible use of public resources and will enable us to build more homes.
  Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how proud we in Teesside are of the new housing association rented properties that are coming on stream on the Teesdale sites? Those have been built with the assistance of Teesside development corporation as part of 155,000 properties that have come into being since the general election as a direct result of Government policy.
  Sir George Young: The House will be delighted to hear of the good-quality accommodation that is being provided in my hon. Friend's constituency. He is right to point out that the number of units provided by the Housing Corporation have exceeded by 25,000 the commitment that we gave at the general election.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister reconsider his earlier answers and tell the House the figures that the National Federation of Housing Associations supplied to his Department recently, which show that the average rent for all housing association lettings in England is £43.86 a week and that the average for new lettings, which is obviously the most crucial figure, is no less than £51.12 a week? Will the Minister stop misleading the House with figures that are not accurate and tell us the truth? Those rents are not affordable.
  Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the answer that I gave to Questions 1 and 2 was incorrect. They were the correct figures. The figure for new properties is, indeed, about £51 per week. That is not the figure that is paid by the vast majority of housing association tenants. Those tenants who are invited to pay the newer rents are eligible for housing benefit if they do not have the income with which to pay.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken within his Department to support his sponsorship of the construction industry.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): We have established a construction sponsorship directorate committed to doing everything possible to ensure, in partnership with the construction industry, that United Kingdom construction is as successful as humanly possible.
  Mr. Heald: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the unemployment figures announced today showing a fall of 39,000? Does he agree that that is excellent news for the unemployed and their families? Does he agree one reason for the fall is the recovery in the construction industry shown yesterday by the increase in orders at home and by the fact that exports in the construction industry are running at £6 billion a year? Does he agree that more could be done to help our construction exporters? What exactly will the directorate do?
  Mr. Baldry: We all have every right to be proud that British construction skills, experience and quality are in such demand throughout the world. That means jobs at home. This year, together with the industry, our construction export promotion division is promoting trade missions, task forces and numerous country-specific events to ensure that United Kingdom construction wins as much business in the world as possible.
  Mr. Pike: In the Prime Minister's references yesterday to the construction industry and particularly to housing, was not he ill-advised to refer to an increase in housing construction, when last year's figures show that construction was at an all-time low of 155,922 new starts? Will the Government give the industry the news that it wants to hear and say that some of the capital receipts can be used and that mandatory grants will continue?
  Mr. Baldry: I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to the most recent statement by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Only days ago, it said:
  "As confidence among buyers grows, we are experiencing a heartening buzz of genuine interest in many areas. As spring unfolds, the market will continue to develop. The economic soil is looking fertile and capable of sustaining growth. New house starts are going up at a very fast rate indeed."
  Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although I am delighted to see any resurgence in the construction industry, my constituents will not be pleased to see construction in the shape of new supermarkets in two places in Oadby in my constituency? Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bear that in mind when he considers the applications that will be on his desk before long?
  Mr. Baldry: I commend to every Member of Parliament planning policy guidance note 6, which gives new planning guidance on out-of-town retail developments. It is an excellent publication.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current budget of the Energy Saving Trust.
  Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the funding of the Energy Saving Trust.
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): The Energy Saving Trust is an independent organisation. Funds for its schemes will come from a variety of sources. I understand that its budget for 1994–95 is currently under discussion.
  Mr. Barron: Will the Minister comment on the evidence given by British Gas to the Select Committee on the Environment last year that its funding of the Energy Saving Trust would be £2 million last year, £10 million this year and even hundreds of millions in years to come? In the past 24 hours, I have learnt that, in seven days' time, the Energy Saving Trust will give notice that it intends to cancel the gas condensing boiler scheme, which is the most effective thing that it has done towards reaching the Rio limits on emissions. Why have the Government changed the regulator of British Gas, and why has that regulator sought to change the opinion of British Gas on the E factor in gas pricing and, therefore, cut the funding of the Energy Saving Trust?
  Mr. Atkins: There are a number of questions there and I am aware of your caution in these matters, Madam Speaker. I do not want to answer too many questions from one Opposition Member. Perhaps I can pick the one to which I know the answer, which is that the appointment of the regulator is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Dafis: Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, it is clear that the Energy Saving Trust is in big trouble, having had its primary source of finance cut off. Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that, if it survives, the efficient delivery of its programmes will depend on obtaining adequate information about energy efficiency, not least in the domestic sector? In that regard, may I draw the Minister's attention to the Energy Conservation Bill which was presented by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? That Bill would ensure that such information would be available because it requires local authorities to carry out an exhaustive audit of the energy efficiency of domestic properties. Will the Minister give an absolute undertaking that the Government will do nothing to undermine that Bill on Report?
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Energy Saving Trust will be without funds, but that is incorrect. We already have a commitment for some £25 million from the electricity companies. That means that, at least until the discussions about the future of the British Gas contribution, plenty of money will be available to provide for the continuance of the Energy Saving Trust.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Is not my hon. Friend confused by the signals from Opposition Members in wanting not to burn coal when gas was coming in? All their policy papers suggest that we should increase energy prices enormously through carbon taxes, but, of course, they voted against VAT on fuel.
  Mr. Atkins: Like many Conservative Members, I am constantly confused about what the Opposition represent on energy matters.
  Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Energy Saving Trust and the Government should look closely at the use of energy-efficient lighting, which would greatly cut the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere and save people a considerable amount of money that would more than cover VAT on electricity?
  Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised this matter for the benefit of all hon. Members in the recent debate on his ten-minute Bill. I was pleased to be here to listen to him and I entirely agree that the message that we all can take is that energy-efficient lightbulbs are much better than existing ones and that the more that we can use them, the better it will be for all concerned.
  Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate the Minister on his characteristic candour in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). There is a serious dispute between the Government and the Energy Saving Trust and the Director General of Gas Supply about the director general's precise role in this. Although the Minister is not responsible for appointing her, does not he agree that it would be a good idea to sit down, run through the difficulties and try to resolve them, because the Energy Saving Trust's role is clearly being prejudiced by a lack of clarity about her role in the matter?
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is right and fair to draw attention to this concern. It is clearly a matter that we did not anticipate because at the moment OFFER—the Office of Electricity Regulation—does not see a particular problem. The problem that has been highlighted by the Ofgas regulator, Miss Clare Spottiswode, was unexpected, and the matter is being discussed through my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry to see whether there is a way round it. Failing that, we may have to consider other ways by which the matter may be addressed, and that might involve legislation.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that this country spends about £50 billion a year on energy and that the Energy Efficiency Office has estimated that we could save approximately 20 per cent. of that, or £10 billion. My hon. Friend is also aware that his Department has set the Energy Saving Trust a target for carbon reduction of 2.5 million tonnes to meet our Rio target by the year 2000. To do that, the Energy Saving Trust will need to spend about £400 million a year. As well as benefiting consumers, it will cost them only an extra 1.5 per cent., but will benefit our balance of payments by £300 million and create up to 40,000 jobs. Will the Minister confirm that that is the sort of target and the sort of agenda that he will set the Energy Saving Trust?
  Mr. Atkins: Yes, Madam.

  Coal Mining Effluent
  Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about pollution of waterways with coal mining effluent.
  Mr. Atkins: Discharges from coal mines in England and Wales are subject to regulation by the National Rivers Authority. It is for the operators and owners of those
  868
  mines, in consultation with the National Rivers Authority, to determine what measures are necessary to avoid pollution.
  Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding his factually accurate answer, many hon. Members are frustrated by the buck-passing between British Coal and the National Rivers Authority? Is he aware that the Neath canal has recently been declared ecologically dead because of mine pollution? The Neath river is now heavily polluted and the Pelenna river in my constituency is regarded as the most polluted river in Britain? Will his Department please institute an urgent examination of the problem in conjunction with British Coal, its successors and the National Rivers Authority and will he make a statement in the House about this growing problem, which will get worse as more mines close.
  Mr. Atkins: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman thinks that my answer is factually correct. That in itself is an achievement. [Laughter.] I should perhaps have said that it was an achievement for the hon. Gentleman to have recognised it. Under the Water Resources Act 1991, the NRA has powers to prosecute any offence involving pollution from mines. In the particular case that the hon. Gentleman raises—the River Pelenna in his constituency —I understand that the NRA and West Glamorgan county council have joined forces to undertake a £1 million project aimed at restoring the quality of the river to support wildlife and removing the discoloration caused by mine water. If there are any other points relating to individual constituencies, I suggest that hon. Members take them up directly with the NRA.
  Mr. Batiste: Does not the question highlight the need for debate in the House on the environmental impact of the coal industry, preferably before the Coal Industry Bill returns to the House on Report and Third Reading? Perhaps my hon. Friend would discuss the matter with his colleagues and suggest to them that there is considerable feeling on both sides of the House that such a debate should take place.
  Mr. Atkins: I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware of my hon. Friend's concern.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister also take account of Coalite, which produces coke from coal and the fact that the dioxin effluent coming out of the factory into the River Doe Lea is 1,000 times above the requisite safety level? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that is stopped? Is the National Rivers Authority doing anything about it? It seems rather laggardly in its action.
  Mr. Atkins: I am very disturbed if, as I am sure it is, what the hon. Gentleman says about that river is true. I will ensure that the attention of the NRA is drawn to that case and that if action needs to be taken urgently it will be.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the correlation between political control and the top and bottom 10 council taxes so far declared.
  The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): Of the 10 councils that have fixed the

  869
  highest council taxes, seven are Labour controlled, two others have Labour county councils, which are the principal precepting authorities, while I understand that Liverpool is split between rival Labour factions.
  Mr. Duncan: will my hon. Friend confirm that band for band—A for A and B for B, right up to H for H—Conservative councils cost less? Will he also confirm that while the Labour party continues to play its childish games, the Conservatives will stand and deliver better local government?
  Mr. Curry: It is true: those who live in Conservative council areas and whose properties are in band A pay less than they would under Labour. Those who live in Conservative council areas and are in band B pay less than they would under Labour. It applies right through the bands. Whether one has modest means and lives in a modest house, whether one has a middle income and lives in a middle-income house or even if one is relatively well-off and in band H, one will always pay less under the Conservatives than under Labour or the Liberals.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State's press release issued this morning recognised that Liverpool's band C figure does not represent what most people in Liverpool will be paying and that although there will be an increase, that is almost entirely due to the unfairness of the standard spending assessment for the city? Will he consider that a fairer way of comparing council tax levels is to look at averages? Liverpool's average of £550 compares favourably with councils such as Wokingham and Ribble Valley, both of which are Conservative controlled.
  Mr. Curry: I cannot think of a less intelligible way of comparing council taxes than using averages, for the simple reason that no one pays an average council tax. Everyone pays one band from A to H and that enables us to make a direct comparison. What matters is how much one pays and one pays less under Conservative-controlled authorities than under Labour-controlled authorities, including Liverpool.
  Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that council tax levels would be much lower if Labour-controlled councils, such as Islington, Liverpool and Manchester, cleared their enormous debts so that they could use some of the capital receipts?
  Mr. Curry: It is true that if councils collect their debts, council house rents and taxes, that money can go through into services. That has given councils that have improved their tax collection rates much room for manoeuvre this year. That is one of the keys to good services, not an optional extra. It is part of delivering a good service to council tax payers, and Conservative-controlled councils do it best.
  Mr. Straw: A moment ago, in the hearing of the House, the Minister said that the use of average household bills per dwelling was a less intelligible way of comparing what people were spending. If that is so, why did the Department of the Environment, in its press release last March, use average household bills per dwelling? Will the Minister also explain why the research department of Conservative central office, in a brief dated last March, also used the average council tax per dwelling? Did Conservative central office use those figures before it discovered that
  870
  average household council tax bills per dwelling are £40 lower in Labour-controlled areas than they are in Conservative-controlled areas and that, whether locally or nationally, the Conservative party costs people more?
  Mr. Curry: We are clearly getting under the hon. Gentleman's skin. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to demonstrate that the council tax paid in any one of the eight bands is lower in a Labour-controlled authority than in a Conservative-controlled authority. He cannot do it. A council with houses predominantly in the lower bands will have a lower average council tax than a council with houses predominantly in the higher bands. That is a matter of statistics, not politics. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape from the basic fact that Labour-controlled councils are setting higher bills. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I can read to him the 10 councils with the lowest bills, and he will not find a Labour-controlled council among them.
  Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend mentioned the high levels of uncollected rents and council taxes in many Labour-controlled areas. When will the Government do something to force those councils to collect the rents that they should be collecting on behalf of the rest of the population?
  Mr. Curry: If councils collect rents and taxes, they can spend more on services. A lack of services is the result of incompetence on the part of the councils.

  Rent Increases
  Mr. Hoon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the relative rate of rent rises in the public and private sectors.
  Sir George Young: Rents in all sectors have risen during the past few years. Public sector rents have increased to bear a closer relationship to the value of the accommodation being provided. That reflects, in part, our policy of moving away from direct subsidies to suppliers, towards paying personal subsidies to tenants to ensure that help goes to those who really need it.
  Deregulation of rents in the private rented sector since 1988 has enabled landlords to achieve a more realistic return on their investment and has contributed to a revival in the number of private lettings.
  Mr. Hoon: Rent assessment panels agreed private sector rents in the east midlands for the first quarter of 1993 at an average of £46 a week. Will the Minister congratulate east midlands local authorities on keeping average local authority rents down to £28 as at April 1993? Does not that show how much better local authorities are at providing affordable housing than the private sector?
  Sir George Young: The rent officers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are operating under the Rent Act 1977. That regime shows how they operate. As to other rents in the private sector, Conservatives want investment in the private rented sector to be restored and more good-quality accommodation to be provided by private landlords. If that is to happen, those landlords are entitled to a realistic return and that means higher rents than the controlled rents supported by Labour Members.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of rents in the public sector is determined, in part, by the number of voids in the public sector? Is he

  871
  aware that, in the London borough of Barnet, 0.9 per cent. of council houses are empty, whereas in the London borough of Hackney 9.2 per cent. are empty? Is he further aware that, in certain London Labour boroughs, rent arrears equal more than 20 per cent. of the annual rent roll? Is that not a national scandal?
  Sir George Young: As always, my hon. Friend's remarks are perceptive. It is unacceptable for local authorities to leave accommodation empty when people are in housing need in those boroughs. I urge all local authorities to do better in bringing back into use the voids under their ownership.
  Mr. Battle: Is it not the reality that the Government are intervening and deliberately engineering high, rising rents in all sectors, forcing council rents up, pricing people out of being able to afford a housing association home, coercing council tenants to buy out, draining housing benefit into the private rented sector and forcing people to choose between a home and a job offer? When will the Minister realise that unemployment and low incomes into high rents just will not go without generating more homelessness?
  Sir George Young: None of that happens. If the hon. Gentleman is making commitments for higher public expenditure, I wonder whether he has cleared that with his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make housing waiting lists more effective.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Our consultation paper proposes a single local waiting list so that social housing is allocated as fairly as possible.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that, under the proposals, there will be adequate measures to take care of the most vulnerable members of our society?
  Mr. Gummer: Certainly, I would not have introduced the consultation paper unless that was an absolute, basic fact.
  Mr. Hardy: With millions of people in need of decent homes and scores, if not hundreds, of thousands of construction workers unemployed, is not the best answer to the length of housing waiting lists to build affordable low-cost housing for people to live in and to provide the jobs that mean that construction workers do not have to go abroad to make a living?
  Mr. Gummer: That is why we have already exceeded the target on which we fought the previous election. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should spend more, perhaps he has not talked the matter over with his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), because that sounds to me like another promise to spend more money if the Labour party were elected.
  Mr. David Nicholson: I agree with my right hon. Friend that we must clamp down on abuses in the housing waiting list system, but will he take the advice that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga
  872
  Maitland) put to him—young women with children should not be put at risk as a result of these measures? Will he also concentrate on continuing to revive the private rented sector and, therefore, take care that none of those measures damages the Government's rent-a-room initiative?
  Mr. Gummer: I quite agree with my hon. Friend's first point, which is why we want equal access to the waiting list on the ground of need, instead of the present system. I agree that, as far as possible, we should revive the private rented sector, as we want as many homes as possible, particularly to provide for those who are without decent accommodation.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he had in the development of the single regeneration budget.
  Mr. Baldry: Some 10,000 copies of the draft bidding guidance on the single regeneration budget have been distributed, 11 seminars organised and several hundred written responses received.
  Mr. Simpson: Does the Minister accept that the new measures that he is introducing are little more than camouflage for a further cut in the funds available for urban regeneration? Does he acknowledge, in the context of the east midlands, that the three cities of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby received some £10 million under the previous allocation of urban aid funding, whereas under the single regeneration budget they will be invited to bid for a total of £10 million for the whole east midlands region? Does he accept that 40 or more authorities bidding for an open pot amounts to a descent into game show politics and economics, which reduces the status of funding to little more than the game show "Don't Forget Your Toothbrush"?
  Mr. Baldry: That is all complete bunkum, and I shall gladly write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures to demonstrate the fact. The single regeneration budget straightforwardly fulfils our manifesto commitment to bring together resources for targeted inner-city programmes in a single budget, so that funds go where they are most needed locally, rather than according to a set of priorities determined in Whitehall. I should have thought that every hon. Member would welcome that.
  Mr. Straw: Surely the Minister does not wish to mislead the House. Will he confirm that the annual report of the Department of the Environment—published only last week, on 8 March—states that there will be a cut of nearly £200 million in the single regeneration budget over the next two years?
  Mr. Baldry: We are spending £4 billion on urban regeneration this year. In so far as there is any reduction, it is caused by the fact that some institutions, such as those funded by urban development corporations, are beginning to wind down. Those are the straightforward facts.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has had so far about council tax levels.
  Mr. Curry: The average band C headline council tax is £516. [HON. MEMBERS: "Average?"] Within that average, it will be found that the average for Conservative authorities is a great deal lower than the average for Labour or Liberal authorities. That represents an increase of 2.2 per cent. on the 1993–94 average.
  Mr. Thomason: Has my hon. Friend read the speech that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made to the Labour local government conference on 4 February, when he said, "I am proud of the"—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Executive are responsible for Government policies; they are not responsible for the activities of any Opposition Member. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point and ask a question right away?
  Mr. Thomason: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Labour party has—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Let me explain. I think it only right for me to explain to the House that the Government are not responsible for the activities or the policies of the Labour party at Question Time.[Interruption.] No, it is right for me to be heard, so that the House understands me. The Executive are responsible for Government policies only; that is their accountability during Question Time.
  Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have consistently demonstrated that Labour is a party of high spending and high taxation in local government?
  Madam Speaker: Not very well done, but just about passable.
  Mr. Curry: I do not need to demonstrate that fact; I let it speak for itself.
  Mr. Betts: Would the Minister care to admit that his use of band comparisons in regard to council tax is spurious and bogus? Let us suppose that two comparable authorities raise the same amount from the same number of properties, and their average council tax is the same. Very different comparisons could be made in respect of different bands. Authorities containing more properties in band A, the lowest band—which are more likely to be Labour controlled—would, as a consequence of that fact alone, have higher rates for the other bands. That is a simple mathematical truth. Perhaps the Minister would like to verify it, and also verify the political truth that Labour authorities cost less and give better services.
  Mr. Curry: I notice that, whenever someone is about to say something that is manifestly not the case, it is described as some sort of irrefutable truth. It is not the case that Labour authorities cost less. The only sensible basis for comparison is comparing like with like, and that can be done only by making comparisons across the bands—which clearly demonstrates that Conservative councils are setting lower council taxes.
  If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the total volume of tax depends on the configuration of properties in a council area, let me tell him that that is so evident that it is hardly worth debating.
  Mr. Pickles: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), is not my hon. Friend being unkind to the Labour party, because
  874
  surely the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) clearly said that his spurious claim was based solely on the fact that Labour authorities have more properties in the lower bands? Has my hon. Friend noticed that similar Conservative authorities are a lot cheaper, so, band for band, Conservative councils cost people a lot less?
  Mr. Curry: Perhaps my hon. Friend would mention the fact that if Labour authorities have more properties in the lower bands, they are much more likely to get more revenue support grant from the Government and to benefit from council tax relief and various other forms of relief. That means that, despite the fact that Labour councils get more support, they still cost more—they could choose to lower their council tax.

  Nitrogen Dioxide
  Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the principal sources of nitrogen dioxide emissions; and which of these are currently increasing and which are decreasing.
  Mr. Atkins: Road transport, with 51 per cent., and power stations, with 25 per cent., are the main sources of nitrogen oxide emissions. I am pleased to report that the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", No. 16, which will be published this April, shows that all the major sources are decreasing.
  Mr. Ainger: In the light of the increasing evidence that there is a direct link between nitrogen oxide emissions and asthma and other respiratory diseases, will the Government introduce mandatory standards of air quality in line with World Health Organisation guidelines to protect the health of our children and that of other vulnerable people?
  Mr. Atkins: An investigation is considering the problem of air pollution and subsequently, I hope, there will be a report. As the parent of an asthmatic, I am only too well aware of the importance of air quality to asthmatics and others with breathing difficulties, especially in certain urban areas. We expect to be able to make a judgment in the not-too-distant future. The House is aware that the expert panel on air quality standards is considering the issue, and I am only too well aware of the importance of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  Mrs. Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great contributions to reducing greenhouse gases comes from the United Kingdom's nuclear industry, especially Nuclear Electric, which, in 1992–93, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than 55 million tonnes and reduced sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 870,000 tonnes? Does he also agree that, by reducing the United Kingdom's reliance on fossil fuels, we are contributing benefits to the global and national environment?
  Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend put the point as succinctly and as well as it needed to be recorded.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that one of the best ways to tell whether we are improving air quality is by increasing the scope of air monitoring stations because we are far below all comparable countries in testing the quality of air? Will he ensure that we have the facts so that we can tell what is happening, as a matter of public record and information?
  Mr. Atkins: At the moment, we spend about £4 million per annum on air quality monitoring, and the figure has doubled since the 1991 White Paper. There is always a need to have a pretty fair understanding of air quality and the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but it is certainly our intention to ensure that air quality monitoring is improved, not the reverse.

  "This Common Inheritance"
  Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now intends to publish the third annual update of "This Common Inheritance".
  Mr. Gummer: Very soon; the report is currently with the printers.
  Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that "This Common Inheritance" was published in 1990 and reported in 1991 and again in 1992? Why is it six months late this time? One of its recommendations was that we should not export toxic waste, but it has now been proved that some non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries are used as routes for dumping such waste. Does he agree that we should be reporting the recommendation made by the Danes at the Basel convention?
  Mr. Gummer: I made the decision, which was widely welcomed, that we should not publish the next White Paper until after the sustainable development report so that it could be taken into account. I do not think that anyone has objected to that and it has been widely understood to be a sensible order.
  We export toxic waste only for reprocessing so that it may be used as a secondary raw material. We export it only to places that have the proper equipment and ability. I intend to continue doing that, and not to export to countries that do not want the waste. If there is any question of this method being used as a means of dumping, I shall examine it at once and cease to allow it to happen. I do not think that the Danish proposition is sensible, because a country that has the proper resources should not be excluded from the possibility of using the raw materials that have been created. Countries must have the proper resources. They must be able to control the waste and they must ensure that it is not used for the purposes that the hon. Gentleman states. We are on the same side and if he has any case that he wants to bring to my attention, I shall be happy to take it up.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), the Secretary of State will, of course, be aware that paragraph 14.61 of "This Common Inheritance" claims that Britain has taken a world lead in calling for self-sufficiency in national waste disposal. However, that does not apply to the export of toxic waste. The Secretary of State may nowadays be unimpressed by the fact that 15 Anglican bishops have called for an end to the export of toxic waste to developing countries, but he may take rather more notice of the call that has been made by Pope John Paul II. Will he, therefore, support the Danish proposal at next week's meeting of the Basel convention for a complete ban on the export of toxic 'waste from Britain to the developing world?
  Mr. Gummer: I know of no ecclesiastical personage who would support the imperialist view that a country that has exactly the same means of reprocessing toxic waste to help its industry should be denied that opportunity because it happens to be a developing country. Those people want to ensure that none of that toxic waste is dumped on other countries and used improperly. I am determined to ensure that, but I am not acting imperialistically.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce transitional relief for those new authorities which, as a result of the local government review, will face disproportionate increases in their council tax bills.
  Mr. Curry: We are discussing with local authority associations the arrangements to finance new councils. When a new council receives a standard spending assessment that does not reflect its inherited commitments, we shall consider whether we should provide transitional help to protect council tax payers.
  Mr. Rendel: In the light of that response, will the Minister assure us that, in practice, he will not enforce local government reform on any area against the wishes of the local community?
  Mr. Curry: The purposes of local government reform are perfectly clear. They are to achieve a more accountable form of local government and to achieve more efficient local government. It is also a reform which corresponds to the needs of local people. If first tests demonstrate that changing the system of government will deliver those benefits, that is what we shall do. But if a fairly clear case can be made that that is not so, the Government have no national blueprint. We are not doing it just for the sake of change.
  Mr. Oppenheim: What is the likely effect on a new authority's council tax levels? In Derbyshire county council's dying days, the deputy leader has been thrown into gaol for fraud and continues to draw his council's allowances; the former leader has resigned in disgrace, having squandered millions building a millionaire's complex in Yalta in the Crimea; and, habitually, close friends and relatives of senior Labour politicians get top jobs in the council. Is that not real corruption and gerrymandering and will not a cost be passed on to any new councils that are formed after the county council is abolished?
  Mr. Curry: I am sure that all of us want the new councils to start with a completely clean inheritance and perhaps with a different set of values, as well.
  Mr. Henderson: The Minister will be aware from his consultations with local authorities and others, especially Conservative colleagues, of the many anxieties about the cost of local government reorganisation. Has the Department commissioned a study to assess the overall cost in England arising out of any changes in the local government review? If such a study has not been commissioned, will the Minister tell the House why?
  Mr. Curry: It is very simple. Let us be clear: there is a distinction between transitional costs and net costs. The net costs will be met. At the end of the day, we think that

  877
  the realisation of efficiencies, and so on, will pay for the transitional costs. However, until we know what shape local government will take, until we know what the commission comes forward with and until we know what the House will accept, it is utterly impossible to come to any conclusions. We have made it clear that we shall make available to local authorities credits to finance those transitional costs. All the commission's projections show that there will be a pay-back period in efficiency and in avoiding duplication, which will finance the transitional costs, including the rolled-up interest.
  Mrs. Lait: Does my hon. Friend share my anger and that of my constituents at the blatant politicking that Lib-Lab-run East Sussex county council puts into its magazine "Countywide", which merely defends its current position? Is that not as bad as the loony left councils, and will it not be a cost to council tax payers, now and in the future?
  Mr. Curry: I never cease to be amazed by the number of councils that tell me that they need more standard spending assessment because they are so hard up that they cannot finance essential services, yet they always manage to finance consultants, Queen's counsel and other people to argue for their own survival. Several councils have put out misleading propaganda, such as polls that can have only one result. I have seen East Sussex's literature, and it has been one of the most conspicuous authorities in doing that. A genuine debate about the merits of local government reform and how best to deliver services is to be encouraged, but simply trying to protect one's own job by misleading the public shows local government at its worst. We shall examine most carefully the costs incurred by such councils.

  City Pride
  Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what actions have been taken in relation to city pride.
  Sir George Young: The partners in the three city pride cities, Birmingham, London and Manchester, have all formed partnerships to take forward the preparation of prospectuses for their areas and they are making good progress.
  Mr. Orme: Does the Minister agree that that is a competition of the poor versus the poor, instead of providing proper funding for inner-city areas such as Salford? Government policy is not working in that regard. We need more resources. What does the Minister intend to do about that?
  Sir George Young: We tried to get more resources on Monday night, and I am ashamed to say that the right hon. Gentleman again voted against more resources for my Department. The sum was £213 million, some of which would go to the urban programme. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to hear what Manchester city council said about city pride:
  "The City Council is determined to respond very positively to the Secretary of State's invitation."
  If Manchester—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Salford?"] Salford is part of the committee involved in city pride. If Manchester city council can respond in that generous way, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can do so as well.

  Dogs
  Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage local authorities to deal with the problem of dog fouling of parks, beaches and other public places; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Atkins: The Government are very concerned about the unpleasant nuisance of dog mess, but we believe that that is primarily a matter for local authorities.
  Mr. Mullin: The Minister's reply is hopelessly inadequate. Is it not a fact that our parks, beaches and other public places are ruined by the selfishness of some dog owners? Does he agree that it is about time that the Government took a lead in making those parks, beaches and other public places available to all our citizens?
  Mr. Atkins: I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is true that a recent Tidy Britain Group survey revealed that one in six streets was fouled by dogs and that, for 76 per cent. of adults, dog fouling was one of the worst aspects of environmental damage of which they could think. However, one has to recognise that there is a difficulty, between the people who believe that their pets can do no wrong and others who take a different view. I do not want to fall between two stools.
  Mr. Hendry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of compulsory competitive tendering, Conservative local authorities are more efficient at cleaning up dog dirt than Labour authorities? Does that not mean that, in a Labour authority, one has to watch not only how much one pays but where one walks?
  Mr. Atkins: We can also say that, at any rate, we have a better class of dog in Tory authorities.
  Ms Eagle: Will the Minister explain how the Government could possibly help the nation to clean up its dog mess when they cannot even clear up their own mess?
  Mr. Atkins: I am always concerned at the fact that the hon. Lady is so unhappy about these matters. As I said, this is a serious matter and one which the House should take seriously. It is something which we should encourage. I suspect that there is agreement on both sides of the House about the serious message to give—we want to encourage owners to recognise the importance of not leaving dog mess in places where it can do damage to children, other people and society as a whole. If that message gets across on both sides of the House, that will go a long way towards solving the problem.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Office of Water Services about the basis of charging for water supply in the south-west.
  Mr. Gummer: The Department is in frequent discussion with Ofwat on the basis of charging for water.
  Mr. Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that water charges in Devon and Cornwall in 1993 were substantially higher than in the rest of the country, and we are now facing an increase in our water charges of more than 12 per cent? Does he understand that the patience of the residents

  879
  of Devon and Cornwall is wearing thin? Can he assure me that the Government are leaving no stone unturned to reduce our water bills? When can we have some positive news on this important subject?
  Mr. Gummer: We are certainly seeking to do all that we can to reduce water bills. However, we must also meet the standards that not only are expected of us by the European Community but which we ourselves want to meet. We are trying to do both at the same time.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Minister recognise that, because of the frightening increase in bills in the south-west, there is a growing feeling up and down the country that what is wrong with the water industry is that the customer—the consumer—is not coming first? Does he agree that it is crucial that both the water regulator, Mr. Ian Byatt, and the Government should start to listen to consumers about the unfairness of compulsory metering, the wrongness of disconnecting homes and the impossibility of meeting the very steep water increases?
  Mr. Gummer: My constituents want us to meet the highest standards. They believe that it is a major protection for the consumer that water companies can cut off the supplies of people who refuse to pay their bills when they have the means so to do.
  Mr. Harris: May I press my right hon. Friend on what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) said—people in the south-west will not put up with such bills for much longer? The fact is that many people cannot pay their bills. We are looking to my right hon. Friend and Mr. Byatt to find a satisfactory solution that will end the misery.
  Mr. Gummer: I understand what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, he has been pressing me on these issues for some time, as have other Tory Members for the south-west. There is a difficulty in trying to deliver the standards that we want at a price that is acceptable to the consumer. I am seeking to find every means to do that. However, in the end, those standards cost money, and I know that Mr. Byatt has that point very much in mind.

  Energy Audits
  Mr. Faulds: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to ensure that local authorities carry out an energy audit of buildings within their area.
  Mr. Baldry: We encourage local authorities to carry out audits of their own buildings as part of good practice and to play a wider role in energy efficiency thinking in their areas.
  Mr. Faulds: As you know, Madam Speaker, I am always overkeen to get the business of the House completed. I have a very straight question and will be obliged if I get a very simple answer. Can I have an assurance that the Government will support the Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) —the Energy Conservation Bill—without amendment?
  Mr. Baldry: We are considering that matter. However, as I made clear on Second Reading, we will not add to the burdens of local authorities unless it is absolutely necessary.

  Air Quality
  Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that all urban areas have effective monitoring of air pollution and quality.
  Mr. Gummer: We shall cover all major cities within three years and are currently considering responses to our consultation paper, which proposes a national system.
  Ms Lynne: Can the Minister confirm that air pollution has increased in urban areas? Does he agree with the advice that the Government are giving to the millions of asthma sufferers like myself—that we should stay indoors when air pollution is bad? Does he not think that he should be looking at the causes of pollution, rather than recommending voluntary house arrest?
  Mr. Gummer: I agree that it is the causes of pollution that matter. Indeed, the air in our cities has improved considerably, but lately the increased use of cars has resulted in a return to a rise in pollution. That is why I announced yesterday, for example, planning policy guidance 13, which will change the balance in planning in relation to transport. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that, in the end, that is the way down which we must go, as well as having cleaner cars.
  Mr. Barnes: May we have a full environmental survey of Staveley in north-east Derbyshire, where there are a mass of airborne pollution problems other than those resulting from transport, which has already been mentioned? Problems arise from the works in the area and from dioxin. I have raised that matter several times in the House. It would be fruitful for the Government to adopt procedures whereby they can solidly investigate asthma and other problems in such areas.
  Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me, I will certainly look into the possibility of doing something special in his area.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations took place in the development of the single regeneration budget.
  Mr. Baldry: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. Etherington: In view of the Secretary of State's statement last November and the projection that there will be a 40 per cent. reduction in urban aid programmes between 1990 and 1996, will the Minister reassure the House that urban areas such as my constituency will not suffer even more drastically than they have done for the past three generations because money has been diverted into more prosperous areas that have only recently suffered because of recession?
  Mr. Baldry: Millions of pounds have been spent on the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and nearby, through the Tyne and Wear development corporation, city challenge and other initiatives—for example, estate action and the single regeneration budget—and millions of pounds will continue to be spent in his constituency on urban regeneration.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your help in respect of a letter from the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). It apparently goes to Conservatives, although it is addressed "Dear Colleague", and it deals with the Conservative party and the European People's party, so it is rather long and embarrassing. I will just read the last paragraph:
"Over the next four months, the responsibility for us all is to campaign for a Conservative victory in June's election. A centre-right majority in the European Parliament will strengthen our hand in building the free-market, deregulated and decentralised Europe to which all Conservatives are committed."
It is signed "Douglas"—or it could be "Dougie". The important point of the letter is that it has been written under the Foreign and Commonwealth Office letterhead and is addressed from the Secretary of State.
The help that I seek is to know whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has moved to Smith square or whether the Secretary of State does not know his departmental elbow from his party's arriere-pensee. Will you ask him to come to the House to explain the Foreign Office's new policy of supporting the Conservative party in the forthcoming elections?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order is not a matter for the Chair, largely because no House of Commons writing paper is involved. I assume that the Government have their own rules covering these situations. The accounting officer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may be interested in the circular. It does not, however, raise a point of order for me, and I cannot help the hon. Gentleman further on it.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that if an hon. Member's question is being dealt with on the Floor of the House the hon. Member should stay at least until the exchanges have ended? As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) did not do the House the courtesy of waiting until the exchanges had finished, can you tell us why he hurried away? Was he being sought by the district auditor who is looking into the affairs of Westminster council.
Madam Speaker: Out of the corner of my eye I caught sight of the hon. Gentleman leaving before answers to his question had been completed. I consider it a great discourtesy to the House and to me as Speaker in calling the Member, and I hope that all Members will note that in future, when their questions are being debated on the Floor of the House, they should remain in the Chamber until their questions have finished.
Mr. Alan Duncan: I unreservedly apologise, Madam Speaker, for leaving as I did. I did not realise that question 7 was still being discussed. I apologise fully for leaving as early as I did.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that in another place yesterday Earl Ferrers, the Minister of State, Home Office, announced that it was the Government's intention to introduce and railroad through a one-clause Bill rectifying their error on the Railways Act 1993 in order to restore the
882
right of arrest to the British Transport police. First, is it correct that the other place should be told on a different day from the House of Commons of the intention to introduce emergency legislation? Secondly, will a Minister make a statement about this legislation to rectify the Government's botch-up?
Madam Speaker: Nothing out of order has taken place. We shall, of course, be informed about the Bill when it comes before the House.
Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you, as the ultimate authority on the good running of the House, have received any report about this morning's proceedings in Standing Committee A with regard to scrutiny of a document. The Select Committee on European Legislation referred the document to the Standing Committee 16 months ago, but it arrived only today—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, as a long-standing Member of the House, understands our proceedings. This Chamber cannot concern itself with developments in a Committee until the Committee's Chairman has reported to the House on any irregularities that may have occurred. I should hope that, in the case of any irregularities, the Chairman would report to me so that they could be dealt with in the normal way.
Mr. Harris rose—
Madam Speaker: If this is a point of order with which I can deal, I must, of course, hear it. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind what I have just said and will not raise matters occurring in a Committee upstairs, which should have an opportunity to report to the House.
Mr. Harris: I accept what you say, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the point. That is why I asked the Chairman of your Panel to refer the matter. It is absolutely disgraceful that it has taken 16 months for such an issue to be referred to the relevant Committee. I hope that the Panel Chairman will pursue the issue at the request of the Committee.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody rose—
Madam Speaker: It is not a matter for me, but as the hon. Lady has an involvement in the matter I must hear whether she has a point of order.
Mrs. Dunwoody: It relates to the same point of order, Madam Speaker. The difficulty for the House of Commons is that ours is a scrutiny Committee and this is an auditor's report. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, we ask for the protection of the Chair. If the House of Commons makes arrangements for Committee scrutiny of European legislation, and if that legislation is not referred in good order and in good time, the House of Commons fails to perform its proper task. That is the point that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and the rest of us wish to bring very forcefully to your attention.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I shall certainly look into the matter.
Dr. Tony Wright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster any

883
communication about the need for a statement on the citizens charter? As you may know, the second report under the charter is being published this afternoon. On every previous occasion, a statement has been made to the House. Indeed, the Minister concerned spoke on the radio this morning about the charter programme. We have been told that the charter is the centrepiece, the flagship, of the Government's programme. Does the absence of a statement indicate that the flagship is being allowed to sink?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that a Minister is seeking to make a statement. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later in the week to seek further information from the Government.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who is present today, will recall that on Friday the Civil Rights (Disabled People) Bill was given a Second Reading, with more than 200 Members voting in favour of it, and none against. The Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) introduced, which also went through unopposed, has now been saddled with countless amendments, many of them tabled by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). Will you, Madam Speaker, allow the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to tell us whether he will permit a practice designed to obstruct the Bill, and will he give us a guarantee of extra parliamentary time to enable the legislation to go through all its stages?
Madam Speaker: Ministers do not require my permission to make a statement. This is not a point of order for the Chair. However, Ministers will no doubt have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: It cannot be a further point of order as the last point was not a point of order in the first place.
Mr. Hendry: It is a new point.
Madam Speaker: Very well.
Mr. Hendry: Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise another hon. Member for tabling amendments to legislation that will affect every consumer in the country? It seems that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would allow two and a half hours for debate or seek to have the legislation put through on the nod. Is it in order for him, without giving warning, to try to deprive other Members of an opportunity to debate such an important matter in detail?
Madam Speaker: I said originally that the hon. Gentleman did not have a point of order for me. I think that it is a matter of personalities. Hon. Members might try to have their exchanges elsewhere, not in the Chamber.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it a new one?
Mr. Riddick: It is a new point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman just thought it up?
Mr. Riddick: Yes.
Madam Speaker: Yes, I thought as much.
Mr. Riddick: I have just thought it up, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Or dreamed it up.
Mr. Riddick: Might not the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have had to ask his question because he never serves on Committees—
Madam Speaker: Order. I knew that I was making a mistake when I agreed to listen to the hon. Gentleman. We now have a ten-minute Bill, which will make much more sense, no doubt.

Social Security Regulations (Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema) Amendment
3.39 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations to reduce to ten years the aggregate period of underground work required to qualify for benefits in cases of chronic bronchitis and emphysema; to amend the rules relating to medical assessment of percentage levels of disablement in people suffering from these conditions; and for connected purposes.
I should like to declare an interest. I am sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers.
My Bill would change in four main ways the prescription test that was introduced in the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1993. First, it would reduce the qualifying period from 20 years to 10 years. Secondly, it would reduce the disablement threshold from 14 per cent. to multiples of 10 per cent. Thirdly, it would specify that soft exposure X-rays should be used for diagnosing dust retention. Finally, it would replace the FEV1 test with a thorough and sensitive medical examination.
I want to consider the background to the original regulations and to explain the rationale on which my amendments are based. The original regulations were based on the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. After more than 20 years, the council has finally accepted that there is a causal connection between the exposure to coal dust and the development of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. As a result, it has recognised that the disease should be prescribed in relation to deep coal mining and recommended the application of a prescription test. That test has already proved to be too harsh.
The failure rate in South Yorkshire, according to the Department of Social Security office in Doncaster, is estimated to be 90 per cent. of applicants. I am advised that the overall failure rate nationally is the same. That means that, of the 23,477 applications received in the first wave, about 21,000 will be turned down. That cannot be what the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council intended.
Let me give the House an example of the sort of case that is being rejected. Last Saturday week, I received a telephone call from Mr. G. Scott, a former miner. He told me that he is so enfeebled by breathlessness that he has to use a nebuliser to assist his breathing. He has been treated for chronic bronchitis and emphysema for years, but when he was recently subjected to the prescription test he was told by the examining authorities that he did not have a sufficient degree of the disease for a disablement assessment. Mr. Scott is not unique. I have received letters from former miners who are similarly disabled and have had the same experience at the hands of the medical authorities.
I shall explain the rationale that underpins the amendments in my Bill. Pneumoconiosis, chronic bronchitis and emphysema have the same causation: coal dust in the lungs. It is an established fact that pneumoconiosis, which is defined as fibrosis of the lungs, is a more complicated stage than dust retention and can be contracted by an exposure of 10 years or less. That fact is recognised in the regulations on pneumoconiosis that
886
specify a qualifying period of 10 years. It is, therefore, illogical that the less complicated stage of dust retention should require a longer exposure period.
The second and related difficulty that my Bill seeks to amend involves the level of disablement threshold. Under the original regulation, that level is 14 per cent., but my Bill proposes to reduce it to multiples of 10 per cent. For my reasoning, I again turn to the example of the pneumoconiosis regulations. In cases where that disease is accompanied by chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and where the examining authorities consider that the former disease worsens the latter, additional assessments are given in multiples of 10 per cent. It is, therefore, unreasonable to move away from the already established principle of assessing chest diseases, particularly chronic bronchitis and emphysema in relation to coal miners, in multiples of 10. On those two matters, one cannot avoid the conclusion that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council saw itself as the controller of the Government's purse.
I have referred to the case of Mr. Scott. Let me now give the House two hypothetical, but extremely realistic, examples of miners who were suffering from the disease but could be ruled out of benefit because they did not meet one or other of the criteria. Two miners who work together underground for 17 or 18 years both leave underground work together. One continues working in the colliery on the surface in dusty conditions, and the other takes a job as a school caretaker. When they reach retirement age, both have respiratory conditions and both apply to the pneumoconiosis medical board.
The former miner who left the pit is found to have pneumoconiosis with attendant chronic bronchitis and emphysema. He would receive 10 per cent. for the pneumoconiosis, plus 10 per cent. because the pneumoconiosis worsens the chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and would finish with an assessment of 20 per cent. The miner who had spent all his life at the colliery is examined and is found to have dust retention with very acute chronic bronchitis and emphysema. However, as he is not a pneumoconiotic, he cannot be afforded an assessment under that regulation. He is referred to the chronic bronchitis and emphysema regulation, but immediately is ruled out of benefit because he does not meet the 20-year criterion. Again, I contend that that cannot be a fair procedure.
My second example relates to redundant miners. Tens of thousands of former miners have now been made redundant and have not been able to work for 20 years underground. Sadly, but inevitably, some of those young men will develop chronic bronchitis and emphysema due to coal dust retention in the lungs. However, under the qualifying period of 20 years, they will be ruled out of benefit.
In preparing the Bill, I sought medical advice from an eminent chest physician who sits on the regional medical appear tribunal, and that advice was of particular value for the third and fourth amendments of my Bill. Diagnosing dust retention in the lungs from X-rays is an extremely precise art. I am advised that it is made difficult because the normal type of hospital X-ray may not show the condition. A surer way of making an accurate diagnosis—it is called for in my Bill—is to use specific soft exposure X-rays.
Finally, my Bill calls for the replacement of the FEV1 test by a more sensitive medical examination. I am advised that, medically, although the test measures the overall lung function, it is possible for a man to be more breathless due

887
to coal dust induced chronic bronchitis and emphysema and, because of that, to suffer greater disability than a man who has a one litre reduction in the lung function test. Clearly there needs to be an examination to eliminate other causes of breathlessness, and there needs to be a more sensitive examination under the pneumoconiosis regulations. The disease is diagnosed from X-ray evidence and medical examination.
Even when it is accompanied by chronic bronchitis and emphysema, the degree of disability is determined by a medical examination. The amendments in my proposed Bill would make the prescription test for diagnosing chronic bronchitis and emphysema in coal miners and former coal miners a fairer and more just procedure. I urge the House to accept the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Eric Clarke, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. Terry Patchett, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

SOCIAL SECURITY REGULATIONS (CHRONIC BRONCHITIS AND EMPHYSEMA) AMENDMENT
Mr. Michael Clapham accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations to reduce to ten years the aggregate period of underground work required to qualify for benefits in cases of chronic bronchitis and emphysema; to amend the rules relating to medical assessment of percentage levels of disablement in people suffering from these conditions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April, and to be printed. [Bill No.75.]
Madam Speaker: We now come to the ways and means motions.

Ways and Means

  CAPITAL ALLOWANCES: BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That provision may be made for balancing charges under Part I of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 where any of the value of the relevant interest in any building or structure is realised otherwise than on a sale.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  3.49 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Are we taking the motions together or singly, Madam Speaker?
  Madam Speaker: For the convenience of the House, we are taking with the first motion the two following motions relating to PAYE and pre-entry losses:
  That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made relating to the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1993 and the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973.
  That provision may be made amending Schedule 7A to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.
  Mr. Beith: Some words of explanation on the third resolution from the Financial Secretary would be helpful in view of the extent of argument that we have had about the treatment of indexation losses in Committee. We are dealing with the ways and means motion after we have dealt with some aspects of the matter in the Standing Committee that is considering the Finance Bill.
  The House is entitled to know whether the resolution is designed to enable some refinement of the provisions for indexation losses that members of the Committee do not yet know about, or to do something else. The point that I have sought to put to Ministers is that to remove what have become known as the Lawson reforms on indexation losses is a strange move for the Government to make. The abuses that have led the Government to believe it necessary to abandon what they regarded as important and long-lasting changes in tax law could be dealt with by more specific means.
  On the face of it, the ways and means resolution appears to open the way to more specific means of tackling abuses by companies that use subsidiaries as devices to create losses that can be set against gains and, thereby, avoid taxation. That type of abuse could usefully be dealt with, rather than abuses by individuals who, under the changes that the Government propose, will no longer be able to set tax losses in one security against tax gains in another. Of course, if people have their funds in unit trusts, the problem will not arise because the net gains will be considered. However, if people have a small portfolio of shares, they will face a problem.
  The resolutions appear to provide an opening to deal with the problem in a better way than the Government are doing. That made me especially intrigued to know what they were up to.
  3.51 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) should be congratulated on his ingenuity in raising again on the Floor of the House a subject that we debated last night in the Standing Committee that is considering the Finance Bill. The resolution and the new clause for which it is a paving measure is not intended to deal with the subject of loss

  889
  indexation allowance per se. Loss indexation is to do with the quantum of loss relief that is available to a particular taxpayer.
  The two defects that will be dealt with as a result of the ways and means resolution are connected with the transferability of losses between companies within a group. Therefore, they deal with a different issue from that which the right hon. Gentleman is worried about. The issue that he raised was dealt with in last year's Finance Bill,—capital loss buying and the abuse, which is perceived as an abuse by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which derives from companies buying capital losses and setting them off against capital gains elsewhere in the group.
  We introduced last year anti-avoidance measures to deal with that problem. The measures that will be built on the ways and means resolution which we ask the House to approve now will deal with that aspect of the problem. So the resolutions are directed at the transferability of capital losses rather than the quantum of capital losses.
  3.53 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The official Opposition would have been happy to take the three ways and means resolutions formally, but a few words of explanation are called for following the remarks of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
  The three resolutions that facilitate the blocking of three separate potential avoidance devices do not relate to the matter that the right hon. Gentleman raised. I have every sympathy with him in the matter of substance to which he referred. He was right to say that we had a long and not particularly fruitful discussion of the matter yesterday in Committee.
  The three resolutions with which we are dealing all aim to facilitate anti-avoidance legislation. They have the support of the parliamentary Opposition in that. In particular, the second resolution has our support because it is a measure which I called for in the Committee which considered the previous Finance Bill. The Financial Secretary assured us that it was not necessary.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for balancing charges under Part I of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 where any of the value of the relevant interest in any building or structure is realised otherwise than on a sale.

WAYS AND MEANS

  PAYE
  Resolved,
  That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made relating to the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1993 and the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973.

  PRE-ENTRY LOSSES
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made amending Schedule 7A to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

  Redundant Churches
  3.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I beg to move,
  That the draft Grants to the Redundant Churches Fund Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is empowered by section 1(1) and (2) of the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Act 1969—as successor, for this purpose, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, named in the section—to make by order, with the approval of the Treasury, grants to the redundant churches fund up to a specified maximum, over a specified period.
  The redundant churches fund was originally set up in 1969, and the statutory provisions relating to it are currently embodied in the Pastoral Measure 1983. The fund has as its object
  "the preservation, in the interests of the nation, and the Church of England, of churches, and parts of churches, of historic and archaeological interest, or architectural quality, vested in the Fund by Part III of the 1983 Measure, together with their contents so vested."
  Its chairman and members are appointed by Her Majesty after advice has been submitted to her by the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York, through the Prime Minister.
  The fund is now celebrating its quarter century and currently holds 290 churches, ranging from 18th century inner-city churches such as Holy Trinity, Sunderland and St. James, Toxteth, to rural ones, such as the 12th century St. Pendock near Tewkesbury and the 14th century St. James, Luffincott in Devon. What they have in common is that they are all of outstanding quality—a matter on which the Church Commissioners, who decide on vesting, have the expert advice of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, which is also provided for in the 1983 Measure. Together, they form a most impressive portfolio and, along with churches still in pastoral use, a lasting witness to the strength of our ecclesiastical heritage.
  The draft order provides for grants to the fund in the period from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1997; that is, in the next three financial years. The five previous orders each covered a five-year period; the present order is the first to cover only three years. That change implements one of the recommendations in the 1990 Wilding report on the care of redundant churches. Five-year periods were, as Mr. Wilding saw, originally helpful in establishing an assured future for the fund for five years ahead on each occasion, but the fund is now sufficiently well established for that assurance to be unnecessary and there are several reasons for preferring a shorter three-year period.
  In particular, the long lead time needed for preparing a quinquennial budget and obtaining approval means that figures have had to be worked out and presented for discussion up to two years before the beginning of the quinquennium. Those figures are now in cash terms and the process therefore involves trying to take a view, of the rate of redundancy, the rate of vesting and above all the rate of inflation for the next seven years. In our view a three-year period provides a much greater encouragement to realistic forward planning and fits the general public expenditure framework.
  For the period 1994–97, the draft order provides for grants to the fund up to a maximum of £7.2 million. That

  891
  figure includes £2.2 million for the financial year 1994–95 and £2.5 million for each of the following two financial years, as already notified to the fund for planning purposes. The maximum figure in the order has been approved by the Treasury.
  The order as made requires the signature of two Lords Commissioners of the Treasury as well as that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. The annual figures included within the overall grant fall within the relevant public expenditure totals already made public.
  The figures also represent the Government's 70 per cent. contribution towards the fund's expenditure, with the Church Commissioners providing the remaining 30 per cent. The Government's proportion has risen steadily from 40 per cent. in the first quinquennium to 50, 60 and, in the quinquennium just ending, 70 per cent. Therefore. the fund's maximum overall budget amounts to £10.3 million for the coming triennium. That allows for some new vestings and the necessary initial repairs as well as for continuing repairs to churches already vested.
  I would not want to pretend to the House that the level of funding envisaged in the order is ideal, but public expenditure needs to be kept under proper control and the language of priorities rules.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister has mentioned possible new vestings. His attention may have been drawn to the fact that during the debate on the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, I drew attention to a gap between the redundant churches fund and the historic chapel fund in relation to private chapels and chapels of ease that belong to the Church of England but which the redundant churches fund cannot take on. Nor does the historic chapels fund consider it appropriate to take them on—I speak as a trustee of that fund. Is the Minister looking into that problem and will he come back to me about it?
  Mr. Sproat: Yes, I will look at the important problem that the right hon. Gentleman raised and I shall come back to him in due course.
  However, within that framework, we can take a measure of satisfaction from the fact that the maximum provided in the order, taken with what is provided in the Church Commissioners' parallel order already approved—the Payments to Redundant Churches Fund Order 1993—amounts to an increase in cash terms for 1994–95 of 13 per cent. over the current year's figure and a further increase of 16 per cent. planned for 1995–96 and 1996–97.
  The fund's powers under the Pastoral Measure 1983 include the power to hold, manage, repair and maintain the churches vested in it and the power to license the occasional or temporary use of its churches. The Church Commissioners may also divest it of churches vested. The House will recall approving last week the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, which now awaits enactment. That Measure gives the fund some useful further powers, including the power to grant leases, and clarifies its power to charge admission for churches it holds, thus adding to its ability to make good use of the resources provided.
  There is another change in prospect that it might be helpful for me to set out as a background to the draft order. Section 1(1) of the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969 will be amended to enable the Department's grant to be paid to the Church
  892
  Commissioners for the purposes of the fund, rather than directly to the fund itself. That change will implement a further recommendation of the Wilding report and is aimed as making the Church Commissioners
  "a focal point for the review of policy and the selection of priorities and the matching of expenditure with resources."
  Relations between the Department and the fund in respect of the Department's grant are currently regulated by a financial memorandum, setting out both parties' financial responsibilities as approved by the Treasury. In the new circumstances envisaged, there would be a similar memorandum regulating relations between the Department and the Church Commissioners to ensure proper control over the public expenditure element.
  The Church Commissioners are already at the centre of the decision-making process—proposals for redundancy come to them from the dioceses and they decide which churches shall be vested in the fund—but the change proposed would give them a clearer role in the determination of policy and the choice of priorities. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) announced in November 1992 our intention to introduce legislation to that effect when room could be found in the Government programme. I hope that it will be possible to implement it at some stage in the coming triennium.
  There is one final point that could be worrying some hon. Members. The draft order relates to grants to the redundant churches fund, but the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure provides for the fund's name to be changed to the churches conservation trust. That reflects the fact that vested churches are no longer fairly described as redundant, but have a role to play that is of value to Church and state and to their local communities. I can assure the House that the change of name will be automatically applied to the interpretation of the draft order as soon as the measure is enacted. With those few words, I commend the draft order to the House.
  4.4 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I thank the Minister for moving the order, which has the Opposition's support. That is hardly surprising as it was a Labour Administration who, in 1969, introduced the original Measure. I am glad that it has the continued support of the hon. Gentleman's Administration.
  I welcome, too, the change to a three-year period and accept the valid arguments that the Minister made. The fund is well established and there is no danger, in the light of Mr. Wilding's report, in the move to a three-year period.
  The order is important, as is this short debate. People all over the country who are worried about the future use and role of their parish churches will be listening to the debate, anxious to know what chance their churches have of being reprieved and restored and of continuing to play a part in the community. The debate is important to many communities because churches are a key architectural and community resource long after they have ceased to have an ecclesiastical use.
  In previous debates, not least the one on 8 March, to which the Minister referred, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has made it clear that in both rural communities, such as those in East Anglia and in his own part of the country, and in cities, churches are invariably the focus. Historically, they have always been centres for the community for festivals, feasts, music,

  893
  debate from the pulpit and charitable matters such as alms giving. In particular, churches are invariably the most outstanding architectural point in a community, often the most visible, dwarfing all others.
  The future of redundant churches is an important matter to communities and to our architectural heritage. Therefore, it is good that the Minister has moved the order in such a constructive way. There is an element of urgency about it. The noble Lord Templeman's report on the fate of London churches shows the scale of need and the seriousness of the problem.
  The Opposition support this excellent measure, but I should be grateful if the Minister would answer certain questions when he replies to the short debate. He should tell the House something more about the scale of need. Between 20 and 30 churches become redundant every year, but, as far as I am aware, no figure is published of the number of redundant churches for which another use has yet to be found. The Government should make clear the number of churches that are potential recipients of the fund.
  Only when we look at the scale of need and the queue of applications can the House decide whether the fund of £7 million during the next three years and the total fund of something over £10 million are adequate. The Minister recognised in his brief remarks that the amount of money is not ideal. He referred to public expenditure controls and the language of priorities, but he owes it to the House to give some idea of the scale of need. How many applications have been received and what is the total cost?
  The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who usually takes part in these debates but cannot be in his place today, because he is chairing a committee on Bosnia, would have liked to be here. He is a trustee of the Historic Churches Preservation Trust and knows only too well that literally hundreds of applications are received by that trust each year, each one of which runs into six figures—more than £100,000. Very few applications to the trust are for amounts of less than six figures.
  The House can see the scale of need and the size of budget required. Even the most modest re-roofing of a church runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Communities all round the country are doing noble work in raising money by voluntary means, but they cannot address the scale of need and the urgency that such problems present. When the Minister replies, he should tell the House how many churches are queuing up for the money and what the scale of budget is. We could judge what he admits is not an ideal sum in the light of need and the ability to respond to that need.
  When the Minister gives that figure, will he also say how it was arrived at, what the Church Commissioners and others have asked for and what was the range of consultation, not only with Church figures but heritage bodies, to establish that this is the correct sum and that we are not underestimating the need? When we come to renew the order in three years' time, we should be better informed and more aware of how we are responding to the heritage and historic needs of churches. Is the need growing or static? Are we dealing with the backlog slowly or is it beginning to escalate out of control? We need to hear more from the Minister on those matters.
  894
  How are we to address those needs? Does the country have the conservation and restoration skills that are necessary to respond—£7 million is a lot of money to spend even on the few churches that will benefit—for example in masonry, joinery and stained glass? Do we have the architectural and ecclesiastical expertise and the historical understanding of the context of the churches? All that must be addressed. All that is expensive. Hon. Members who have been, for example, to Wells cathedral or Hereford cathedral and seen the high quality of the restoration and conservation work there will know how difficult such work is, and how, on those projects, there has to be a great deal of in-house training to train young stonemasons to deal with the enormous skills that mediaeval stonemasons had but which we have lost over the years.
  It would be useful if the Minister said something about the training and skills that will be implicit in the grants and whether those training skills respond to the level of need. Will the Minister reassure the House that an element of training will be in each of the grants so that we build up a store of skills in masonry, joinery and other ecclesiastical skills and thereby benefit from the good spending of the grant?
  I reiterate that the Opposition thoroughly support the measure and look forward to a report by the Minister on how the money is being spent.
  4.12 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for not being present when the order was introduced. The business galloped ahead with such unaccustomed rapidity, and my hon. Friend's speech was so succinct and to the point, that it overturned and exceeded my capacity to get across the road from No. 1 Whitehall in time to hear even the tail end of it. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is the Opposition spokesman, in his elegant and helpful speech of welcome to the order, touched on most of the important points that my hon. Friend made so I am now as familiar with it as though I had heard it myself.
  I am therefore glad to be able to express warm thanks and appreciation on behalf of the Church Commissioners and the Church of England more widely not only for the substantial financial benefit that will accrue to the Church of England from the order but for the personal interest and concern that my hon. Friend has taken in it and in this part of Government policy. There is bipartisan agreement that it is a responsibility of Government, but nevertheless a demonstration of civilised Government, that they should be prepared to dip hands into the taxpayer's pocket for what is a comparatively rarefied part of public expenditure that will produce no dividends in immediate political popularity but will, nevertheless, preserve things into the future and bring enormous appreciation and value to successive generations.
  Mr. Fisher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a specific question about the criteria with which he and the Church Commissioners, for whom he speaks, approach the selection of churches?
  I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has received some correspondence about St. John's, Hanley, a church in my constituency. That beautiful church, which stands in the centre of the city, is one of Hanley's few fine buildings.

  895
  The Commissioners have been asked to approve its use as a climbing centre, and to deem that use appropriate, although what the community needs is a place for contemplation and repose.
  As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, a strong body of local opinion in the centre of Hanley—led by the rector's wife, Mrs. Janice Owen—is in favour of keeping the church for the community. It would be very helpful to those people, and to other communities in the same position around the country, if the right hon. Gentleman said something about the Commissioners' approach to issues which—as he will appreciate—are of great concern to my constituents, and to others.
  Mr. Alison: I am not sure whether it was the hon. Gentleman who wrote to me about that church; I think that it was. A substantial draft response has been prepared and I feel that it would be improper and undesirable for me to rehearse it now. As a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, however, the case that he has specified has been subjected to microscopic examination.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least derive from the answer that I am about to send him some fairly encouraging insights into the series of filters—some would call them baffles—that lie between the decision of a local diocese, through a pastoral committee, to consider a church for redundancy and the stage at which various architectural and other expert bodies, such as English Heritage, are brought into play under a broad Commission aegis to conclude whether the church should be considered for inclusion in the redundant churches fund. Rather than speaking for a long time now, I shall send the hon. Gentleman a note explaining exactly how we "pick the winner", so to speak.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the right hon. Gentleman shed any light on the number of churches seeking succour from the fund? That would give us a better idea of the extent to which it will be able to deal with applications.
  Mr. Alison: I am tempted to respond to the hon. Gentleman's request, but I do not want to spoil my hon. Friend's winding-up speech, of which that relevant information will be an important feature. Rather than trespassing on his speech, I shall leave that little gem of information for him to hold up and allow to sparkle before the House.
  I thank my hon. Friend warmly for the proposals that he has introduced: he has carried out his departmental responsibilities helpfully and generously. The Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, which we passed the other evening, is the kind of vehicle that makes the essential infrastructure provision for the order, but my hon. Friend's proposals represent the living fuel that enables the machinery to turn over and function. These important resources are the essential key to the Measure.
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). He said the other day that, although we were discussing redundant churches, the Church—partly because of the population shift—is now building a significant number of new churches each year. That is right: the Church must respond to the needs of the present, rather than giving priority to maintaining the heritage. I fully recognise,
  896
  however, that across the Church—and, indeed, more widely—there is a general acceptance that the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969 was far-sighted and wise; I think we should ensure that its purpose continues to be served.
  I shall make two points. First, I echo the important contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and those of one or two other hon. Members who mentioned churches that are not Anglican but which have architectural or other merit. I hope that the debate will send the signal that organisations such as English Heritage will maintain that part of our inheritance.
  Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recalls the fact, because it featured largely in our recent debate, that English Heritage has been determined in its support for, and its help in creating, the Historic Chapels Trust to do precisely that job.
  Mr. Hardy: One hopes that the Treasury will not prevent English Heritage from continuing that obligation. It would be useful if, in his wind-up, the Minister would assure the House that that purpose will continue as a priority.
  Secondly, I relate an incident that occurred in my constituency in the past two weeks. It concerns security. Although the grant is welcome, the challenge facing those responsible for redundant churches as a result of the increased crime rate is quite frightening. I can illustrate the point using a local case.
  The old parish church in Wentworth is the only redundant church in my constituency. It is a 12th century church, which was replaced by a new and much larger building in the late 1870s—I cannot remember whether it was in 1877 or 1879. The new church was built by a very large and powerful Whig family, the Fitzwilliams, who by that time had become very important and presumably very affluent. A much larger church was required for their retinue, miners, gamekeepers and domestic servants, but the old church is of enormous historic and social importance in South Yorkshire.
  In that church lie the mortal remains of the great-great-great-great grandfather of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Stafford. The church is still used from time to time; it is used in the summer, but cannot be used for services in the winter because it has no heating. The two local residents who take charge of the church—Mr. Roy Young, a retired headmaster of the local school, and Mr. Tom Tinker—devote an enormous amount of energy to maintaining the building as an important part of South Yorkshire life. Mr. Young sometimes arranges exhibitions in the church; indeed, he arranged one recently.
  Among the exhibits was a collection of photographs of paintings that were last displayed in the 1930s in Sheffield. Since then, most of the paintings have disappeared, so the photographs in the exhibition are of considerable importance. A number of other artefacts and books were included in the exhibition, but two weeks ago there was a burglary. Thieves got into the church and removed a number of artefacts, including the bible presented by the Marquess of Rockingham, the father of the Rockingham Whig leader who was Prime Minister twice in the 18th century.
  The bible was bound in silver and velvet. The thieves also removed a prayer book which I believe was presented in memory of Viscount Milton, who was the son of the

  897
  great Whig reformer. I often suspect that the family declined after they ceased to be powerful Whigs and I think that their descendants are largely Conservatives—but that is another matter. It was once a very powerful family and Lord Milton was one of the great architects of political reform. The Bible, a very important book which commemorated that fact, was stolen. Other books were also taken, some of which have been recovered. One important book has been recovered, but has been damaged by damp. It was a dreadful theft of important items. As I said, one book that was bound in silver may have been destroyed so that the thieves could extract the silver that bound it.
  To ask the local community to provide 24-hour security is impossible because of the cost of that sort of operation. With the development of interest in antiques and historic artefacts, even the churches in use, as well as the redundant churches, are under grave threat. We tend to assume that the Redundant Churches Fund Order of the Churches Conservation Trust is concerned about the architecture of churches that are vital landmarks in our environment, but often churches may be included in that list because of their interiors. It would be outrageous if we had to insist, because of the rate of crime in our society, that everything inside a church that made it a vital part of our inheritance had to be taken out for safe keeping. Security costs money. One important church in York has to have an attendant and the cost of such attendants can be substantial.
  I wonder whether the arrangements that have been made adequately reflect the soaring rate of crime through which heritage is pillaged and valuable artefacts are broken down and sold in the burgeoning antique business. It is rather disturbing that in our generation we see a greater threat to our heritage as a result of the soaring crime rate than has been the case in the past. Until relatively recently, many of our churches could remain open so that people can go in for prayer and reflection. However, few churches can be left open now. When a church is redundant and the artefacts in it may be attractive, it is extremely vulnerable. When the local community is small and the church already depends on the dedicated service of its people, we cannot expect those people to devote more time to patrol all the churches during the hours of darkness and in inclement weather.
  Wentworth church was burgled during extremely bad weather. However, I am delighted to say—my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) will especially appreciate this in view of his close connection with our local police—that the South Yorkshire police, unlike some police forces, tend to be very successful and the burglars have been apprehended. Whether we recover the artefacts remains to be seen. I have no guarantee, and no one in the village of Wentworth and the surrounding areas can have any guarantee, that the next time Mr. Roy Young, in the pursuit of the growing interest in local history, stages an exhibition in that church, it can be held with a feeling of security that other priceless items will not be stolen.
  The grant envisaged of £7,200,000 is hardly enough to cope with the challenge presented by the soaring rate of crime. In due course, will the Minister consider finding out how much damage has been done, the value of the items that have been stolen and what assessment should be or
  898
  could be made to provide support for the newly named organisation in its efforts to preserve heritage, which I hope that the whole House supports?
  4.28 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It is fairly unusual for the Church of England to get such a prime-time slot. It strikes me as more like a General Synod debate on a dull day than the excitement of the mother of Parliaments. However, such is the product of non co-operation and the timetabling that ensues.
  May I make one significant point, following the debate last week, on the City of London churches? It relates to the amount of money and the demands on that money, which is available through the grant and the order, which I hope will be passed and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I shall support with our colleagues. As the Minister will know, a recent report by Lord Templeman, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred, came to the view, with which I do not disagree, that many City of London churches are no longer needed for the purposes of parish ministry. I hope that all of us in the Church realise that there comes a time when the venue of a church is no longer an appropriate centre for a parish and should not be sustained for that purpose. In rural areas, that happens when the village moves from its original site to a new development elsewhere and we are left with a little church up on a hill and the people living further away, down below. My sister-in-law, who is to be ordained a priest in the Church of England in a few weeks, is a curate in such a parish in Essex. The new daughter church is down in the valley and the original church is on the hill; the population has moved on.
  The same happens in and around cities. In the middle ages, and in the time of Sir Christopher Wren and others, the demand for churches was in the City of London and not in the other places that have been built since. The demand for churches is not there any more. We understand why things have changed. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and others said in the previous debate, many churches were built in excess of requirements even in the middle ages, as presentations to God of the glory of what human beings could create; they were not necessarily all required because of the number of people crowding into the pews.
  In the City of London, we are left with a huge and wonderful array of churches which, to be honest, are not being used by thronging millions for daily or Sunday worship, so I guess that it would be right for the diocese of London to say that many of them are surplus to requirements and are no longer needed as parish churches.
  However, it would be a tragedy if those churches were not to remain publicly available, and available for other uses. I am sure that the Minister would not want that to happen. He was not on the Front Bench during the debate last week, but the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who speaks for the Church Commissioners, mentioned some of the many churches that have come to be used not as parish churches but as churches for special types of congregation or types of worship.
  One church that has been chosen for such a purpose —it was mentioned last week—is the church of St. Agnes and St. Anne, in the City, which is now used as the base for the Lutheran Church in London. Lutherans from Europe

  899
  and America regularly come there and it is a lively church with brilliant music, jazz evening services and all sorts of other good things. That has great merit and contributes to a multi-cultural and diverse population, both those who live in London and those who come to London to visit the church.
  I ask the Minister how the negotiations will proceed, and how far his Department will be involved this time and, more importantly, in debates to come—this will be a three-yearly grant, if approved. How will we be able to ensure that from among the Church Commissioners—for reasons that we will not go into today, they are hard up and do not have much spare money—the Department of National Heritage and others, we can find the funds to enable the churches to survive in a good state of repair? They are the heritage of all of us, they are in the capital city, there is a large number of them, and they will not be needed for the parish ministry. Other people are willing to take them on for other uses, but it will be no good if we leave them to pick up the tab, because they cannot afford it.
  I should be grateful to hear at the end of the debate how the Department intends to make progress on the Templeman report and on working with the Church Commissioners. To use a phrase out of context, I wish to ensure that our beautiful historic legacy of the City of London churches does not fall between the two stools of the Department and the Commissioners, which would prevent us from doing our best to ensure that, as they move from the parish ministry to other work, the churches remain among the glories of the City of London in this wonderfully endowed country of ours.
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall speak briefly, following on from a brief intervention that I made in the debate on the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure last week. I speak not as a member of the Church but from an agnostic point of view. I do not approach the matter from the point of view of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who represents the Church Commissioners and who feels that spending the money may be appreciated by only a narrow section of the population. I believe that the beauty and the majesty of churches in the townscape and in the landscape generally are widely appreciated by a vast cross-section of the population and by far more people than actually attend churches.
  The churches are part of the rich pattern of diversity in our townscape and landscape. Sadly, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, that diversity was much reduced by philistine architecture, which changed from buildings with curves, shapes, nooks and crannies that hold, arrest and entertain the eye, to square utilitarian blocks with little to commend them, not even the internal comforts for the occupants. Indeed, in the case of tower blocks, there has been an enormous number of problems.
  The churches of the Church of England are an important aesthetic pleasure—they are part of our art museum. Redundant churches are part of our national art museum and, therefore, it is right that the money envisaged in the order should be spent. As I said last week, the grant will help the Church of England to resist the god of mammon. Occasionally, the Church of England has been tempted to ensure that a church is demolished, so that it can obtain
  900
  revenue from the church site because it wants the money. I hope that the order will help to preserve some of the magnificent buildings that so many people appreciate.
  I hope that the Minister has taken note of the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It is not only churches of the Church of England which provide pleasure to the eye when they are redundant and should be retained—chapels are also part of the rich nonconformist tradition, especially in the north of England. For example, a beautiful chapel at Cleckheaton—where else—which is a magnificent testimony to the spirit of nonconformity, is being turned into a night club. I would rather see it as a night club than demolished. But, at the same time, we have lost a great many churches and chapels which potentially could have had some use and given pleasure if they had been retained.
  Architectural buildings of magnificence are not simply buildings; they are a message from the people who built them. They were built with great care and devotion. They are a testimony to the beliefs of the time and, especially in the case of chapels, a testimony to dissidence. Testimonies to dissidence should be retained, because it is a spirit which I regard with affection.
  The Minister said that he will tell the House what demand there is for the money—just over £7 million and a total of £10.3 million in three years. Will the money be adequate, or will we see the continuing erosion of some buildings because it is inadequate? I understand the priorities that affect any Government and about which tough decisions must be made. However, it will be useful to know what demand there is for the money.
  The Minister helped the House by saying that the order will be changed when the legislative process of the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure is completed—the change from the redundant churches fund to the Churches Conservation Trust will be automatically applied in the order. That is all well and good. However, I hope that that sort of useful information will be added to the explanatory note in the future so that people are informed when they read it. We should try to make legislation as clear as possible before it leaves the House. The explanatory note is not part of the order and, therefore, does not depend on the passage of the Measure for its authenticity. It could be made clear that the change in name depends on the passage of the Measure. That would help in any future reference.
  The order is probably the only legislation introduced by the Labour Government which the Conservative Government are likely to support, so we should certainly welcome it.
  4.38 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not intend to repeat what I said in the debate on the Pastoral Measure last week, but I shall pick up two or three points made in the debate.
  The Minister need not go as far as Cleckheaton to see a chapel converted into a night club. He need walk only as far as Charing Cross road where, just on the left, he will see a very substantial, former Welsh calvinistic Methodist chapel which, during my time in the House, has been converted into a night club. There are many conversions of churches and chapels in London and elsewhere.
  That leads me to make the point that the redundant churches fund and the Historic Chapels Trust cannot hope to cope with the full range and number of buildings that

  901
  may cease to be used for parish or congregational worship. There is a quite widespread public feeling that, if possible, fewer buildings should cease to be used either as parish churches or as places of congregational worship. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said that people in parishes all over the country would be interested in this order, so that they can discover what will happen to their churches. Many will hope that their church does not fall into the hands of the redundant churches fund because they will want it to continue in use.
  There is an understandable view in the churches that buildings must be secondary to the Church's mission. However, there is a view in the community that if the Church wants to serve the community one thing that it can do is continue to keep open places that the community has for centuries regarded as sanctified by worship, which are of special architectural quality and which provide a place of repose and meditation that many people find important. There is, therefore, a certain tension between what the Church feels impelled to do and what communities want. I underline the point that we do not want an excessive number of churches and chapels to be made redundant. When they are, some of them must be considered for alternative uses and some can appropriately be put to other uses, particularly those whose visual contribution is primarily their exterior, which adds a great deal to the townscape.
  Mr. Hardy: I would not necessarily object to a redundant church becoming licensed premises. We have in my constituency a former church run by Mr. Joe Hodgson who calls it the St. James' club, and it is conducted wholesomely. However, a building owned by our parish church in Wath upon Dearne was acquired by a brewery company; it secured planning permission for "upmarket purposes" and subsequently called it the Jailhouse Alehouse. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if church buildings are to become licensed premises they should be given reasonably suitable names?
  Mr. Beith: Anyone who takes over an historic building should have some sympathy for the building in the use that he makes of it. Generally, it is commercially a good thing to draw on the traditions and qualities of a building when one uses it for some other activity. Many nonconformists, however, are uncomfortable with their buildings becoming licensed premises, and some have trust conditions and covenants expressly to prevent their use as such, which complicates the situation when a sale is in prospect.
  Incidentally, therein lies a fundamental difference between the redundant churches fund and the various other schemes, including the Historic Chapels Trust, which try to save churches. The fund's churches are handed over to it by the Church Commissioners; they do not have to be acquired at a price. Any attempt to save a nonconformist building, including an attempt by the Historic Chapels Trust, needs money to buy it, perhaps against the competition. The church concerned may want to sell the building for another use in order to reuse the funds as part of its "development strategy", as they like to call it these days.
  Some nonconformist denominations have even sought to sell their buildings in such a way as to ensure that they do not go to other denominations lest they provide
  902
  competition for their own congregations. I recall a case in New Mills where a Methodist church, in my view wrongly, sought to prevent a chapel from remaining in use because it thought that it would attract some of its present congregation and deter them from moving to the place where they were supposed to go as part of the rationalisation scheme. So all sorts of factors enter into nonconformist buildings, and some of them are relevant to the point that I made in an intervention on the Minister about a category of Church of England buildings with which, at present, the redundant churches fund cannot deal. They are those which are separately owned, either as private, proprietary chapels, such as St. John's, Matlock Bath, or hospital chapels or other buildings which fall firmly within the tradition of the Church of England but which are not in its direct ownership. That is a problem which we must address because, as a trustee of the Historic Chapels Trust, I find it difficult to envisage that a trust with so many responsibilities for nonconformist, Roman Catholic and Jewish buildings could take on a whole batch of Church of England buildings as well. The redundant churches fund could do that particular job. The prospects for co-operation between the redundant churches fund and the Historic Chapels Trust are very good. We are already on good working terms.
  I particularly want to say that English Heritage has been very supportive in setting up the Historic Chapels Trust and in its continuing work, and I hope that the Government will continue to take a close interest in what we do. It is of considerable importance that we apply the same efforts to key redundant nonconformist buildings as the redundant churches fund has applied so successfully to many redundant Church of England churches.
  Many of these churches are hugely valued by the community. The work that has been done to conserve and protect them is of lasting value for many generations to come. We strongly support the order.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Sproat: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to this extremely interesting debate—more interesting than perhaps it looked at the beginning when the Benches were rather sparsely populated.
  I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) for welcoming the order on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. He said that the debate would be heard all round the country and I am certain, from the contributions that have been made this afternoon, that he is absolutely right.
  The hon. Member referred to the Templeman report. Perhaps I may come to that in the context of the contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and say one or two things about it later. He also mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). My hon. Friend did me and the House the courtesy of coming to apologise for being unable to be present because he is chairing a meeting of a committee on Bosnia, but he told me how much he welcomed the purport of the draft order.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked about the number of redundant churches likely to come up and whether the funds were sufficient. It is an absolutely central question and it is fair and proper that he should ask it. Some 290 churches are currently vested. During the 1980s, roughly 10 churches asked for help. The number

  903
  then fell off, for reasons on which I cannot speculate—it was probably just a mathematical fluke—to between six and eight churches a year from 1991 to 1993. Once again, however, as we have this debate, something like 10 cases are in the pipeline. It looks as though that is the order of magnitude about which we are talking.
  The hon. Member also asked whether the funding was sufficient to deal with those churches. We hope that it is. We expect that it is. It is true that the fund wanted rather more money than we gave it: it wanted some £16 million and we have given it £10 million. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned a figure of £7.2 million. That is the Government's contribution, and the Church Commissioners' contribution takes it up to just over £10 million. In answer to the hon. Member's question, therefore, the situation does not appear to be escalating out of control. We will keep a close eye on it, but at the moment we think that it is under as much control as something so unpredictable can be.
  The hon. Member also asked whether we had the necessary skills in this country, such as stonemasonry and carving, to deal with the problem. We do. If we look at cathedrals—the hon. Member mentioned Wells and there are others such as Ely—we see excellent examples of work, proving that we still have the skills in this country. English Heritage set up a new training centre where those skills are taught. Its name escapes me—it is something like Fort Brockenhurst, but I will check and let the hon. Member know. It is very important that this marvellous tradition be kept alive and well. Although that is not one of the purposes of the fund, it will be one of its most beneficial side effects.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for his contribution, which, as he is one of the Church Commissioners, is particularly welcome.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) raised the very sad question of the security of churches. I agree that this is a disturbing trend. When I was in Birmingham yesterday, someone told me about people who had fired guns at stained glass windows during church services. This is not quite the same thing, but it is an indication of the lack of respect with- which such places are now treated.
  For the purposes of the fund, contents are regarded as integral to a church. Thus, we shall certainly look very carefully at the problem of burglary and at the question of security in general. So far, the problem does not seem to have been unmanageable. We have been monitoring the situation and the indications are that, in so far as one can ever say that such things are under control, it is not wildly out of control.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned the Templeman report. Templeman said that 12 churches should be withdrawn from use. It is absolutely
  904
  unthinkable that those buildings should be demolished. The Templeman report will be addressed by the diocese of London in the autumn. Technically, this is not a matter for my Department—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Not yet.
  Mr. Sproat: As the hon. Gentleman says, not yet. However, we shall take a very close look at the situation.
  My understanding is that the question of funding could be resolved in one of the two ways that have so far been suggested. One suggestion is that a new city churches trust be set up and that will be looked into by the diocese of London. The second suggestion is that city churches be made eligible under the normal fund provisions. When we make our arrangements for funding for the next triennium we shall take into account whatever decision the diocese of London arrives at. I agree strongly with the point about the beautiful legacy of London churches. We shall make sure that the situation is not allowed to slip to such an extent that churches have to be demolished.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said something with which the whole House will agree: that the rich pattern of architectural diversity that these churches represent is crucial. All of us—to whichever church we belong, or whether to any church at all—will have agreed with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman. He said that we should be concerned not only with Church of England churches but with nonconformist chapels and the great tradition that they encapsulate in brick and stone. Because what the hon. Gentleman has said is so true, we recently set up the Historic Chapels Trust. The first two chapels have already been acquired and they will be eligible for English Heritage grant. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, English Heritage has been very helpful in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that body is looked after by my Department. We intend to see that it continues to be as helpful as it has been.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a good point about the change of name to Churches Conservation Trust. Perhaps it should have been included in the explanatory memorandum. It is a good idea, but it did not occur to me. In fact, we intend to include it when the order ceases to be a draft, if the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure is enacted.
  The right hon. Member mentioned the tensions that so often arise between Church and people. He is very right, but I am glad to say that it is not usually my job to resolve tensions.
  With this brief reply, I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Grants to the Redundant Churches Fund Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.

  Rateable Values
  4.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move,
  That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
  That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
  That the draft Football Grounds (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
  That the draft Telecommunications Industry (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
  Mr. Stewart: The four draft orders concern the determination of rateable values. Three of them could reasonably be described as technical. The first two continue derating in Scotland for the coming financial year for industrial and freight transport lands and heritages and for mines and quarries. The fourth concerns the annual recalculation of the rateable value of the telecommunications hereditament in England and Wales. The third order, which may be of particular interest to the House, introduces a revenue-based scheme of formula valuation for Scottish Football League club grounds for the present financial year and for 1994–95.
  As we move towards full harmonisation of rating valuation north and south of the border and towards a common level of rate poundage, the justification for industrial derating obviously diminishes. We have, therefore, undertaken to phase out industrial derating in Scotland in parallel with the progressive reduction of rate poundages that continues this year. Measures have already been introduced to secure a further reduction of £60 million in non-domestic rates next year. That allows us to reduce the level of industrial derating from the 1993–94 level of 17.5 per cent. to 10 per cent. for 1994–95. That is achieved by the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order. The Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order provides for the same level of derating to apply to mines and quarries.
  With regard to formula valuation, the Football Grounds (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order relates to the valuation of Scottish Football League club grounds. That subject has been of considerable interest to hon. Members—in particular, perhaps, those who are members of the all-party Scottish sports group, chaired by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), which has taken a special interest in the matter. The order prescribes a formula to be used in determining the rateable values for 1993–94 and 1994–95. The objective is to mirror the effect of the non-statutory scheme of valuation that is used for similar subjects in England and Wales.
  As hon. Members who are interested in this subject will recall, following the 1990 revaluation the Valuation Office agency and the Scottish assessors assured the Government that, although different methods of valuation had been used north and south of the border for league football grounds, broad harmonisation had been achieved. However, that was not the view of the Scottish Football Association, the
  906
  Scottish Football League and their members, who maintained that there were still significant differences, resulting in an unfair rating burden falling on Scottish clubs. As there is a discretionary element in the English scheme, it is not possible to prove some of these things with certainty. However, we have decided that it is right that the method of valuation for this class of subject should be seen to be as similar as possible on both sides of the border. The draft order therefore seeks to mirror the effect of the non-statutory English scheme of valuation for league football grounds by assigning to each Scottish Football League club ground a valuation by formula based on the club's home league gate receipts in the season 1987–88, as that is the year in relation to which values were struck for the 1990 revaluation.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the order have any consequential effects on junior football clubs? As the Minister knows, many of their grounds are becoming dilapidated and funds are extremely scarce. There is a problem with junior football grounds.
  Mr. Stewart: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman says, but the scheme applies purely to league football grounds. The issue of Highland league clubs was raised, but if the formula were applied to them, most would pay rather more than at present. We sensibly decided not to extend the formula.
  Mr. John McFall: The Minister will appreciate that the Scottish Football Association is concerned about its clubs in the Highland and East of Scotland leagues. Will he gave a commitment to consider the situation because of the genuine concerns of the SFA?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is right. The SFA has genuine concerns and we have considered them. The issue is not covered by the order, but he asked us to keep the matter under review and I give him the commitment, without making any promises, that we will continue to consider the matter. We are approaching a general revaluation, which may be of assistance.
  Hon. Members may be interested to know that the draft order will be of particular benefit to clubs that have either moved recently to new purpose-built stadiums or have incurred significant costs in modernising their grounds to meet the requirements of the Taylor report. Most clubs will see their valuations reduced as a consequence of the order.
  The fourth order deals with the way in which the rateable value of Mercury Communications is recalculated annually between England and Wales. The matter has been discussed with Mercury Communications, which is content with the fact that the technical recalculation introduced by the order corrects a discrepancy that was not originally appreciated. I hope that the orders commend themselves to the House.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. John McFall: As the Minister said, three of the four orders are technical. The one involving the rating of football grounds is of greater interest to us. The Minister will know that the order has been a long time coming. The Minister first took the matter up way back in 1983 during a previous incarnation in the Scottish Office. For us to make any progress, he had to leave the Scottish Office, return to it and be the subject of lobbying. At that time, a White Paper expressed the view that Scottish sports

  907
  grounds generally paid more in rates than their counterparts in England and Wales because the two systems used differing rate poundages and methods of valuation. As he knows, Scottish football clubs petitioned against the system. In 1985, a number of appeals were heard involving statutory provisions by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland and the Lands Valuation Appeals Court. Clubs such as Celtic, Hibernian and Heart of Midlothian appealed and Celtic received a 25 per cent. amendment to its rates.
  The disparity between the position for clubs in England and those in Scotland has been highlighted. The Minister mentioned the building of new stadiums. I remember that a comparison was made between Scunthorpe United and St. Johnstone regarding the building of new stadiums. Both grounds had a capacity of about 10,000, but the 1990 assessments were £10,500 for Scunthorpe United and £65,000 for St. Johnstone—a gross disparity between clubs in England and Scotland. Nothing much happened, however, and Scottish clubs continued to press the Minister.
  In April 1991, the Scottish Office wrote to the Premier League clubs to gather information to enable detailed consideration to be given to the effect of a change to a revenue-based approach to valuation of football grounds in Scotland. In March 1993, the Scottish Office stated that there was insufficient time before the 31 March deadline of that year for a statutory instrument to be introduced. We are delighted that, this year, that has happened.
  Mr. Roland Boyes: What are the consequences of the order for Berwick Rangers and other Scottish teams?
  Mr. McFall: The Minister could guide me, but I think that the smaller clubs, rather than the larger ones, will benefit from the order. During his regular forays across the border to see Berwick Rangers, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) may see things getting better in the coming months as a result of the statutory instrument.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I had intended to raise the subject later, but I shall do so now following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). There is an anomaly in that Berwick Rangers plays in the Scottish league, but its ground is located in England. Presumably, therefore, it will not benefit from the provisions. It will be interesting if the Minister will tell us—perhaps he will receive inspiration from someone on his left-hand side in due course—whether Berwick Rangers will be significantly better off than other Scottish league clubs as a consequence of the continuing difference between the rating systems north and south of the border.
  Mr. McFall: I think that it is up to me to give a typical "Yes Minister" reply by saying that, at present, I do not have that information at my fingertips, but I shall do everything to ensure that Berwick Rangers prosper in the future. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me on that.
  I mentioned our qualified support for the order. The Scottish Football League and the SFA are glad that the order has been laid before the House and do not wish to impede its progress. Some issues, however, should still be brought to the Minister's attention because there has been
  908
  insufficient focus on some aspects. For example, as I mentioned, last year the order was not laid before the House in time. The inability to implement the statutory instrument in the previous rate year led to a greater loss of benefit to Scottish clubs than was envisaged by either the SFA or the Scottish Office. It would have been beneficial if the formula in the statutory instrument had been adjusted to compensate fully for that period, but I believe that that will not happen.
  In addition, the formula, although available only until the 1995 valuation, does not allow for major physical changes that would result in significant changes in the pattern of income. It appears that total loss of structures or loss of individual structures in grounds cannot be reflected in the formula, as instanced in the case of Aberdeen football club. Under the formula, 1988 is the date for valuations in terms of rental evidence for the 1990 roll and the physical circumstances are those pertaining at 1 April 1990. The formula does not allow for the correct adjustment for clubs that have moved league positions as well as grounds in the intervening period. A particular problem faces St. Johnstone football club, which has moved to a new ground.
  The 50 per cent. rule in the formula excludes Queen's Park football club from the calculation. The clubs and the SFA reckon that the rule is inequitable and bad. Queen's Park FC is termed as a rateable occupier of Hampden Park, and although Hampden is used by others—for example, it is used for international events for which payment is made to the rateable occupier—the statutory instrument seeks to exclude Queen's Park from the formula, thereby prejudicing its position with regard to rateable value and rate payment.
  Queen's Park and the SFA would like the position regarding Hampden to be put into two categories—one for Queen's Park exclusively and the other to recognise that it is a national football ground. The exclusion that is built into the statutory instrument for the purposes of leaving Queen's Park to be valued on a contractor basis is wholly inappropriate and has no foundation in rating law, vis-a-vis the point that the club, as a rateable occupier of a football ground, is treated differently from other similar rateable occupiers of football grounds.
  The Minister mentioned that the statutory instrument has been written to apply only to clubs in membership of the Scottish Football League notwithstanding the fact that, from the outset of discussions relative to the rating of football grounds on a revenue-based method, the SFA has sought to have consideration given to applying the agreed scheme to all member clubs that participate in other leagues, such as the Highland league and the East of Scotland league.
  The exclusion of such clubs, whose circumstances are similar in many instances to those of clubs in membership of the. Scottish Football League, is considered to be inequitable and is an issue which the Opposition and the SFA would wish to have addressed in the lead-up to the 1995 revaluation. I am pleased to note the Minister's comments on that point.
  A number of problems have resulted with the current system in relation to the Taylor report. For example, my understanding is that if a Scottish club improves its stadium, the rateable value will increase. In addition, a club's overall income might very well fall as a result of finished improvements that lowered the ground's capacity

  909
  and because parts of the ground had to be closed while improvements were in progress. That particular point was made regarding Celtic and Parkhead this year.
  The result is that clubs would spend large amounts of money on improvements while their incomes suffered as a result of lower capacities and, at the end of the day, they would face higher rateable values for the work that they had undertaken. The current situation partly explains the reluctance of Scottish football clubs to improve their grounds. I do not accept that proposition and I hope that the Minister agrees. It is important for Scottish football clubs to come into line with the Taylor recommendations as soon as possible.
  I hope that, for the sake of the fans and of safety at Scottish football grounds, the Minister will cast a critical eye towards clubs, particularly those in the Premier League, regarding implementation of the Taylor report.
  I give the example my local club, Dumbarton. The income of clubs at its level may depend on getting a good Scottish cup tie. For example, Dumbarton played Rangers a couple of months ago at Ibrox, with a hefty sum of money as a result. That money will take the club over the year, and that was good for Dumbarton. But many clubs in the lower divisions do not have that opportunity, and they are up against it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned junior clubs. I know that they are not included in the statutory instrument, but if we want to keep our heritage and our football culture alive, we must look at such issues as time goes on.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I would just caution my hon. Friend about his enthusiasm for the Taylor report and the need to implement crowd safety. Clubs are confronting problems because of delays in planning processes. That has meant, for example, that Hibernian FC is faced with the requirement to have an all-seated ground before the start of next season. The club has plans to move from the existing Easter road stadium to a facility at Straiton.
  The difficulty is that it has encountered problems in planning that have meant that it must spend money that has been allocated for the prospective Straiton project on Easter road because the club is required to have an all-seated ground by the end of July in preparation for next season.
  Money that should be going on future improvements will have to be spent on a stadium which, frankly, will be redundant at the end of the season after this. Therefore, there should be qualification of my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the Taylor report. The way in which it has been interpreted and applied by Mr. Farry of the SFA seems to suggest that there is a requirement on every club to have an all-seated ground by the beginning of next season.
  That is regardless of the good endeavours of clubs to meet serious slippages in the planning processes. Hibernian FC has to spend on the old stadium money that it does not really have and which was identified for the new stadium because of the narrow and unhelpful interpretation of the rules that have been laid down somewhat brutally and simplistically by the secretary to the SFA.
  Mr. McFall: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. I know that that problem applies to Hibernian, and also applied to Celtic before the present board took over. I believe that Celtic FC was to put in plastic seats in Parkhead. As a general principle, I believe that football clubs should have had their houses in order on this issue years ago, as provincial clubs such as Aberdeen and Dundee United have done.
  If clubs are there to satisfy fans and to breed success on the park, they must have the best facilities possible. In that context, I would say that the Taylor report is pointing in the right direction, and the quicker that clubs comply with it the better, although there are certain caveats.
  With those comments—I am rather surprised that the order has generated such debate—I welcome the proposition, but, like Oliver Twist, I come back to ask for more.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I will say a few words, initially to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the statutory instrument on football grounds. I believe that it measures up to the needs of Scottish football and certainly recognises the difference between the major and minor clubs. The formula is a good one which recognises the pulling power of the major clubs and the fact that there are differences in cost between access to second division and Premier League games. That is a major factor in the formulae that have been devised.
  I can identify with most of what was said by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). Perhaps one disagreement would be with his use of the term "provincial clubs" when he referred to Aberdeen and Dundee United. Those clubs would see themselves as slightly more than provincial, and the way in which the teams perform would certainly suggest that.
  My hon. Friend stressed the importance of ensuring that Scottish clubs were not paying more in this way than their counterparts south of the border; that happened in the past. The changes seem to be another example of the drive towards a uniform business rate, which we all wish to see in Scotland.
  I should be interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments on the point raised about Berwick Rangers a few minutes ago. He suggested that the valuations would reflect the amount of capital investment made by clubs in bringing their stadiums up to standard. That, again, is an important point which my hon. Friend recognised, and I congratulate him on dealing with it.
  As for the Taylor report and the comment that was made about the Hibs, I should have thought that there would be powers of derogation. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister would clarify that point. Perhaps it does not lie entirely with the secretary to the Scottish Football Association. I should have thought that a realistic approach would allow us to ensure that the overall objectives set by Taylor could be reached in a way that did not place unnecessary expenditure in the path of those clubs that drive towards the Taylor recommendations.
  With those few words and my congratulations once again, I am pleased to welcome the statutory instrument.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to raise three subjects: first, football; secondly, mines and quarries and thirdly, Mercury.
  I begin by reiterating my comment that money is desperately needed for many of the junior football clubs. The Minister and everyone here knows that the stadiums are often crumbling. There simply is not enough money to allow the necessary capital expenditure to be found. I realise that the matter is on the periphery of the order that we are discussing, but it raises the question whether some of the money that finds its way to the senior football clubs should find its way to the junior clubs. After all, the junior clubs are the feeders. If junior football is not flourishing, that is detrimental not only to the Scottish game as a whole but to many communities. What is the Government's thinking about junior grounds?
  I wonder whether I could turn the Government's mind to a constituency problem that has wider implications. I am deeply and increasingly worried about the position of the Polkemmet pit. I should explain the background. Polkemmet used to be the second biggest pit in Scotland. I am glad that the Minister for Energy is here. He may recollect that, unfortunately, during the miners' strike after weeks, indeed months, of good relations between the police and the National Union of Mineworkers, the pit was flooded, in the most horrendous circumstances, partly because of the infiltration of individuals who crossed picket lines. Mrs. Rimington has to take her responsibility for that matter, which has been raised in an Adjournment debate.
  Be that as it may, Polkemmet was flooded. Now we have a double problem. First, there is the question of purification of water. It is a matter of considerable concern to the Lothian purification board that the amassing water from Polkemmet is finding its way into all sorts of underground water supplies throughout the Lothians. The second and even more immediate problem is that the fire at the top of the pit has not been put out. I say that in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who speaks for the Opposition on mining matters. The fact of the matter is, and he knows it, that the cone of fire is still burning. It is very difficult to put out a fire without massive development on the surface. One has to tackle the fire by vast opencast expenditure. Is any Government finance likely to be available through the order to help the local authorities?
  The Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order says:
  "after consultation with such associations of local authorities".
  When the Government are doing their best to create mayhem among the local authorities, this is not the easiest moment to get the full attention of local authorities on an urgent problem. Incidentally,
  "such associations of local authorities"
  is slightly unusual wording. I wonder why it is not "after consultation with the local authorities". Is there any significance in the wording "such associations of"?
  At a time when it becomes ever more clear that British Coal is willing to take less responsibility for its residual problems—Polkemmet is such a problem—what will be done about a major pit fire? Will it be entirely left to West Lothian district council? If it is, the Government will see in full focus the problems that a small local authority has when faced with a major problem. I would rather that
  912
  Lothian region was there to cope with the problem of Polkemmet, or at least help cope with it, than the problem being left to the small district councils.
  The last subject that I wish to raise—I see that you are on the edge of your seat, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is Mercury. I am not sure whether you had taken over the Chair when the Minister mentioned Mercury Communications. I do not know whether the reference was to the English order. I asked the Clerk at the Table to let me have a look at the order, which is not immediately available in the bunch in the Vote Office. The order refers entirely to England. In any case, I shall continue until such time as I am told that I am out of order.
  There is an immediate issue in connection with Mercury Communications and Hutchison Microtel. It can be encapsulated in what happened at Cairnpapple a year ago. It may be within the recollection of Ministers that Hutchison Microtel, which is based in Hong Kong—I make no complaint about that; it is a big international company—decided to erect a mast on the perimeter fence of what Historic Scotland claims is the most important bronze-age site—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman deploys his argument, let me say that the Telecommunications Industry (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order covers England and Wales and is exclusive to England and Wales. It is about the valuation of Mercury's cable in those two parts of the United Kingdom. So unless the hon. Gentleman intends to deploy his argument in relation to parts of England and Wales, I shall have to ask him to cease giving the example that he had begun to give us.
  Mr. Dalyell: The cable will be temporarily extended to Scotland. In defence of that attitude, apart from the fact that I have wanted to air this grievance for a long time—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All of us have wished to express certain views and opinions for a long time, but there are times when they are in order and times when they are out of order. That cannot be the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument. A temporary move or alleged temporary move of certain cables is equally not a sound basis on which to take the argument further.
  Mr. Dalyell: All of us have to plug into our parliamentary opportunities when such occasions arise. Could you spend a minute thinking about why the Minister could raise the subject and I could not? It was the Minister who sparked me. Had it not been for him, I would not have had the opportunity to raise the matter. I ask briefly—it will be in one sentence—whether the Government are giving any careful thought to the planning considerations in determining whether masts should be put up near historic sites and in areas of natural beauty.
  I am coming back to England straight away. I gather that after the Cairnpapple episode, which received a great deal of national publicity, there were considerable complaints in Bradford and elsewhere about masts being erected without proper consideration. In this rating matter, I wonder whether I could stretch the point—that will be the end of the tube as far as I am concerned, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and ask whether the Government will consider that point and at least write to me about it.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Stewart: Of course I always listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Some of the matters that he mentioned are the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and he, of course, will also have listened to the hon. Gentleman. The English and Welsh order applies simply to the calculation of the rateable values of cables, not masts in England and Wales or Scotland, and the order applies only to England and Wales.
  I thank the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for expressing the Opposition's welcome for the orders. He is right to say that they have been a long time coming. Many people have done a great deal of work and the hon. Gentleman will recognise, as my hon. Friends have recognised, that this is a complex matter. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) spoke about Berwick Rangers. As he knows, Berwick Rangers is located in England and its ground is therefore harmonised with other English football grounds. That means that Berwick Rangers is unaffected by the order.
  Mr. Boyes: We are in an interesting situation. May I put a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I am not absolutely sure—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order for the Chair I will have to listen to it.
  Mr. Boyes: I am not sure whether the Minister has finished or is expecting an intervention from me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can clarify that. The Minister has the Floor and he has given way to the hon. Gentleman for a short intervention. When the hon. Gentleman has made that intervention, the Minister will resume his speech.
  Mr. Stewart: I thought that I had not wholly satisfied the hon. Gentleman and that he wanted to intervene. If he does, I am happy to give way.
  Mr. Boyes: I want to make a small contribution to the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make his contribution at this point.
  Mr. Stewart: I was dealing with the points made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton. I am happy to reassure him about the effects of the order on a number of the clubs that he mentioned. He will be glad to know that Dumbarton benefits under the order. He specifically mentioned St. Johnstone, which had a rateable value of £65,000 under the previous system. Its estimated rateable value—it is an estimate at this stage—is £18,000 under the formula in the order. The hon. Gentleman spoke about improvements in relation to the Taylor report.
  Mr. Boyes: Whether it relates to Scottish or English football, this is an important issue. It is a major problem for many football grounds because of the amount of revenue needed to increase the value of the team. Some of us are a little worried about whether smaller clubs will have enough cash to provide all the seating that will be needed. In general, we accept Taylor's thesis, but the smaller grounds have big problems and a number of them will not be able to determine the number of seats that will be needed in the next few years.
  914
  The Minister must accept that some clubs will not be able to provide all that the Taylor report requires, and he should consider granting leeway for some of the smaller clubs. Some clubs in Scotland and England are very small and are strapped for cash and much money will be needed to satisfy the demands and needs of the Taylor report. As I say—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a long intervention. The hon. Gentleman can catch my eye when the Minister has finished if he wishes to make a speech.
  Mr. Stewart: Perhaps I could help the hon. Gentleman and the House by saying, in relation to a number of clubs, that the certainty of valuation under the order would protect clubs such as Hearts and Hibs, which were referred to by Opposition Members, from any potential increase in their valuations for 1994–95 which may have occurred under the contractor's principle if they had embarked on significant modernisation work to meet the requirements of the Taylor report. In principle, the same point applies to Aberdeen, which is undertaking a major ground improvement. That would have been reflected in a substantial increase in its rateable value under the previous system compared with the present one. Under the formula system that we propose, the club is bound to be better off.
  The main criticism of the order by the hon. Member for Dumbarton, which I have not dealt with in my short speech or in answer to interventions, related to Hampden Park. Of course, that matter has been raised with us. We appreciate that Hampden Park is a national stadium. Its 1990 valuation of £80,000, which of course could have been subject to review because of phase 1 of redevelopment, compares with £560,000 for the National Stadium of Wales, £226,500 for Murrayfield and £1.25 million for Wembley. Like other football grounds, Hampden Park will, of course, be subject to the 1995 revaluation.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton said that this was not a perfect order. We recognise that, but the objective was to bring Scottish valuation into line, as far as was possible, with the treatment of clubs south of the border. We have substantially achieved that and I commend the orders to the House.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Roland Boyes: I have three small matters to raise with the Minister. First, Berwick Rangers is in an interesting situation because it is an English club and is in a Scottish league. At times, it is difficult to resolve that dichotomy. From time to time, Berwick Rangers has a good season and about two or three years ago it was doing extremely well. Generally, it does not do too well. It is vital to sustain our small clubs, of which Berwick Rangers is one.
  A host of clubs in Scotland will have some difficulty in satisfying the requirements of the Taylor report. There is a similar situation in England where some football grounds will have big problems. I watch about 50 football matches every season and that means that I visit clubs of varying sizes—some with large parks and others in great difficulty. Consequently, that affects the rateable value of the grounds.
  I confess that it would be a damned sight easier for me to talk about English football clubs than about Scottish ones, but in a sort of algebraic way there is a means of getting from the poorer English teams to the poorer

  915
  Scottish teams. I think that Hampden Park is being equipped and transformed and will have an official opening in the near future. The Minister may be able to confirm that. For us, Hampden Park is like Wembley is for England. It is is one of the most important places for football in Scotland.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman mentioned poorer teams in England and Scotland. In Scotland we have great teams and good teams, but no poor teams.
  Mr. Boyes: There is always one, and today it happens to be the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
  Hampden Park is one of the great places for football. When I was a young boy, my uncle used to take me to football matches up and down the country and a visit to Hampden Park was extremely special. I remember seeing a film of thousands of people running on to the pitch. I hope that, through the formula of the rating valuations, we can make Hampden Park even better. That is a value judgment, but many clubs would like to be in a similar position. A number of them might not have as much cash as they might have had because of what is happening at Hampden Park.
  I shall return to Berwick and Hampden in a moment, particularly as Berwick is an English club in the Scottish league.
  Mr. O'Neill: It may be interesting for my hon. Friend to note that a Scottish club from Gretna Green participated in the FA Cup last season, so there seems to be two-way traffic.
  Mr. Boyes: I am glad that my hon. Friend nudged me on that point. I understand that Gretna Green has had a good run and is top of the league. It would have been remiss of me not to mention a Scottish football club that is in the English league. We have to recognise the smaller clubs and the bigger clubs and how they work, or not.
  I mentioned seating in a short intervention that was too long for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Seating is a major problem. We all understand the need for it and why the Taylor report was necessary in view of the tragedies that had taken place. However, it represents a problem for a number of clubs. If we are not careful, some grounds will be half seating and half standing. That is the opposite of what we want.
  Some fans like to stand. I would not give a jot for standing on a football ground. At the 50 games that I attend, I sit in the seating section, but many people want to stand and there has to be an area for that, even though, as a consequence, there will fewer seats. The Minister will recognise that it is an important point.
  Mr. McFall: Does my hon. Friend accept that all-seater stadiums help prevent behaviour problems at football matches? For example, at the last Rangers-Celtic match at Ibrox I had the opportunity to view the security arrangements with Chief Superintendent Lawrence McIntyre. I asked him what his experience had been over the years and he said that undoubtedly all-seater stadiums have contributed immensely to good crowd control and good behaviour.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has developed too far. Seating does not affect rating.
  Mr. Boyes: It is all about the rating and valuation of football grounds.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am well aware what the order is about, but football behaviour does not affect rating valuations.
  Mr. Boyes: It affects us when massive hordes of people come down from Scotland and start breaking up Newcastle. That happens occasionally, but in general we have a mutual trust and it is probably the most wonderful experience of all to be in a good, big stadium. The noise, the charm, the players, the referee, the whistle and the rest are extremely special.
  Mr. Gallie: Is not it a fact that all-seater stadiums tend to charge more for access? The cost of sitting down in the ground is higher and the club's income is increased. With precise emphasis on the valuation, higher ticket prices increase the value of the ground so that seating has a profound effect on the rating implications for the clubs in future.
  Mr. Boyes: The hon. Gentleman has made the point for me. There is greater revenue at all-seater football grounds. They produce more cash, often to the detriment of some fans. There are occasions at football grounds when people chant the name of the club and so on and that becomes an important part of the match. It is as much a part of football as kicking the ball. It is vital.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) made an important point about all-seater stadiums, which have allowed the police to control the crowds better.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot develop that side of the argument. I ruled that out of order.
  Mr. Boyes rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am quite clear on that and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not return to that point. Behaviour is not a factor in relation to rating valuation.
  Mr. Boyes: Recently I went to a stadium to watch the police in action.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I went to watch Northampton rugby football club, which is in the first division and plays wonderful rugby football. The fact that the police were there is irrelevant to the rating valuation of Franklins Gardens and is equally irrelevant to any of the football stadiums that the hon. Gentleman is about to mention. I should be grateful if he would desist on that particular line of argument.
  Mr. Boyes: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you allow me to mention it, I recently went to Sunderland football club to watch how the police managed crowd control. I go to football matches regularly and recently I visited Northampton, not for the rugby but for the football. That certainly needed some rating valuation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that Northampton town football club, the Cobblers, is bottom of the third division. I hope that his presence was not part of the reason we lost at home recently.
  Mr. Boyes: That is how the expression cobblers originated.
  Your information, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is spot on. The Northampton club was solidly rock bottom, but, under new management, it is now moving up the league. I played rugby as well as football, so I can understand why you

  917
  enjoy both. You enjoy the football, knowing exactly where the team is in the league, and the strong Northampton rugby union team. That shows how the two parts can make a whole.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: I fully intend to keep in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the order is tightly drawn.
  It will not come as a surprise to the Minister or the House that I want to say a few words about the first division team, St. Mirren, which is internationally known and plays at Love street in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams). One reason why that team is internationally known is that it has twice won the Scottish cup. It does so every 30 years. It won it in 1957.
  Mrs. Irene Adams: It has won it three times this century.
  Mr. McMaster: I remember the celebrations in Paisley when we picked up the title again in 1987. I am coming to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to illustrate my background in this matter. I do not go to St. Mirren games all that often, but then that is the hallmark of a true St. Mirren supporter. I will be at the game on Saturday along with a constituent of mine, Jim Crawford.
  Mr. John McAllion: My hon. Friend says that honesty is the hallmark of a true St. Mirren supporter. If so, does my hon. Friend accept that, when St. Mirren won the Scottish cup in 1987, Dundee United was robbed because it was by far the better team?
  Mr. McMaster: That is a scurrilous allegation and I am surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not call my hon. Friend to order. I was there and it was a fair game —but I shall not go down that track.
  Mr. Gallie:. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McMaster: I will, but reluctantly.
  Mr. Gallie: The honest team is Ayr United, whose players are known as the honest men. St. Mirren are known as the buddies. The real link between St. Mirren and Ayr United is the fact that both play in black and white, but Ayr United is marginally superior.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This tour of the Scottish league is interesting, but it needs to be related to the order. If the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) intends to talk about valuation matters, he is in order, but any more descriptions of former matches or former glories are out of order.
  Mr. McMaster: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was taken in the wrong direction by hon. Members. I shall come to the point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North and I met St. Mirren during its attempt to put together a package to improve its ground, which it has now done. Recently, we received a letter from the Football Trust saying that it had been awarded £1 million for a collaborative venture to
  918
  improve the ground. Its partners in that venture are Paisley university, which will benefit from additional student accommodation as part of the deal, and Scottish Homes.
  Can the Minister give us an assurance that the order will not work to the detriment of St. Mirren because it is improving its ground? The Minister referred to that in general terms in his opening speech. St. Mirren is not only improving its ground but providing student accommodation. I hope that the housing element will not give rise to a dispute about the football ground benefiting in whatever way it can from the order. I shall understand if the Minister cannot answer that specific point tonight, but I shall be grateful if he will deal with the general point and write to me later.
  Given the Minister's ability to get parts of his constituency mentioned in legislation, I am surprised that there is no mention of Arthurlie in the order. That, too, is an excellent team—even if it is not quite as good as Johnstone Burgh.
  Will the Minister clarify three points? First, the order refers to circumstances in which two clubs share the same football ground. Many football pundits have predicted that that will happen more and more in the years ahead, especially with small football teams. Will the Minister clarify the exact position in respect of two football clubs sharing one ground?
  Secondly, will the Minister clarify the reference in the order to the revenue from executive boxes? Some football clubs, by their very nature, are likely to benefit from corporate marketing techniques. For example, Glasgow Rangers and, even more so now, Glasgow Celtic will benefit from corporate marketing. But what about small clubs that do not have tremendous executive facilities? Likewise, the order refers to the revenue earned from season tickets. Will the Minister clarify how the order will impact on the sale of season tickets?
  The third issue is currently receiving some attention because of the proposed reorganisation of local government in Scotland. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), made a statement to the effect that each of the more than 30 new police authorities in Scotland will be responsible for policing football grounds in its area and that the cost will be rechargeable to the club. The Minister specifically said that the cost of policing within football grounds was rechargeable to the club. What charges will be levied for crowd control outside the football ground but within its immediate vicinity?
  Can the Minister give me an assurance that the order contains safeguards against the possibility of a police authority that sees a reduction in its revenue as a result of the order being tempted to increase police charges in order to compensate for that? That is an important point because, if that happened, the order would be meaningless. Opposition Members have welcomed the order today, but we would be concerned if that happened.
  I leave the matter there and hope that the Minister will deal with the specific questions that I have asked.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) took me back to my boyhood days as an extemely poor and inadequate footballer. I played at the

  919
  Johnstonei Burgh and Arthurlie grounds. They were some of the worst grounds on which I ever played; I would have been as well off playing on a farmer's field. If the Minister could use any good graces to try to improve those grounds for the generations ahead that might use them, I should be grateful.
  I welcome the order. In my boyhood days, I used to watch Morton at Cappielow. Hon. Members may have worked out that I come from Greenock so I would follow Morton at Cappielow; the only possible reason for my following Morton was that I came from that part of town. I remember the days when Morton was owned by T J Thompson. The ground had no enclosure. We had to stand in the pouring rain with the tide coming in because the drains were dammed back. Anything that encourages any football ground to develop and not be penalised as regards its rateable value is to be welcomed. I welcome the order because it is based on income and receipts rather than on an ability to preserve historic buildings within grounds or to develop the grounds in any way.
  My constituency does not have any league football teams, but it has the junior football team of Kirkintilloch Rob Roy. I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about junior football going through a bit of a struggle nowadays. I should be grateful if the Minister would see what he can do to preserve teams such as Kirkintilloch Rob Roy and to help them with their difficulties, because most of my constituents disperse on Saturdays to watch the major teams in the city—Partick Thistle, Rangers and Celtic.
  I ask the Minister to find out what will be the change, if any, in the amount that will be paid by Partick Thistle under the order. It has a smaller income, an excellent, well-preserved ground and splendid buildings in the east stand. The order particularly helps such teams.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify two points in connection with the order. Page 4 says:
  "'league ground' means a ground being used by a club in membership of the Scottish Football League as at 1st April 1993 as its sole or main ground for staging league matches."
  Will the Minister confirm that if a league club possesses a second ground, it will be rated under a separate system? Suppose that a club played its reserve games at the second ground. Would it be rated under a second system? Would any income from the reserve games—remember that they are based under the Scottish Football League—be considered for the evaluation of the rateable value? That is more of an academic point, as I understand that there is a football league club that has a second ground and is making it into a car park rather than using it for the second team. That is an important point. Is the second ground rated under the old system? If so, what about the income that it may get through the box from that?
  Just how far out does a ground go for rating purposes? Is there some technical easy answer? What about car parks that are owned by the club and surround grounds? They may be contiguous with the ground or they may not. If they are, do they come under the rating arrangements? If they are not contiguous with ground, is that considered? There is a great problem with parking at football matches, with people parking up every side street. More and more clubs are trying to develop their own car parking spaces and that is a welcome move.
  What about buildings on the car parks? Would they be part of the old or part of the new system? I hope that the order will lead to improvements in grounds such as
  920
  Cappielow park, where I remember those bitter early days, and will help to preserve some of the attractive buildings that some clubs have at the moment.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the order. I apologise for my earlier absence from the debate, particularly as I hold the position of secretary of the all-party Scottish sports group. Perhaps I should have been here at 5 o'clock. I can explain my absence because I am not good at reading the Order Paper and I did not realise that the statutory instrument was being debated at this point.
  Mr. McMaster: That is no excuse.
  Mr. McAllion: Perhaps more of an excuse is the fact that I was involved in a sporting activity between 5 and 6 o'clock, when I attended, with my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) the betting shop along the road to collect our winnings on Lady Polly, who romped home at four to one last night and is owned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. Had we not been collecting our winnings, I am sure that we would have been here from the beginning of the debate and heard what the Minister said when introducing the order—
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Just condemn him anyway.
  Mr. McAllion: Usually, as the Minister well knows, I am quick to condemn him at every opportunity, but when he is doing something positive, he deserves the congratulations of hon. Members on both sides of the House. As the Minister is aware, the all-party Scottish sports group has a long history of campaigning for precisely the kind of measure that has been introduced today.
  I have a note of the minute of the meeting that the all-party Scottish sports group held with representatives of the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Football League on 4 February 1991, in which they drew our attention to the problem of the rating of football grounds and the continuing differences in the rating evaluation as applied to football clubs in Scotland and those south of the border. At that time, they were saying that, whereas the Inland Revenue had agreed a formula for assessing the liability of clubs in the south that was based on their income and ability to pay, in Scotland, the traditional assessment of liability in accordance with capital values included assessments of the value of capital improvements still applied.
  That was very unjust. I remember that, at the meeting with the SFA, it drew a comparison between Scunthorpe and St. Johnstone FC in Perth, which, as the Minister knows, were similar clubs. Yet because of the way that rating evaluation was carried out in England, Scunthorpe was paying only £12,000 a year in rates whereas St. Johnstone would have been required to pay £90,000.
  I remember being told at that time by the SFA that the reason why the Government were finding it difficult—even the Minister explained at some point their problems in introducing a similar system north of the border—was because of the Scottish assessors, who were reluctant to give up the formula that existed at that time. I am grateful

  921
  if the Minister was able to break down the resistance of the Scottish assessors and ensure that, at long last, Scotland can be placed on the same footing as the rest of the country, particularly England and Wales.
  I welcome to the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), the chairman of the all-party Scottish sports group, who perhaps more than any other Member, has been active in promoting the order.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated the Labour party's ability to cause inflation. In the figures given earlier by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) the sum paid by St. Johnstone was £65,000. The hon. Gentleman has now put that up to £90,000. Perhaps that is just an aspect of his exaggeration. Other than that, I agree with him.
  Mr. McAllion: It is not an aspect of my exaggeration. I have here the manuscript note that I took at the meeting in Glasgow in February 1991, which was addressed by the Scottish Football League and the Scottish football authorities who gave us those figures. I took them down at the time. I have just removed them from my file upstairs, so that figure is reasonably accurate given that it came from the SFA and Scottish Football League, who know something about that.
  Following that meeting, we wrote to the then Chancellor in 1991—I am not allowed to use his name and I do not know his constituency but he was the Chancellor with a haircut like a badger, if I may describe it in those terms. We wrote to ask him whether perhaps in the Budget that year he would introduce measures to equalise the position between Scotland and England and Wales. He wrote back on 1 March 1991 saying that he could assure us that our comments would be taken on board, but that naturally it would be inappropriate for him to comment before he introduced his Budget for that year. Budgets have come and gone since and we are no nearer to getting such measures introduced.
  We continued to lobby after that. I remember writing to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), asking him to meet a delegation from the all-party sports group to discuss the matter. I must apologise to him: shortly afterwards, we failed to show up on the date that had been arranged. That was not the all-party group's fault; the fault was entirely my own. I, as secretary of the group, had got the date wrong, and had failed to warn the Minister.
  I am grateful for the fact that, after a long history punctuated by disappointments, we have at last reached this stage. I hope, however, that—given my earlier absence —the Minister will say something about the impact of the changes on Dundee's two football clubs, Dundee United and Dundee FC. Their positions are very different: as the Minister knows, Dundee United has carried out an extensive refurbishment of its ground at Tannadice, while Dundee FC has a long way to go in terms of the refurbishment of its own ground. I am sure that—despite its present lowly position in the Premier League, and the threat of resignation hanging over it—Dundee FC will, in the long term, become one of the mainstay clubs in the Premier League, with a very bright future.
  Will the Minister tell us how the new system will affect the capital investment that clubs must make to meet the
  922
  requirements of the Taylor report? Will any limits be set for investment to improve football grounds? Could two clubs benefit from an incentive to share a single ground?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) mentioned the revenue from executive boxes. I hope that the Minister will deal with the question of all the outside revenue received by some clubs, which has nothing to do with attendance at matches. The big clubs—Rangers and Celtic in particular—sell a range of products, through shops and other retail outlets: tracksuits, strips, pillow slips and duvet covers, for instance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Celtic shares?"] Given the kind of money that Celtic offers for players, sometimes a duvet cover would be all that it could get. That is probably all behind the club now, however: I am sure that everything will change, now that there is a new management at Celtic park. I do not mean a new football manager; I am talking about the directors.
  What about the expenses incurred by clubs in paying for policing—not only inside the grounds, but outside, to deal with such matters as traffic? I understand that, at present, clubs need not incur such expenses, but that they may well have to in the future, following the Government's reform of Scottish local government and the institution of new authorities. Those authorities may wish to impose charges of that kind, especially in view of the terrible information imparted yesterday to the Standing Committee considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). He said that policing costs were likely to arise, especially in cities, because they would in future be fully responsible for meeting those costs: the costs would no longer be met by regional councils.
  What, if anything, will the order imply for junior clubs, such as those in my own city—Downfield and St. Joseph's, which recently reached the semi-finals of the Scottish junior cup? Those two outstanding clubs attract reasonable support in the city, and have a bright future. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) Is a stalwart supporter of Pollok Juniors; will the Minister tell us what may happen to that club? Will the order apply only to football clubs, or will it apply to rugby clubs and other sporting groups as well?
  Finally, may I ask about the implications for Hampden, the national ground? It will have a magnificent stadium, once the SFA has completed its phased refurbishment. I think that football in Scotland should be given every possible encouragement—especially in view of recent results. It would be unfortunate if, having made a tremendous effort to invest in Hampden, the SFA received no reward, and was left with liability for rates levied unfairly in comparison with those incurred by other football grounds.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I apologise for having missed the early part of the debate owing to Select Committee business.
  Like others, I welcome the order, as does the all-party parliamentary Scottish sports group of which I am convener; my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is the secretary. As the Minister knows, we have been active on this issue for many years. There is a long-standing anomaly whereby many Scottish football clubs face rates bills four or five times the size of those

  923
  faced by their counterparts south of the border, arid we have put pressure on the Government for some time to eradicate that unfair arrangement.
  We have had meetings with Jim Farry, chief executive of the Scottish Football Association, and with representatives of the Scottish Football League. The point has been put to us cogently and articulately on those occasions, backed up with facts and figures. I am glad that, eventually, the Government have admitted the existence of an unfair anomaly—and, moreover, are taking action by means of the order. This is a belated but nevertheless welcome fulfilment of a commitment given some time ago.
  I understand that a degree of retrospection, or retroaction, is involved in the order; I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the arrangements will be backdated, rather than simply coming into effect from the beginning of the next financial year.
  The reason for the anomaly was the difference in the methods of valuation of football grounds used in Scotland and south of the border. In Scotland, valuation was based on the contractor's principle; in England, it tended to be based on the revenue principle. That led to a disincentive for many Scottish clubs to improve their grounds in line with the recommendations of the Taylor report.
  Safety must, of course, be uppermost in our minds, in the light of incidents in both Scotland and England, when the safety and comfort of football supporters have not been up to the standard that they deserve. If the Government wish to encourage clubs to implement the recommendations of the Taylor report, they should bear it in mind that the deadline for the establishment of all-seater stadiums for Scottish premier division clubs is the beginning of next season—August 1994.
  Under the existing valuation system, if clubs spent perhaps millions of pounds in improving stadiums, the rateable value of those stadiums increased, as did their rates bills. In a sense, those clubs were being penalised for improving their grounds. Such a grave disincentive to the implementation of the recommendations in the Taylor report is very unfair, and I am glad that the Government are at last responding.
  A few months ago, we went to see the Minister to press the case for the measure. We were told that virtually all clubs in the Scottish football league would benefit from the Government's proposals. However, my recollection is that, when we pressed the Minister for further details, we were informed that a couple of clubs—not many more than that—might stand to lose under the new regulations. In other words, their rates bill would increase rather than decrease. I was somewhat astounded to find that one of the clubs—I speak from memory—was East Stirlingshire football club, which is based in my constituency. I suppose that I should declare an interest as I am a shareholder, albeit a very modest one, in that club. It is my only claim to dabbling in capitalism.
  I can assure the Minister that attendances at Firs Park, the home of East Stirlingshire football club, are not huge although the club probably has more supporters than the Scottish Tory party, even if that is not saying very much. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether East Stirlingshire football club and perhaps one or two others in the Scottish Football League will face an increase in their rates bill, rather than a decrease, as a result of the order. If so, will he quantify the increase and explain it, because it appears that the new valuation is to be based on the revenue principle—the number of people coming
  924
  through the turnstiles at Firs Park—so I fail to understand how on earth the rates bill can be increased compared with the bill under the present system which is based on the contractor's principle.
  In spite of the general welcome for the measure, there is also extreme disappointment that Hampden Park has apparently been excluded. The reason given by the Minister at his meeting with the all-party Scottish sports group was that it would be unfair to base Hampden Park's rateable value on the average attendances at Queen's Park football club's home matches. That is a fair point, and we accepted it, but I suggested at the meeting that, although the formula in the order might not be applicable in the case of the national stadium, it was surely not beyond the wit of the Minister and his advisers to devise a different formula not simply based on the home attendances at Queen's Park matches but taking into account attendances at international matches, cup finals, cup semi-finals and other big matches held at the national stadium. I am sorry that the Minister has apparently not seen fit to do so. That is one aspect of our campaign that we shall continue in order to get a fair deal for the national stadium and for Queen's Park as well as other Scottish football clubs.
  I realise that this is an interim order in the sense that there will be a general revaluation next year. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of the 1995 revaluation to introduce a more radical comprehensive change to implement a solution that will include Hampden Park and perhaps many of the smaller stadiums which are excluded by the order, which refers only to clubs in the Scottish Football League, not to those in the Highland league or the junior football leagues.
  The Minister should seize on the 1995 revaluation as an opportunity to have a far more radical look at the system of valuation for football stadiums so that we can get a fairer deal not only for all clubs in the Scottish league, including East Stirlingshire, but for all junior clubs and Queen's Park, the Scottish Football Association and Hampden Park, the national stadium.
  We appreciate the fact that the Government have given some assistance to improve the national stadium. The first phase of the improvements is to be opened officially next week—a week tonight—with an international match against the Netherlands, which will be a great occasion. I urge the Government to think not only of the first phase but to ensure that there is adequate Government support for future phases of the Hampden Park redevelopment so that the Scottish football team and its supporters are given the national stadium that they deserve.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Stewart: I do not criticise the hon. Members who arrived late for the debate and raised proper issues with which I had dealt earlier. However, I do not want to repeat myself.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that, in opening the debate, I paid tribute to him and the all-party Scottish sports group for their work. There is therefore nothing personal in the fact that East Stirlingshire is to lose as a result of the changes. The current assessment of East Stirlingshire, which, as far as I can see, is the lowest in the Scottish Football League, is to rise from £1,350 to £1,900 under the proposals.

  925
  I am glad that I have rather better news for my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). Ayr United—the honest men—is to benefit from a reduction of about a third in its rateable value.
  The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) will be delighted to know that Partick Thistle's current assessment of £13,500 is to be reduced to £3,800, so that there will no doubt be celebration among the Jags supporters.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) will be interested to know that the current assessment of £4,750 will be reduced to £2,500.
  Mr. McMaster rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's perfectly right and proper question about St. Mirren. He will be happy to know that St. Mirren will benefit by a reduction of £3,600 in its formula valuation. The money will no doubt be put to good use. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman absolutely on the issue of ground improvements, which was also raised by a number of other hon. Members. The fact that we are moving to a formula based on clubs' home league gate receipts from the 1987–88 season will benefit those clubs that will be making improvements for Taylor or other reasons because their rateable values will not increase as they would have done under the previous system. I shall take away and examine the hon. Gentleman's other question about the precise development at Love street, although, finally, it would be a matter for the assessor.
  I am grateful for the general welcome given to the order. Hon. Members asked about the definition of gate receipts. I can confirm that it includes income from executive boxes, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden.
  Mr. McAllion: I hope that the Minister does not mind my intervening, but I am feeling a little left out because he has told all the other hon. Members about their teams—what is to happen to the two Dundee teams?
  Mr. Stewart: I have good news for the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Dundee United's current assessment of £47,000 will be reduced to £26,800. Dundee's assessment of £25,000 will be reduced to £24,100, but, of course, if it implements the improvements to which to hon. Gentleman refers, it will benefit from the present system compared to what would have occurred under the previous system. With that menu of good news to hon. Members on both sides of the House, I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Football Grounds (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—
  Resolved,
  That the draft Telecommunications Industry (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Stewart.]

  Nuclear Installations (Limits of Liability)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the draft Nuclear Installations (Increase of Operators' Limits of Liability) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved—[Mr. Eggar].
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: The Minister seems almost to have pulled off a three-card trick in that opponents of the nuclear industry will welcome recognition of an increase in liabilities and those in favour of the nuclear industry will recognise that it is an upgrading to take account of inflation. In that respect, everybody concerned with the nuclear industry will be satisfied. To that extent, we must congratulate the Minister.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Legal Aid and Advice (Scotland)
  6.31 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move,
  That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
  That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.
  That the draft Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Regulations 1994, which were laid before, this House on 7th March, be approved.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The first two sets of regulations provide for the uprating of the financial eligibility limits for civil legal aid and for advice and assistance. They adjust the financial limits to effect changes in the level of social security benefits, which will be operative from 11 April.
  The third and fourth sets of regulations provide for the extension of assistance by way of representation, which is a form of advice and assistance under the legal aid arrangements to cover a number of straightforward cases and to exclude the same cases from eligibility for criminal legal aid. They are technical changes designed to streamline and improve the administration of the legal aid system.
  We shall also shortly be laying before the House further regulations under the negative resolution procedure to enact a number of further minor and technical amendments and improvements to the legal aid system in Scotland.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Under-Secretary of State have any evidence easily available on the effect of the changes in the past year to those regulations? I suspect that the evidence that we have is anecdotal and I do not know whether there is any factual basis for it.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the effect has been on overall expenditure. In 1987–88, expenditure was £49 million for legal aid in general in Scotland and the estimated figure for 1993–94 is £118 million, which is, of course, a substantial increase, notwithstanding the changes that occurred and which the House debated at approximately the same time last year, if my memory serves me correctly.
  It may be helpful if I briefly describe each of the sets of regulations in a little more detail. As hon. Members will know, eligibility for civil legal aid and advice and assistance depends on a person's disposable income. 'That is income after allowances have been made for central expenditure such as housing costs, local taxes, dependants' allowances and a number of others. People at or below the lower limit of disposable income are entitled to legal aid covering the whole costs of their case or of the advice that they receive without paying any contribution. The upper limit for civil legal aid and advice and assistance relates to the level of income above which no legal aid is payable.
  928
  People whose income falls between those two limits are eligible for civil legal aid or advice and assistance subject to the payment of a contribution which is directly related to their level of disposable income.
  The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994 raise the lower disposable income limit for civil legal aid from £2,293 to £2,382 a year. The regulations also increase the upper limit from £6,800 to £7,060 a year. The Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations of 1994 provide for a similar uprating in relation to advice and assistance. In those cases, the calculation is carried out on the basis of weekly income. The regulations—
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give way in a moment. The regulations raise the lower limit from £61 to £63 and the upper limit from £147 to £153. The regulations also revise the scale of contributions for applicants with disposable income between the upper and lower income limits for advice and assistance.
  Mr. Dalyell: I understand clearly that legal aid does not apply to the work of the Child Support Agency, at least in general terms, but that, of course, legal advice and assistance does. Due to the difficulties that all of us have had with child support-related cases, which we see at our surgeries, is there any easily available figure—there may not be and I would not complain too much about it—of how much advice and assistance has been allocated to the general heading of child support?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not have that figure readily available, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the mechanisms by which social security benefits are taken into account for the purposes of calculating legal aid vary according to the benefit and the provisions of the legal aid legislation. For example, income support and family credit recipients automatically receive free advice and assistance. Income support and various other non means-tested social security benefits, such as attendance allowance, mobility allowance and disability living allowance are disregarded in the calculation of disposable income for civil legal aid. I shall make inquiries on the point which the hon. Gentleman raises and I shall write to him in due course.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I develop my argument, then the hon. Gentleman can intervene?
  Mr. Canavan: I wish to ask about the figures.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have said that I shall find out what information I can and I shall write to the—
  Mr. Canavan: It is not on the same point.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Very well.
  Mr. Canavan: The Minister referred to increasing the upper limit of weekly disposable income from £147 a week to £153 a week and to an increase in the lower limit from £61 to £63. How on earth did the Government arrive at those figures?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The uprating has taken place after consultation with the Law Society. The changes that we are making to eligibility limits for civil

  929
  legal aid and advice and assistance are essentially routine upratings of the current levels. I should make it clear that there is no need for formal consultation on those changes, either with the Law Society or with any other interests. However, over changes in other areas that we are proposing, we have had discussion and consultation with the Law Society as appropriate. For example, on the question of a revised fee structure for solicitors undertaking legal aid in cases in sheriff courts, we have benefited from detailed discussions with the Law Society on the background and the rationale for the categories of fees to be prescribed, while making it clear that, in accordance with Government policy, the overall effect of the restructuring should be cost-neutral. We have taken into account the views of the Law Society of Scotland, which it has developed in discussion with the Scottish Legal Aid Board on the revision that we proposed to the detailed provisions for the undertaking of work as a matter of special urgency in civil cases funded by legal aid.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give way in a moment.
  On the point raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, the proposed changes represent an increase of 3.8 per cent., matching the uprating level of income-related social security benefits. They are entirely straightforward and do not introduce any new provisions into that area of the legal aid system. The regulations are proposed to come into force on 11 April, the day when the annual social security uprating comes into effect.
  Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister list in the Official Report or place in the Library details of the discussions that have taken place with the Law Society of Scotland and with the Scottish Legal Aid Board indicating who was present and what criteria were used to define the figures have been enunciated in the statutory instruments?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Lady reads the report of what I have said, she will see that I have explained clearly on what issues the discussions and consultations took place. We have benefited from the views of the Law Society on the revision of the rules governing the circumstances in which a solicitor may write off any contribution payable by a legally aided person towards the cost of advice and assistance. In addition, the Minister of State met representatives of the Law Society on 7 February to discuss, among other things, fees for solicitors in legally aided cases. We have therefore undertaken discussion and consultation wherever appropriate, but not in cases where clear Government policy would make consultation unnecessary and inappropriate.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about advice and assistance in child support cases. In answer to his question, I have just been advised that information on the breakdown is not available in the form requested.
  Mr. John McFall: The Minister said that he had consulted the Law Society and others. For the record, will he tell us whether the Law Society and others agreed with the financial levels on which eligibility will be based?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was not present at the meeting with the Law Society, so I cannot give its views in detail. However, I can say that the changes represent an increase of 3.8 per cent., which I believe will be generally welcomed.
  The Advice and Assistance—
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I finish developing my point? The hon. Gentleman can intervene in a moment.
  The Advice and Assistance (Assistance By Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1994 and the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Regulations 1994 make slight changes to the legal aid system. They extend the availability of assistance by way of representation, which is a form of advice and assistance extended to include representation in court in certain straightforward cases, thus avoiding the need for the applicants to go through the more complex procedures for obtaining either full criminal or full civil legal aid.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Minister courteously told me that the information that I asked for was not available in the form in which it was requested. In what form is it available?
  Lord James Douglas Hamilton: The information is certainly not available in the form in which the hon. Gentleman requested it. A breakdown of figures is given, but not in that form. The fact that information is not available in the form in which it has been requested is a parliamentary answer given when statistics are not available in the form required by an hon. Member. All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that if he examines carefully all the statistics that have been issued he will see the form in which they have been expressed—
  Mr. DalyellThat is part of the trouble, as we are finding in Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. It is preposterous—I use that word in the presence of the Secretary of State—that increasingly, as time goes on, our questions are being totally unanswered in any sensible form.
  Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the habit of the House to refrain from discussing in the Chamber what is happening in Standing Committee?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been nothing out of order in the debate while I have been in the Chair. If there had been I would have put a stop to it.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I can make it clear to the hon. Member for Linlithgow that the statistics available are the aggregate figures for advice and assistance. He is welcome to table as many questions as he likes, and we shall endeavour to give as helpful replies as we can within the framework of what is readily available.
  I was asked earlier about the Law Society's agreement. The Law Society was not consulted on the levels, which were increased as a matter of Government policy. I should also make it clear that the two sets of regulations to which I have referred make assistance by way of representation available in respect of proceedings under part V of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984—that is, proceedings

  931
  before the sheriff in relation to detention or guardianship under that Act. I remember that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) had an interest in that subject.
  The regulations also make assistance by way of representation available in respect of proceedings in cases of failure to comply with the requirements of a probation order or in relation to offences committed during probation, of proceedings in relation to failure to comply with the requirements of a community service order or supervised attendance order, and in relation to applications under section 42 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for the removal of a driving disqualification.
  In all such cases, assistance by way of representation will be available directly from the applicant's solicitor, except that in the case of applications for the removal of a driving disqualification, where the issues involved may be slightly more complex, the provision of assistance by way of representation is subject to the approval of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
  The regulations make provision for the uprating—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: If I understand what the Minister is telling the House, the two instruments will make available on an easier and much less formal basis existing representation which until now has required an application for a full legal aid certificate. That is a laudable effort by the Government to simplify proceedings in certain cases specified in the regulations.
  Do I also understand the Minister to say that there is an addition, in the sense that proceedings under part V of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 are now eligible for support through assistance by way of representation? I believe that that is an addition to the existing scheme, and if I am right it will also be welcomed by people who have an interest in such matters.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I believe that the provisions will be welcomed as an extension. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that such matters were about to be included in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, but that, if I remember correctly, time prevented us from going into the matter thoroughly. Supervised attendance orders were included in the context of that Act, and we are now taking the matter a stage further, which I believe will be welcomed in Scotland.
  The regulations make provision for the uprating of eligibility limits and for other useful, if minor, changes in the system of legal aid in Scotland. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who has served on the Scottish Legal Aid Board, welcomes those changes, which are small but important in their own right. I strongly commend them to the House.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I state immediately that the Opposition do not quibble with the upratings. Indeed, we welcome them. However, we must remember the genesis, which goes back to last year's autumn statement. To satisfy the Treasury, 18 months ago the Lord Chancellor said:
  "The overall cost of legal aid must be made more affordable. It must be better targeted towards those areas of work where it provides the most cost-effective service."
  When Opposition Members hear the word "targeting" we know that it means cuts, and I am sure that that is what happened with the legal aid provisions. I well remember a
  932
  written answer to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 16 November 1992, which said that the Minister intended to reduce the free income limit for eligibility from £3,060 per annum to the equivalent income support level of £2,213 per annum. It was admitted that that reduction was in line with the proposals for England and Wales previously announced by the Lord Chancellor.
  Despite that written answer, a campaign was launched in Scotland to impress upon the Government the folly of their intended action. We are glad that the regulations were slightly changed and the lower level was changed from the equivalent of £2,213 per annum—the income support level —to £61 per week. But that still excluded many people in Scotland from applying for legal aid. Last year, the number was 250,000.
  While we cannot quibble with the uprating—I am sure that the Law Society and others will be happy with the 3 per cent. uprating—we must take it back to the beginning. No one was happy with. the way in which the Government introduced the scheme last year and their original intention to keep it at the income support level. We now find that the original intention was to eliminate the contributory scheme. However, after campaigning, that was reinstated, and the amount was increased from £61 to £147 on a sliding scale. The Minister mentioned £63 for the lower end of the scale. We must be grateful for small mercies.
  I looked at the research in the Library of the House for the last time that £63 was available for advice and research, and I had to go back to 1989. It is the same in 1994. In 1991, it was £70; in 1990, it was £64; and in 1989, it was just over £61. What we have here is back to the future with a vengeance; it is a retrograde step for the justice system in Scotland.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give the corresponding totals for the money spent on legal aid by the Scottish Office during that period? Was not the amount spent in 1989 substantially less in real terms than the figure announced today?
  Mr. McFall: I am the first to admit that perhaps the expenditure has increased.
  I thought that justice was for all. A system that excludes 250,000 people is one which denies justice to many people. That is the point of our argument. I hope that the hon. Member for Ayr will agree that if there is a pressing case for an individual to take a matter to court, especially cases of domestic violence, it would not matter if the individual had £1 million per week or £60 per week. Labour Members have been arguing on the basis of equity and accessibility to the courts.
  Mr. Gallie: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. But at the same time, it does not matter what level is set—people just above the banding will always suffer. It is almost impossible to find an equitable banding.
  Mr. McFall: I do not want to go too much into that argument. When the Lord Chancellor made the point about cutting back, he talked about the recession. In any recession, there will be casualties and references to the courts and justice. Therefore, the wider policies of the Government are contributing partly to the problem. The hon. Member for Ayr should keep that in mind. It is important to underline that fact, because we must look at the whole picture.

  933
  A major stumbling block in the achievement of efficiency is the way in which the courts are run. We have a massively underfunded prosecution system and the courts are clogged. An individual can get bail in the Glasgow sheriff court or district court, and find that it is one or two years before his or her case is taken up. In other words, the system is wasting money daily and the Government have done very little to rectify the problem.
  I welcome the criminal legal aid regulations. I also welcome the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) about part V of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. I shall make one or two points about those regulations in the short time that is available.
  I understand that we will see changes in probation order breaches, conviction and prevention, breaches of community service orders and disqualification for driving licence petitions. All those things will be taken out of criminal legal aid and put into the advice by way of representation scheme. The problem—I should like the Minister's opinion on this point—is that in the civil legal aid system there is not the same time for solicitors to have an in-depth investigation as there is in the criminal legal aid system.
  Given that all participants have been through the criminal courts, will there be a duplication of administrative costs when there is a transfer from criminal legal aid to advice by way of representation? If there is such a duplication, will not that increase the costs for the Scottish Legal Aid Board, which will have to process two applications—one from criminal legal aid and one from the advice by way of representation scheme? We question the wisdom of simultaneously cutting costs and increasing administration.
  As I said earlier, the Government will still exclude a section of society from one of the basic rights of citizenship, which is access to justice. As we heard last year, the Government's attitude could blight and wreck people's lives. That is why we will continue to argue against the principle of the Government's measures, although we welcome the 3 per cent. uprating provided in the regulations. However, there I give notice to the Government that the battle will continue on behalf of the many people in Scotland who will be excluded.
  6.55 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a time-limited debate and I know that other hon. Members want to catch your eye in the five minutes that remain. Therefore, I shall be brief and not talk about some of the points that I wish directly to raise with the Minister.
  The Minister let the cat out of the bag when he admitted the importance of Government policy, which seems to take sway over any representations made by those who represent the legal fraternity in Scotland and, indeed, the people whom they in turn represent—our constituents. It is important to look at the historical aspect of the regulations and what has happened to legal aid in Scotland.
  We welcome the uprating provided in the regulations. However, it seems that the very poor or the very rich will have access to justice while the vast majority of people —our constituents—will be denied assistance, be it in civil or criminal actions which they wish to raise in the courts
  934
  of Scotland. It has always been my fundamental belief that we are all equal before the law, irrespective of income and circumstances, and that right should be given to us.
  Clearly, the Government are introducing a cost-cutting exercise in all aspects of legal aid. My final comment is a comment that was made by no less a person than Anthony Scrivener QC, who is the chairman of the Bar. In The Independent, he said:
  "The legal system is for the people and not for the lawyers or the judiciary. We are all servants of the community and if our legal system does not cater for those who need legal aid, then it does not deserve to be called a system of justice."
  Clearly, in introducing these small improvements, the Minister has not addressed the issue of justice for the community.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I suppose that I should declare an interest as someone in full membership of the Faculty of Advocates. However, looking at the regulations, I think that it is unlikely that I will benefit either personally or professionally from any of the changes that the Government propose to institute.
  I shall reiterate the point that I made when I intervened on the Minister earlier. I welcome the simplification with regard to what one might call, for shorthand purposes, the criminal elements of the regulations which the Minister introduced. Clearly, that is something to be welcomed. If it reduces any additional burden on the administration of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, it will be not only more convenient but more efficient in terms of the use of resources.
  As for the availability of civil legal advice and assistance, however, if one tracks back over the history of the provision of civil legal aid since the first, principal Act was introduced into the House, it is clear from answers given by Ministers that the percentage of the population in Scotland that is eligible for legal aid has fallen continuously and that the original purpose of civil legal aid, which was to allow every individual in Scotland the opportunity of litigating without any restriction because of his or her financial means, has been substantially prejudiced. The Government may be perfectly happy for that to be so, but it is important on an occasion like this, while welcoming the uprating, which no one would want to vote against or to oppose, to reflect the fact that the number of people in Scotland who are eligible for legal aid is falling. That must mean more and more cases of the sort mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). It must mean that more and more people who should have the right to go to law—
  It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [11 March].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7 March, be approved.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions on the other motions to be decided at that hour.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7 March, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7 March, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7 March, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords]
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are about to discuss an extremely important point for Welsh Members—a motion to amend the Standing Orders of the House in relation to the membership of Committees. I should like you to consider the constitutional implications of the decision that the House will take tonight, because the Bill deals with aspects of government in Wales. We want to know whether it is right that the Bill should be committed to a Standing Committee or whether, in view of its constitutional implications, it should be considered by a Committee of the whole House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Such a motion was not moved last night. The matter could have been decided last night, but it was not.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I understand that last night a motion on this matter could have been tabled, do you accept that some parts of the Bill, particularly the schedules, have constitutional implications because of the way in which the legislation binds the way in which hon. Members are elected to the House? It was suggested yesterday that there was something not far removed from gerrymandering in those provisions. That must be a constitutional matter. Surely those parts must be taken on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the first point of order.
  7.2 pm
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I beg to move,
  That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for consideration of the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords] shall consist of twenty-eight Members, including not fewer than nineteen Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: This is a procedural motion. It is not about the merits of the Local Government (Wales) Bill, which the House debated fully yesterday and which will be debated further in Committee and, later, on the Floor of the House. The motion relates to the constitution of the Standing Committee to consider the Bill.
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Let me get on a little, if I may.
  As Standing Order No. 86 is referred to in the motion, it may, be helpful to hon. Members if I remind them of its main requirements. With certain exceptions, it requires:
  "the Committee of Selection shall nominate not fewer than sixteen nor more than fifty Members to serve on each standing committee for the consideration of each bill".
  It also requires the Committee of Selection to have regard to
  "the qualifications of those Members nominated and to the composition of the House".
  There is then a third provision which states:
  "for the consideration of any public bill relating exclusively to Wales, the committee shall be so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales."
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House what he thinks was the reason for the introduction of Standing Order No. 86(2)(ii). In particular, does he recognise that he made a wholly inaccurate statement to the House when he said that there was a "third" provision? Is it not right that the proviso is an overriding proviso that governs Standing Order No. 86?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: It is for the House to decide how the proposed Committee is set up. The House can certainly override the measure if it follows this motion.
  It is not possible to constitute a Committee that satisfies all three requirements of the Standing Order—one with no more than 50 members that reflects the composition of the House and includes all hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies. Whichever way one tries to form such a Committee, at least one of those requirements will not be met.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones rose—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall give way in a moment. We must provide a practical and precedented solution to a procedural difficulty.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So that the Minister of State—as always, he is doing his best to explain the position fairly to the House —can do so, will you confirm from the Chair that the requirement of 50 members does not apply under the Standing Order to Standing Committees relating to legislation that applies exclusively to Wales, because of the way in which the proviso is expressed? The right hon. Gentleman is speaking as though there were a requirement for a maximum of 50 members on such a Standing Committee. I submit to you that it is simply not so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is all a matter for debate in the context of this motion.
  Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is a matter for debate, would it not be appropriate and a courtesy to the House if the Secretary of State were here to listen to the excuses that are given? He is the moving hand behind this measure and the individual Cabinet member who is now going to take away from Welsh Members the right to sit on a Committee that influences their own local authorities.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Secretary of State to decide.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: All that I have said so far is based on the contents of Standing Order No. 86, and it is a matter for the House to decide.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The Minister has just explained that it is somehow impossible for all these parts to be made a part of the whole, for the Committee to reflect the balance on the Floor of the House yet also include all the hon. Members elected from Welsh constituencies. Why, then, was the Standing Order put down? At the time that it was put down, there was not a single unionist Member in Wales, and presumably, if it had been impossible to set the system up and keep all those things part of the whole, it would not have been set up in the first place.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: It is not for me to fathom what was in the minds of our forebears who put down this Standing
  938
  Order. We seek to provide a practical and precedented solution to a procedural difficulty, and the Government's motion achieves precisely that.
  Hon. Members will be interested to know that the Labour party's Welsh Language Act 1967, its Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 all had Standing Committee membership other than that specified in Standing Order No. 86.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Minister of State agree that in those three examples the setting aside of the Standing Order was done for the convenience of the House, and not for the convenience of the Government? It was done in the interests of both the Government and the Opposition because of Ministers and Front-Bench spokesmen, all of whom wanted not to be on a Committee on those Bills. It was, therefore, perfectly in order at the time, for the convenience of the House and of both sides, not on an opposed basis, to do that. What the right hon. Gentleman proposes, purely for the convenience of the Government and not for the convenience of the House, is entirely different.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The Committee stage of the Welsh Language Act 1967 was taken on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Welsh Development Agency Bill and the Development of Rural Wales Bill were considered in Standing Committee. But there was a Labour Government at that time, and Labour Members were in the majority on the Committees. I cannot vouch for the circumstances at the time, but I guess that what was done was for the convenience of the Government of the day as well.
  Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Minister recognise another major difference between the three Acts to which reference has been made and the Bill that we are considering? The former applied to Wales generally or to large tranches of Wales, whereas this Bill applies specifically to every local authority area and every constituency. There is nobody else who can speak for our constituencies—in my case, Penarth and part of Cardiff. That is why it is so outrageous that the right hon. Gentleman is pressing ahead with this departure from the Standing Orders.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman, like me, knows only too well that hon. Members have opportunities in addition to those provided in Standing Committee to declare their views. There will be a Report stage and a Third Reading on the Floor of the House, and we have already had the Second Reading.
  Mr. Michael: The Minister knows full well that it is in Committee that details relating to individual constituencies are considered. That is why his answer is entirely irrelevant to the point that I made.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I have never known hon. Members, particularly on Report, to be held back when discussing details further to those that were dealt with in Standing Committee. The same applies to Third Reading.
  Mr. Wigley: Has the right hon. Gentleman established with the Clerks of the House that it will be in order for every matter dealt with in Committee to be dealt with on

  939
  Report? Will the Government ensure that there is enough time for every such issue to be considered again on the Floor of the House so that we may all be involved?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is a matter not for me but for the Chair.
  None of the motions to set up the membership of the Standing Committees to which I have referred, which were similar to the one that we are now considering, was opposed.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: In the case of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, my recollection is that the rules were changed at the request of, and for the convenience of, the Opposition of the day.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that it was for the convenience of the then Government, as well. It may have been for the convenience of the then Opposition, as the current Opposition are only too happy to say time and again, but I cannot imagine that it would have been done had it not been for the convenience of the Labour Government.
  The Opposition amendment proposes a Standing Committee of 63 members. That would be the largest Committee ever to deal with a Welsh Bill, and I guess that it would be somewhat unwieldy. It would certainly exceed the maximum of 50 specified in Standing Order No. 86.
  Mr. Ray Powell: The Minister is talking about the Opposition amendment. I should like to take him back to the Government's proposal that the Committee consist of 28 members. Do the Government want a majority? If so, a membership of 28 would mean their having 15 places, leaving a mere 13 for 32 people. Would that be right? It would be far better and far more democratic if every Welsh Member were enabled to serve on the Committee. The Government's trumped-up scheme would deny at least 19 Opposition Members the right to membership of the Committee.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am coming to that point. By my calculation, the Opposition would have a majority on the Committee of 63 that they propose if they intend that it should include all Welsh Members. In that case, it would not reflect the composition of the House. It ought to be obvious that no Government would agree that their legislation should be dealt with by a Committee on which the Opposition had a majority. That is the answer to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. This is a Government Bill, and the Government ought to have a majority on the Standing Committee. I am genuinely surprised that the Opposition should seek to establish, for the purposes of a Government Bill, a Committee on which they have a majority.
  Mr. Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for education, including mathematics, in Wales. He appears to have forgotten that one of the Committee members would be the Chairman and that, therefore, there would be only 31 Opposition members. Two times 3l is 62, so the Government would have a majority on a Committee of 63. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the garbage that he has been talking for the past two minutes?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: My mathematics tells me that the Government would not have a majority. I am sure that it is absolutely right to say that they would be dependent on the
  940
  Chair. [Interruption.] I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to think about what I have just said—what the Opposition propose would leave the Government without a majority and dependent on the Chair.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister please check his mathematics again? If he sticks to the case that he has just made, he will be impugning the integrity of the Chairman, who, as a distinguished member of the Speaker's Panel, is prevented by the rules—as I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will confirm—from being counted as a Opposition member. I am sure that I am correct in respect of this matter, as in respect of the mathematics. The Minister ought to be honest enough to reconsider what he has just said.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: On the basis of the figures that the hon. Gentleman has produced, I conclude that the two sides would be equal, the 63rd vote being held by the Chair. I much prefer the Government's proposed Committee of 28 members.
  Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that the Minister is casting doubt on the normal proceedings of the House. Can you clarify the position—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I much prefer a membership of 28, and I am sure that the House will conclude that the Government are right. A Committee of that size would be small enough to work effectively and large enough to reflect the composition of the House, thereby ensuring representation for the minority parties. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move, leave out from the second "or to end and add "sixty-three Members".
  Having listened to the speech of the Minister of State, I think that it would have been much better if he had stayed in Catalonia, where he might have learnt a bit more about democracy. His mathematics is absolutely absurd. The position of the Chairman of a Committee removes him from the configuration of the Opposition, although he or she counts towards a quorum. Thus, under our proposal, the Opposition would have only 31 members, and the Government would have a majority for all normal purposes of voting. The Minister should, therefore, check the rules of the House and how Committees are constituted. In his opening remarks, he attempted to stir up apathy, as he usually does wherever he goes in Wales, but he should produce some sort of argument for setting aside, for the third time in just under two years, the rules of the House.
  Mr, Jonathan Evans: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will help me with his Aberpergau mathematics. He said that the Committee would contain 31 Opposition Members and the chairman, which leaves 31 Conservative Members. How would that give a Government majority?
  Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman should remember that it would be possible for the Government—so I am instructed by the authorities of the House—not to count the Chairman as a member of the Committee, even though he would count towards a quorum. The hon. Gentleman is

  941
  welcome to check that with the Clerks of the House, as I did yesterday. I think that he will find that my mathematics are correct and my understanding of the procedure is the same as that of the House authorities.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Minister's argument has a serious bearing on the motion? The Minister includes the Chair of the Committee in the number that he regards as appropriate. He must, therefore, include the Chair among the 28 members mentioned in the motion. If the Chair were taken out, only 27 members would be left—a totally different understanding of the composition of the Committee from that given by the usual channels.
  Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is only for the purpose of a quorum that the Chairman of a Committee counts towards its membership. Therefore, the Minister's mathematics are wrong.
  The Minister of State's argument is fundamentally flawed now, as it was during discussions on 9 June 1992 on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and 7 June 1993 on the Welsh Language Bill. We face a sort of triple crown of the democratic deficit in Wales. It is the equivalent of England trying to get 15 extra players on the field on Saturday to ensure the right result. The people of Wales would object to that on Saturday, as they object to the undermining of the principle of democracy in Wales tonight. The Government cannot move the goalposts all the time in respect of Welsh legislation.
  The Standing Orders of the House make special provision for Welsh legislation. The best thing for the Government to do—the sooner they do it, the better—would be to leave the Standing Orders alone in relation to Welsh legislation and accept that they have been put there for a specific purpose. The Government should not try to alter the Standing Orders every time such matters come before the House.
  The problem faced by the Opposition is to understand why the Government use the same explanation each time that the matter arises. Reference has already been made to it by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Each time, the Government try to say that the Standing Orders are defective. That is an absurd proposition. One cannot say that the Standing Orders, which have been in existence since 1907, are defective or inherently self-contradictory. That is an absurd proposition, which was the Minister's argument. He repeated what the Secretary of State said almost a year ago when he broke his duck in his current job, although that speech was even more abbreviated than that of the Minister of State's.
  The Government's argument is that, as the Committee should not have more than 50 members and must reflect the composition of the House in terms of Government and Opposition—with a built-in Government majority—the third provision cannot be met. That final provision is that all Welsh Members must be members of the Committee. That is not what Standing Order No. 86 says.
  Standing Order No. 86 contains a third provision that plainly overrides the first two—it makes an exception for Welsh legislation. It provides that, for Welsh legislation, all Welsh Members shall sit on the Standing Committee. It does not say that three co-equal propositions—the
  942
  Government majority, the maximum of 50 members and the fact that all Welsh Members should serve on the Standing Committee—should be juggled around. It does not state, "Something's got to give, so try to fit them in as best you can. Perm any two out of three and see if you can come up with Littlewoods' home banker." It is not like that.
  The final provision of Standing Order No. 86 is plainly meant to override its other provisions in terms of Welsh legislation. The Government will not accept that, and we all know why. They want to steamroller all Welsh legislation through unwilling Welsh Members in the House of Commons, who reflect the views of a Welsh people who are extremely unwilling to accept Tory Government proposals for Wales. That is the problem which the Government must face. They cannot win the votes normally and democratically on Welsh matters, so they have to use the undemocratic steamroller to try to push their legislation through the House.
  In 1907, democratic support for the Tory Government was even worse, if that is possible to imagine, than it is now. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) said that the Conservatives experienced a total wipe-out in the 1906 general election. Not one Tory Member of Parliament was returned. They were lucky to get the nil, as it is sometimes said after football matches after one side has had a thrashing. The Tories are slightly better off now—they have six Welsh Members out of 38 —but they still have a problem.
  The Standing Orders are not meant to serve the convenience of the Government. They are meant to protect democracy. The nature of the United Kingdom is at stake tonight. The UK is not one homogeneous nation state comprising 651 Members of Parliament who all represent the same sort of constituency. As its name shows, the United Kingdom is an amalgam of four different home countries. That is why Standing Order No. 86 contains specific provision for Scottish legislation and Welsh legislation in the constitution of the Grand Committees and the Standing Committees. The Government say, "Yes, we know that's there, but we are going to ignore it. Every time it comes up, we are going to set it aside." I know that there are set-aside schemes in agriculture, but we do not want such schemes for dealing with the fundamental democratic rights of the smaller countries that make up the UK. The UK works only because there is protection for the smaller parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland and Wales—to prevent them from being abused and pushed around by the much larger majority, England, when legislation goes through the House.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify this point? When Labour formed the minority Government in the 1970s, it presumably had an overall minority in England. In matters affecting England, did it have a minority on the various Committees of the House?
  Mr. Morgan: Provision for England, which comprises 82 per cent. of the total of the UK, is much less specific because it does not need the same measure of protection. But there is special provision for England. Earlier today, there was a debate on the redundant churches legislation that applies to England, but not to Wales—as far as I know, it does not apply in Scotland either. Hon. Members may have taken part—I certainly did not—in the debate on

  943
  women priests in England. There is an established Church in England, so we in Parliament will, from time to time, discuss specifically English matters, such as the established Church. As far as I know, no Welsh Members take part in such debates, vote on them or bother to come in because they are on English matters. England does not need the same degree of protection from abuse by the majority of the minority.
  The Government make so much fuss about the same argument in terms of Europe. The Foreign Secretary returns from Europe and makes ringing declarations about subsidiarity and wanting to build in special protection for Britain. He says that we do not want other countries to tell us what to do. We do not want qualified majority voting extended so that we in Britain can be told what to do when we might want to defend our little patch from the abuse by the majority of the minority. That is what Standing Order No. 86 is about.
  The two special provisions on Scotland and Wales are saying to the Government and the House that subsidiarity begins at home. It is written into the rules of the House that Wales and Scotland, because they form only 5.5 per cent. and 9.5 per cent. respectively of the UK population, need special protection from abuse by the majority. They cannot be the majority themselves—Wales could never push England around in the House because it is far too small, and that is built into the demography of the United Kingdom.
  We in Wales have special protections which, in 1907, were very sensibly built in, and the Government are once again trying to set them aside. That is regardless of the hypocrisy that they manifest when they go to Europe and try to restrict the spread of qualified majority voting because they do not think that this country ought to be pushed around.
  Other points have been made in a couple of interventions from hon. Members. The Bill is perhaps even more of a crunch point for our attempt to defend the rights that were built in under Standing Order No.86 than the two previous examples which were quoted. The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill applied directly only to the Cardiff area and it must be said that not everybody in Wales was directly affected by the Welsh Language Bill.
  However, the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords] —to give it its proper title—applies in every hole and corner in Wales. There is no part of Wales that will not be directly affected by its provisions. We are all affected by it, but English Members—by and large—are not affected by it.
  Therefore, it is absurd that the Government should consider setting aside Standing Order No.86 so that they can throw Welsh Members off the Standing Committee and import English Members who are not affected. That is cheating under the rules of the House, and the Government are moving the goalposts. They are trying to get around the provisions of Standing Order No. 86, which have been there for 87 years.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman says that moving the suspension of Standing Order No. 86 is cheating the House. Has there ever been an occasion when a Labour Government moved the suspension of that Standing Order?
  Mr. Morgan: It has not been done on an opposed basis, as the Minister is aware. It is not clear what would have happened if the Opposition at that time had objected, but it has never been done on an opposed basis.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman denying the right of the House to suspend the Standing Order?
  Mr. Morgan: Absolutely not. However, the systematic removal of the Standing Order three times in 22 months implies that the Government do not accept its existence, or that they believe that it is only there for their own convenience. That is not the nature of Standing Orders of the House, which exist to protect minorities, the rights of Back Benchers and the ability of Welsh Members to represent Welsh constituents. Those rights have been built in. The Government want to build them back out again, and that is undermining democracy.
  The Government are trying to turn the Standing Committee into another quango and pack it with Tory placemen in exactly the same way as they have done with all quangos. It is fair to say that Wales is fed up with quangos and with the three times that the Standing Order has been set aside. The Minister will be aware that quangos —although he is trying to get more people from all over to serve on them—are known as the great little gravy trains of Wales. The right hon. Gentleman wants more people to try to ride on them.
  The Government are trying to change the Standing Committees so that they have the same political character as quangos. That simply means that they cannot accept the democratic verdict of the people of Wales in elections. They will be importing people who are not interested in the proceedings.
  The top qualification for the English Tories who will be imported is that they will not be able to point out Wales on a map. They will not know the difference between Carmarthen and Caernarfon, and they will not be able to speak as they will be frightened stiff—as the Secretary of State mentioned last night—of Welsh pronunciations. Worst of all, they will think that the name of our national game is "rugger" rather than rugby, and we find that deeply offensive.
  The Secretary of State last night kept referring to the "Rhonda valley". He has been Secretary of State for quite a while now, and we would have thought that he would mastered the fact that it is the Rhondda valley and not the "Rhonda valley". There may be some parts of Wokingham where people think that "Rhonda valley" is a product of some 30s slushy Hollywood romance where Rhonda Fleming married Rudy Vallee and had a daughter called "Rhonda valley".
  We are talking about Welsh communities and the places that we represent, as distinct from the mythical Wales that the Secretary of State would like to present where, occasionally, the Tories win a seat. Tory Members will serve on the Committee even though they do not agree with unitary local government being introduced in England. They will be imported through the exemption from Standing Order No. 86 and will support hypocritically unitary local government in Wales which they would not support in England. That is another absurdity which will occur if we allow the motion to be passed.
  The underlying purpose of the exemption from Standing Order No. 86 and the ability to import carpetbaggers from outside Wales is to defend the ability

  945
  of the Government to get through Parliament a measure that, as of this morning, will be subject to follow-up action by the parliamentary boundary commissioner.
  The most important thing for the Government in terms of the management of their business is that, once the Bill has had its Second Reading, they will immediately instruct the parliamentary boundary commissioner to review their interim recommendations. We heard last night the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) trying to deny that the intention of bringing the communities of Ewenny, Wick and St. Bride's Major into the Vale of Glamorgan local authority was to assist him in shoring up his majority of 19—which, we understand from the electoral returning officer, was itself artificially imported from Johannesburg.
  I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) was unfair to the hon. Gentleman last night. Normally, it is fair to say that the forensic skills of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan would not extend to his being able to give away ice cream in the middle of the Sahara. My hon. Friend asked the hon. Gentleman to defend the indefensible, which is the bringing in of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick for any sensible local government purpose. The clear underlying purpose is to try to shore up the hon. Gentleman's majority, and that is so open and obvious and so contrary to what the local community wants.
  Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Morgan: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who I hope will be as unfair to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan as he was last night.
  Mr. Griffiths: I will try my best not to be unfair at this stage. I wish to point out that when the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan made that assertion to the gathered 200 at a meeting, there was a loud burst of laughter.
  Mr. Morgan: Following my hon. Friend's inquisition of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan last night, I was thinking that we ought to call in the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. However, there is not a special branch of the NSPCC to defend Government Members when they are in difficulty, as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan clearly was last night. The Bill will introduce a new word to Welsh political vocabulary—Ewenny-mandering. It is a blatant attempt to shore up the hon. Gentleman and to take votes away from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend.
  What are the alternatives? The Opposition tabled the amendment to give the Government some sort of way out. On the previous two occasions, we simply voted against the Standing Order No. 86 set-aside motion.
  Mr. Sweeney: I went to some lengths yesterday to repudiate the allegations of gerrymandering which were made by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has just said and, with respect, he cannot have it both ways. He says that the Government are trying to give votes to the Vale of Glamorgan parliamentary constituency, and then says that the Government are trying to take away votes from the hon. Member for Bridgend. Which is it?
  Mr. Morgan rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House should not be arguing too much about the Bill. Hon. Members should stick to the subject for tonight's debate, and not last night's debate.
  Mr. Morgan: I entirely agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We must stick tightly to the remit of the Standing Order No. 86 set-aside motion. I will say that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan is quoting me accurately. Of course my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend is happy to represent the constituents of Ewenny, Wick and St. Bride's Major. That is the simple fact of it. They do not want to leave and he does not want them to leave.
  We are discussing the alternatives to setting aside Standing Order No. 86. We have offered the Government a way out. That way out is the subject of a simply solvable mathematical dispute. In the inconceivable circumstances that the Government were right and 63 members would not give them a majority, they could make it 64. We would not mind. That is one way out. Rather than taking Welsh Members of Parliament off the Standing Committee, on which they have a right, established over 87 years, to serve, the Government could add English Members. That would give the Government a majority. That is not provided for in the last proviso of Standing Order No. 86, but if that is what the Government want, it would be one way of doing it.
  If the Government are absolutely insistent on keeping a majority on the Committee, it is still important that we are able to be present when the clause that refers to changes to the local government units in a Member's constituency is discussed. Each Opposition Member will fight like a tigress for her cubs for the right to be there when the matter is dealt with in Committee. We should like to have the right to serve on the Committee—even a large, unwieldy one —simply because each of us wants to be there when our local authority area is discussed.
  Mr. Sweeney: If Opposition Members are so keen to fight like tigers, where are they this evening?
  Mr. Morgan: I am not sure what sort of count the hon. Gentleman has made of the attendance during the debate last night and tonight. I am grateful for his solicitude for hon. Members. He will have noticed that the Secretary of State was not here for the beginning of the debate, but no doubt he exempts him because, in any case, he represents an English constituency.
  The other alternative is simply to let the Committee be constituted as a form of Welsh Grand Committee; in other words, the Government would agree to give up their majority. The Minister of State says that the Government do not want to do that and that such action is almost unprecedented. But it is not unprecedented. The Government have said that they want to tune up the functions of the Scottish Grand Committee and allow it to take the Committee stages of relatively uncontroversial Bills. I accept that the Local Government (Wales) Bill is not uncontroversial, but, given the difficulties posed to the Government by the way in which Standing Order No. 86 is written, the Minister of State should at least have had the courtesy to the House of raising the hypothesis of constituting the Committee as a Welsh Grand Committee

  947
  and then knocking it down. He should have given the Government's reasons for not being willing to accept the loss of majority.
  All that the Minister said was that such a move was unprecedented. We know that that is not true because in their "taking stock" exercise the Government want to apply the principle to the Scottish Grand Committee. It is clear that the Government would lose a few votes in the Committee stage on the Bill. They would lose perhaps three or four votes. They would certainly lose the votes on a Welsh assembly. One or two of the boundary votes, such as the vote on Montgomery, would be lost in Committee. The Government could reverse them on Report. If they are interested in democracy, that is always a possibility. It is not a problem. The problem is that they are not interested in democracy. They are interested only in steamrollering. The Government must face that problem in the higher court of the views of the Welsh people, as expressed in past elections and undoubtedly in the next elections.
  The Government have to face the fact that ever since the secret ballot was introduced they have not won a majority of votes in Wales. Yet we do not want them to come up with ideas to set aside the secret ballot in Welsh elections because they do not like the results. We cannot accept any diminution of the democratic rights of people in Wales.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his proposals in the amendment for a Committee of 63 or 64 with the requirement of Standing Order No. 86 that the Committee of Selection shall nominate no fewer than 16 and no more than 50 Members to serve on each Standing Committee?
  Mr. Morgan: That is clearly overridden by the third proviso with reference to Scottish and Welsh legislation. Scottish and Welsh legislation is exempt from that part of Standing Order No. 86. One can read it 20 times or once. It is plain as a pikestaff. Scottish and Welsh legislation is exempt from that provision. What else can the provision that all Welsh Members of Parliament shall be on the Committee mean? It is clearly an instruction to the authorities of ' the House which is superior to the instructions on the composition of Committees and the maximum of 50 and minimum of 16. That is the only possible construction that the English language can permit anyone with common sense to put on the words of Standing Order No. 86.
  The problem with the Minister of State is not his understanding of Standing Order No. 86 and what the English language plainly means. The problem is that he does not like what it means and is therefore trying to wriggle out of the consequences for the Government. If they accepted the consequences, they would have to show a little give and take, a little chwarae teg and a little flexibility in coming to meet us half way, representing as we do more than five out of six of the constituencies of Wales.
  Those are the three alternatives that the Government could have adopted instead of the one that they have adopted on three successive occasions and which has caused them to stand condemned before the bar of Welsh public opinion. The Government's action is application of the steamroller, the packing of the Standing Committee and the acid test of whether they are interested in democracy.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has listed all the reasonable options. If the Government are not willing to budge on this issue, does he think that they would go for even the most modest option and take clause 1 and schedule I in a Committee of the whole House? That would at least allow every Welsh Member to take part in the debate. That is a practical proposition. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could tempt the Secretary of State to comment on that option?
  Mr. Morgan: That is yet another example of the flexibility with which, I think that it is fair to say, Opposition Members are willing to approach the matter. We are trying to tempt the Government into using some legislative method other than the steamroller across Welsh public opinion. The only language that we have heard from the Government so far is packing the Standing Committee with Tory placemen who are ignorant of Wales and proud of that ignorance. The way we are going, Wales will soon be renamed as Quangostan.
  The Government are attempting to take Wales back to the evil days before secret ballots and before elected local government was introduced in 1884. Before that, everything was arranged cosily between the squire, the justices of the peace, the poor law guardians and the school boards, all of whom were relatives of the squire in any case. We reject that vision of disappearing democracy and circumscribed accountability. We want to develop democracy in Wales and take government institutions closer to the people. That is why we shall ask all our colleagues to support us in the Lobby tonight in the vote on the amendment and, if the amendment is defeated, the vote on the main motion.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Rod Richards: We see now why the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) aggregated a massive sum of 40 votes out of 270 when he stood for the shadow Cabinet.
  The thrust of the argument from Opposition Members is that they wish to represent and speak for their constituencies in the Standing Committee. I find that interesting. I propose to develop their argument for a few moments. I have just come out of the Standing Committee that is considering the Coal Industry Bill. I noticed that the sole representative on the Opposition Benches from the south Wales coalfield was the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). That surprised me because, coming from south Wales, I am fully aware that in a bygone era the coalfield fuelled an empire. Its socialism was championed by the likes of Aneurin Bevan and Jim Griffiths. So I wondered why the hon. Member for Neath was the sole representative from the south Wales coalfield.
  When I asked the hon. Member for Neath why he was the only south Wales Member on that Committee—I am coming to the key point, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the reason that I was given was that other hon. Members who represent the south Wales coalfield were Opposition spokesmen. They had other duties and could not be selected for that Standing Committee.
  I should like to develop the argument by assessing how many Opposition Members would be eligible to serve on the Standing Committee. I shall start with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) who is the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely we must concentrate on the Standing Order and not have another repeat of a psychotic litany of hatred from the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is quite aware of that.
  Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) is suggesting that some of my hon. Friends would not be eligible to sit on a Standing Committee. Surely the only question that arises about eligibility is whether hon. Members are elected. As we are all elected, by definition we all must be eligible. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is out of order in suggesting that we are ineligible.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will decide who is out of order, and so far the hon. Gentleman is quite in order.
  Mr. Richards: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarifying that matter for Opposition Members.
  Mr. Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman seeks to mislead the House in relation to the Coal Industry Bill. My reply is quite specific. Not only are other valley Members Front-Bench spokesmen for the Labour party but they are on Select Committees. That is why it was difficult, if not impossible, for them to be members of the Committee examining the Coal Industry Bill. The hon. Gentleman should at least repeat my remark in its full context and give the full explanation rather than mislead the House as he does on every occasion.
  Mr. Richards: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. Now that he has drawn it to my attention I hope to add to the list of Opposition Members who are spokesmen for their party.
  As I have said, the hon. Member for Rhondda is the Labour party spokesman on foreign affairs. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is a spokesman on national heritage and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is a spokesman for education. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is the Opposition's legal adviser, and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is a spokesman, as is the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).
  Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman points to the wealth of talent on the Labour Benches by mentioning those who speak on England and Wales issues. It is nice of him to advertise that fact to the House, but surely he accepts that that would not prevent any one of us whom he has just named—and he mentioned me—from being a member of the Committee within the rules of the House.
  Mr. Richards: Perhaps I could continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is the Opposition spokesman on office accommodation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) on his recent appointment as Opposition spokesman on agriculture. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) for his intervention because it brings me to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who is the Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) is Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, and the right hon.
  950
  Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is a noted member of the Public Accounts Committee. We must not forget the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) who has now found his niche as a disc jockey.
  I have listed some 12 Opposition Members who, according to the reason that I was given in the Committee examining the Coal Industry Bill, might not be eligible or might not wish to be eligible for the Standing Committee to champion the cause of their constituencies. I looked to see how much interest Opposition Members have shown in local government affairs since the last general election. There are interesting data. I obtained from the Library the aggregate number of questions on local government from the general election last year until 9 February this year.
  Top of the list is the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. In joint second place are the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and, surprise, surprise, myself. Other hon. Members have asked five to eight questions, but the thrust of the Opposition's argument is that they wish to champion the cause of their constituencies in the Standing Committee. Let us look at a question asked by the hon. Member for Bridgend in order to champion his constituency. On 29 April last year, the hon. Gentleman asked the following question [Interruption.] This is pertinent, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's remarks have nothing to do with the debate on Standing Order No.86. He is engaging in his favourite pastime of launching personal, vindictive attacks on Opposition Members. I contend that his remarks are quite out of order and have nothing to do with the amendment or the motion.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already said in reply to other interventions that, so far, the hon. Gentleman is quite in order.
  Mr. Richards: Let us get back to the question by the hon. Member for Bridgend. Bearing in mind that he wants to champion his constituency, he asked:
  "what are the distances between (a) Wick, (b) St. Bride's Major, (c) Ewenny and (d) Coychurch and (e) Bridgend".—[Official Report, 29 April 1993; Vol.223, c. 517.]
  As the hon. Gentleman is the Member for Bridgend, I should have thought that he would know how far local villages are from his constituency.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman were able to read Hansard properly he would know that my question was about distances from those communities to Bridgend and was in the context of the distance from Barry. The purpose was to show how much closer they are to Bridgend than to Barry. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would give us the full story and not a twisted half story.
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman should be grateful to me for allowing him the opportunity to explain himself.
  Bearing in mind that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) wishes to champion the cause of his constituency in the Standing Committee, he asked the Secretary of State:
  "what information he has received on the resolution passed at the European Assembly of the Regions bureau meeting in Hungary on 30 April regarding his White Paper,'Local Government in Wales'"—[Official Report, 18 May 1993; Vol.225, c.135.]
  Those are the sort of questions that Opposition Members have been asking. Sadly for them, most of them have not shown any interest whatever in local government in Wales

  951
  since April last year. Since then, six of them have asked only one question on local government in Wales. Five of my hon. Friends from England have also asked one question each, almost as many as the number asked by Opposition Members. Three Welsh Opposition Members have asked no questions at all about local government in Wales.
  Those are the people who tell us that they want to be on the Standing Committee to champion the cause of their constituencies.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams rose—
  Mr. Richards: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) because he is one of those who have not asked a question on local government since April 1992.
  Mr. Alan W. WilliamsHow many questions in total on local government in Wales have the 10 Conservative Members who are to be brought in from England to sit on this Committee tabled since the last election?
  Mr. Richards: I am not familiar with who will be on the Standing Committee, but by the time I come to the end of my speech I shall have shown that my hon. Friends from England will be just as welcome on that Committee as Opposition Members because they have taken as much interest in local government in Wales as Opposition Members.
  I shall move on to see how many speeches Opposition Members have made on local government reform. I appreciate that Opposition Members will argue that they cannot all speak in the debates as they serve on the Welsh Grand Committee and so on. I shall aggregate them to see how many there are. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) is near the top of the list as is the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). To try to demonstrate interest in Welsh local government I said to myself, "What would be reasonable for Welsh Members to ask to show an interest in local government since the general election? Should it be one question or two, one debate or two?" I decided that the criteria would be maybe one question, maybe two; maybe one debate, maybe two. If they scored three—either two questions and one debate or vice versa —that would be reasonable.
  I went through the list of 15 people that I had left after chucking out the first 12. I found that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) scored one question but no debates, so he is out. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) scored one question and one debate, so he is out. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) scored one question and no debates, so he is out. The hon. Member for Neath scored one question and one debate; goodbye to him. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) scored one question and one debate. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West scored no questions and no debates; the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) scored no questions and no debates and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) scored no questions and no debates.
  By the time I had taken out those who failed to score on that simple table, the only ones left were the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), for Cardiff, West, for Caerphilly. for Alyn and Deeside, for Delyn and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). In my view,
  952
  only six Labour Members would be eligible to sit on the Standing Committee—they would be equal in number to the Conservative Members.
  Mr. David Hanson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am interested in what he has said and I am pleased to be one of the six that he has mentioned. I sat through the Committee considering the Welsh Language Bill with the hon. Gentleman and I cannot recall a single word uttered by a single Conservative Member representing an English seat. Does that affect his list? Do the same criteria apply to every other issue in which hon. Members take part? What are needed are their votes; not their contributions or ideas, but solely their votes.
  Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Cranbourne (Mr. Coe) spoke very well on that Bill. I recall the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) complimenting my hon. Friend on his speech in the House.
  We should take the six hon. Members who passed the test and allow the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central to join them for organisational reasons, along with obviously the four members of Plaid Cymru and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for paying me the compliment of allowing me to sit on the Committee and for acknowledging me for my organisational skills, if nothing else. The hon. Gentleman is making the point that those who table insufficient questions to satisfy his idea of what is eligible should not be able to sit on Committee because they have not shown sufficient interest in local government in Wales. Does not my service for six years as a councillor in Cardiff entitle me to some acceptance for my knowledge of local government in Wales? Does not the fact that I was chairman of economic development in Cardiff four years entitle me to recognition of some knowledge of local government in Wales? How does that stand with the English Members to be parachuted in who know nothing about local government in Wales?
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman misses the point completely. Opposition Members are burning to get into the Standing Committee to represent their constituents, but they have been burning so much that they have not shown it since the general election.
  Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that the fact that 15 Opposition Members representing Wales are missing from the Chamber at this very moment demonstrates the fierce enthusiasm of Opposition Members to participate in the Committee?
  Mr. Richards: I have now aggregated 12 Opposition Members who by certain criteria would be eligible, but even by the criteria that hon. Member for Cardiff, Central has set before me, at least seven of my hon. Friends have asked as many questions about Welsh local government as have Opposition Members. If we were to include those seven Conservative Members, we would have 13 on the Committee and the Opposition would have 12, but I reflect on what my right hon. Friend said in that we must have a minimum of 16.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Bearing in mind the criteria adopted by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr.

  953
  Jones) that six years service in local government in Wales is a demonstrable criterion for being a member of the Committee, in those circumstances, would not my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) qualify as a member of the Committee as he was a distinguished member of West Glamorgan county council?
  Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend was a distinguished member of local authorities in Wales. However, he has other duties.
  Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Richards: The truth about the Opposition, the reason why Opposition Members are dying to get on to the Committee to champion the cause of their constituencies is that they do not have confidence in the hon. Member for Caerphilly to represent their interests on that Standing Committee. He could not even secure half their votes in the election for the shadow Cabinet. That is the truth, that is the sham, that is the agenda of the Opposition. They are exposed for the sham that they are.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) calling for the Committee to have 63 members. Despite the arithmetic of the Minister, that number would still give the Government a majority.
  I listened with some interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards).
  Mr. Flynn: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but he will recall that many hon. Members were criticised for not asking enough questions. It is a rare treat for me or for my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) to be criticised for not asking enough parliamentary questions, when we have asked more parliamentary questions in several Sessions than not only any Welsh Member but any hon. Member. Does he not realise that we ask questions to seek information and the fact that some of us have asked very few questions demonstrates that we already have a wealth of information and knowledge?
  Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment.
  There is an enormous amount of experience of local government among Opposition Members. I am quite embarrassed at just how many of my colleagues have been in local government.
  As regards the membership of the Committee, earlier this evening I had a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) to press my claim to be on the Committee. He pointed out his embarrassment about my part of the world. I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), who feels that, in view of his county council experience, he should have first claim to represent Dyfed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) is also keen to be on the Committee, and so am I.
  We all have legitimate territorial claims. Carmarthen has its own interest as capital of Dyfed and it is likely to lose many jobs in the reorganisation. Llanelli has a different industrial character and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli wants to reflect that in the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, with his recent
  954
  and detailed experience and responsibilities on Dyfed county council, also has a claim. The embarrassment of riches is among those on the Opposition Benches, and I may lose my place on the Committee when I really want to be there. I shall not go into detail, but there is a real problem in that we have dozens of people who are very keen to be on the Committee.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: I am one of those who would like to be on the Committee. I have a specific problem in my constituency in that the town of Llangollen should be included in the unitary authority of Wrexham and I shall not be able to make that point in Committee. I should also like to make another point which my hon. Friend might like to convey to the Government statisticians. The Committee considering the Welsh Language Bill, which was set up in a similar way to this, had nine English Members who were eligible to speak. Only one of them spoke and his contribution consisted of only 41 words, which shows just how ridiculous it is to have English Members drafted in on Welsh legislation.
  Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. We have very much in mind his distinguished background on Clwyd county council before he became a Member of Parliament. What he says about the participation of Conservative Members during the Committee stage of every Bill is true. They sit there simply for the votes, contributing nothing to the debate, and I fear that that will be the case again on this Bill.
  I was present for the opening and closing speeches of yesterday's six-hour debate on the Bill and I was astounded that the first Back-Bench Member to be called was the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason). I could not put a name to the hon. Gentleman. I have never heard him speak in the House before and certainly not on Welsh affairs.
  Later in the evening we had a contribution from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). What is his experience of local authorities? His main credential is that he knows well the right-to-buy policy—the right for someone else to buy so that he can buy back at a knock-down price. That is no recommendation to be on the Committee.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) excluded Welsh Members one by one, but the converse of what he said is true. Of the 15 Conservative Members that the Government intend to place on the Committee, 10 come from outside Wales and know nothing about local government in Wales and our problems.
  Mr. Hain: While my hon. Friend is drawing attention to those facts, will he also remind the House that on Second Reading last night, of the Conservative Members who voted against the united position of the opposing parties in Wales 30 are Conservative Members who wish to defy the Government on English local government reform? They will try to overturn the Government because they want to protect the old counties. I should like to know whether any of those hon. Members are likely to find themselves on the Committee considering Welsh reorganisation. They are happy to go through the Lobby for the Government on the Floor of the House, but I bet that the Government will not dare to put them on the Committee. They will put on that Committee other toadies who will toe their line.
  Mr. Williams: I do not have my hon. Friend's residual faith in the Government. Despite their hypocrisy, the Government may well put them on the Committee.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I want to return to the hon. Gentleman's uncharacteristically churlish remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) whom he suggested knows little about local government in Wales. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware that in fact my hon. Friend is a former leader of the Association of District Councils. He has wide experience and is widely respected. He made a thoughtful, analytical speech which was well received, even by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Williams: I listened intently to his speech. It was that of someone with a great deal of experience in local government but with no direct experience of Wales.
  Mr. Morgan: He did not even mention Wales.
  Mr. Williams: His experience could have been in the United States or in any part of any country. His speech was that of an academic. It was of interest, obviously, but only in the sense that a speech made by any professor of local government or any chair of any local authority association in Europe would be. In contrast, each of the 38 Members who represents Wales has, by definition, a direct territorial interest in being on the Committee.
  In preparing my speech for this debate I was reminded of some of the comments made by the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff a year ago. In his introductory remarks he talked about the role of that Welsh Grand Committee and envisaged a larger role for it in Welsh affairs. Implicit in his remarks was the fact that that Committee was the proper forum for legislation concerning only Wales, such as last year's Welsh Language Bill and now the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
  Our main criticism of the Bill is that no assembly is proposed. There is to be no accountable, elected, democratic regional tier of government. Support for that assembly is growing all the time. It reached a ratio of 2:1 in an opinion poll a week ago. Had the Labour party won the last election we might already have introduced legislation for that assembly. In our programme we had in mind setting up the assembly first and giving it the job of reorganising Welsh local government so that only Welsh people would be in charge of our reorganisation. That makes the point that only people with experience of, and who live in, Wales should be involved in such legislation because they know what is best for Wales.
  Under the Government's proposal, the Committee will have 15 Conservative Members and 13 from Opposition parties. I understand, unofficially, that the Committee will have 11 Labour Members. I have already referred to the fact that I want to be on the Committee, as do my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and, very properly, my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, but there is not room for all of us.
  The Bill proposes to re-establish Carmarthenshire as a unitary authority. I am happy with that. It is the right unit in terms of size and history. It is an identifiable unit. It is viable and it is the fourth largest in Wales. Even though there are differences between Carmarthen and Llanelli—Llanelli has an industrial tradition while Carmarthen is
  956
  more rural—there is a gradation across the Gwendraeth and Amman valleys between them. Llanelli borough council and the town in particular have grave reservations, misgivings—opposition even—to Carmarthenshire. There is a strong body of feeling in Llanelli that it should have its own unitary authority. I should like to be a member of the Committee with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli so that he can present some of those points and I can respond to them, and perhaps reassure my right hon. Friend and his constituents that their doubts can be ameliorated.
  Another point that I would wish to make as a member of the Committee concerns the number of councillors who will be serving on the unitary authorities throughout Wales. There is to be a cut from 2,000 councillors on the district and county councils to 1,250. We see a growth in quangos, but a cut in a number of elected councils. Specifically, in Carmarthenshire, we will have 82 where there are now 140. I am concerned because a recent Welsh Office document showed that, of those 82, 33 are allocated to Llanelli, 29 to Carmarthen and 20 to Dinefwr. They have not been allocated in accordance with the electorates. I cannot understand why the average electorate per councillor in Carmarthen will be 1,525, in Dinefwr will be 1,550 and in Llanelli will be 1,820. Members of Llanelli borough council have already made their feelings known about being denied three councillors. They have a legitimate grievance there. I should like to like to elaborate and develop that point in the Committee.
  The Secretary of State said yesterday that he had an open mind about area committees for some parts of Wales, but that the unitary authority would devolve part of its powers in the Powys pudding model to local area committees. It is clear from questions to the Secretary of State from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that he does not have a clear mind about what he means by the area committees. It struck me from his phraseology and from the way that he presented his argument yesterday that there was a do-it-yourself devolution within each unitary authority, and that could lead to chaos.
  This afternoon, I was reading some of the comments made last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. He put it very well when he talked about the powers of community councils, town councils and now the odd idea of area committees. In a sense, in town councils such as Llanelli borough council, Carmarthen community council and all the other town councils throughout Wales, one has a ready-made structure of area committees. I should like to be on the Committee to hear some of the detailed arguments and what the Secretary of State has in mind or what he is hoping will turn up in the arguments on area committees.
  My understanding is that there is a danger that the Bill could result in great erosion of the functions of local government. We know that the Government do not believe in local government and want to reduce it to enabling bodies. We in the Opposition parties believe passionately —I know that Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats do, as well as the Labour party—in local government. We believe that as many powers that can be devolved to local government should be.
  Finally, I mention the constituency element in my disappointment that all Welsh Members cannot serve on the Standing Committee. Carmarthen is an old, historical

  957
  town. Because it is on the estuary of the largest river in Wales, it has its own unique geographical importance. It is no surprise then that it is the capital of Dyfed. Dyfed is too large. I support the idea of going back to Cardiganshire, Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire, but it is a fact of life that many of the jobs associated with Dyfed county council —for example, the headquarters for all its main services —are in Carmarthen and there will be quite a substantial job loss for Carmarthen and neighbouring areas as a result of the Bill.
  I am disappointed that, because all Welsh Members cannot be on the Standing Committee, I shall not be able properly to represent my constituents. It is sad for democracy, for the people of Wales and for our constituents that the Government have chosen, through the motion, to abandon Standing Order No. 86. It would have been much more proper if we had had a Committee of those 63 Members so that all my colleagues representing Welsh constituencies would have had a platform to put their views.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: It seems to me that the debate turns substantially on our interpretation of Standing Order No. 86. I heard the intervention made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister. He said that Standing Order No. 86 sets out the number of people who can serve on Standing Committees. But we also have the proviso in relation to Welsh Members. Thereafter, it is an argument of semantics. Clearly, we are involved in an issue of balance; the balance being that the Opposition think it appropriate and right that we should aim to take the Bill into a Standing Committee that will be composed of 63 or 64 members.
  We shall put aside the "Aberpergau" arithmetic of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) for these purposes, but he did at least concede that perhaps he would have to move the numbers up from 63 to 64 to ensure a Government majority. Be that as it may, he is talking about having a Committee of that size. That is the fundamental aspect of the matter, because it surely must be recognised, even as the Standing Order itself recognises, that the Standing Committee must reflect the balance of the House. Therefore, there must clearly be a majority for the governing party.
  Let me deal with some of the things that we have heard during the debate. Sadly, we have heard yet again the hostility towards hon. Members representing English constituencies that seems to pervade so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. As one who recognises the great worth to Wales of being an integral part of the United Kingdom, I am greatly saddened to hear that misplaced hostility so often from Welsh Members and, may I say remarkably, less often from the nationalist Members than from Labour Members. We have heard it not only in relation to the debate on local government reorganisation but, sadly, on many occasions. For example when any hon. Member representing an English constituency rises in his place in Welsh Question Time, we hear complaints to the Speaker about such Members making any contribution at all.
  958
  I make it clear that, as a Member representing a part of Wales, which is within the United Kingdom, I very much value the interest in Welsh issues that is shown by English Members. I recognise the fact that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) welcomed such interest. I remember his remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who spoke in the debate on the Welsh Language Bill. He spoke with an independence of spirit about the situation in Cornwall and how he equated that situation with Wales, and gave us some caveats about the situation in Cornwall reflected on the situation in Wales. Therefore, the thrust of what I say is that contributions can be made by English Members on issues that apply to Wales.
  Mr. Wigley: What the hon. Gentleman has just said encapsulates the difficulty that we have with the Standing Committee, bearing in mind what happened with the Welsh Language Bill. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) made a valuable contribution to the Second Reading debate. But the reality in Committee was that, with the exception of one hon. Member who opened his mouth once, none of the Members from English constituencies made any contribution whatever. That is why we feel that whereas there are Members from Wales who can make a contribution and are being denied the opportunity to do so, hon. Members representing English constituencies are put on just for party political reasons and do not have any contribution to make.
  Mr. Evans: That may well be a reflection on the quality of the amendments that were being proposed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. Certainly, an interest in those issues and a perception of them was clearly shown in the example that I gave and in the contributions made only yesterday by my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. Flynn: Oh, God!
  Mr. Evans: One of the more disreputable contributions was made by the hon. Member for Newport, East—
  Mr. Flynn: West.
  Mr. Evans: If I may finish this point, I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton made an important point, which those of us who represent rural constituencies in Wales recognised had a reflection in his constituency. The deliberate attempts that were made by the hon. Member for Newport, East—
  Mr. Roy Hughes: West.
  Mr. Evans: Newport, West. I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) endeavoured to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton from making that important contribution, which we in rural Wales very much valued. That was a travesty of democracy. If the hon. Member for Newport, West wishes to intervene, I am happy to give way to him.
  Mr. Flynn: The alleged attempt to stop that hon. Member from speaking was a brief, one-sentence intervention, which he allowed me, and in which I invited him to tell us about his personal experience of buying council houses.

  959
  Accusations have been made about the conduct of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), which he has failed to answer before the House in spite of invitations to do so. I think that the matter concerns all hon. Members: when such accusations are made, hon. Members should be prepared to answer them in the House.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's disadvantage lies in the fact that I was present for yesterday's debate, and heard both his intervention and his subsequent sedentary remarks. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) had to plead for a hearing for my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, which is a reflection on the conduct of the hon. Member for Newport, West.
  All those examples show that English Members can make worthwhile and important contributions, drawn from their experience, which are relevant to us in Wales. It is nonsense to pretend that those contributions are in some way less valuable because they come from English Members.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Are not Opposition Members being disingenuous? I remember serving on Standing Committees when Labour was in office; I assure my hon. Friend that Labour Members were silent then. Silence is golden as far as Government Whips are concerned.
  Mr. Evans: I do not know whether this is the right occasion for me to make a confession to my right hon. Friend, but my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and I have just finished serving on the Standing Committee considering the Criminal Justice Bill, where we broke substantially with precedent by speaking for more than half the allotted time. No doubt a penance awaits us at the hands of the Whips.
  The protestations that we have heard from Opposition Members sit ill with their own conduct during the debate. I note that at least 10 Labour Members have not been present; yet the thrust of the Opposition's case is that it is a constitutional outrage that they are not to be given seats on the Standing Committee.
  That point also relates to the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Minister. It cannot be said that the suspension of the relevant aspect of Standing Order No 86 has only ever been suggested by Conservative Governments; it has previously been suggested by Labour.
  Mr. Morgan: Well, at least it was not opposed.
  Mr. Evans: I heard that excuse from a sedentary position. As far as I recall from my reading of the events involved, the Standing Order was revoked on that occasion because a number of Labour Members had Front-Bench responsibilities elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) drew strongly on that point, and the protestations that we heard from Labour Members during his speech need to be seen in the context of the submission of the Labour party, when in government, that the Standing Order should be set aside.
  Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that, for the reasons that I have given, this is always a question of balance. It would clearly be difficult, in the circumstances, to proceed with a Committee composed of more than 60 members. I urge my right hon. Friend to proceed with the course on which he is embarked: many of the protestations that we have heard from Opposition Members are plainly ill founded.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I do not wish to speak of outrage or gerrymandering; I want to talk about the Standing Order, and to raise a number of what I hope will be seen as serious issues.
  I do not even want to criticise English Members who may contribute to our deliberations on the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) that two of them—the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason)—made valuable contributions last night, with which I agreed wholeheartedly. Both showed ample qualifications—I use the word advisedly—for service on the Standing Committee. I hope that the Government will recognise that both those qualifications and their interest in the matter should lead to their selection—subject, of course, to the views of the Committee of Selection—rather than the introduction of Members who would sit there silently, acting as lobby fodder. I am sure that it would be valuable for the Committee to hear more contributions from the hon. Members for Bromsgrove and for Rutland and Melton, especially on the subject of the potential for success of small rural local authorities.
  Why do we have Standing Order No 86? Let me say, with great respect, that in opening the debate the Minister of State displayed a lack of understanding of the Standing Order. To be fair, and to issue a short plea in mitigation for the right hon. Gentleman, I suspect that he has not read the entire Standing Order for about 25 years—I think I see him nodding gently in assent—and certainly not in the past 25 hours, since his return from his pleasant trip to Catalonia.
  In an intervention, I asked the Minister why he thought Standing Order No 86 had been introduced. I think that, in the context of this debate, the House is entitled to a head-on, direct answer to that question in the winding-up speech. Why was the Standing Order introduced, and why did it make special provision for Wales—special provision with which I shall deal in a moment?
  It is my view, at least, that the Standing Order was introduced because it was thought desirable, in debates on Bills relating exclusively to Wales, for all Welsh Members to express their views in detailed consideration of such Bills—perhaps because of the fervour with which, for centuries, they have expressed such views.
  Let me draw attention specifically to paragraph (2)(ii) of the Standing Order. May I ask whichever Minister winds up the debate to reconsider a statement made by the Minister of State in his opening speech? He seemed to be saying that he understood it to be a basic requirement that there should be not more than 50 and not fewer than 16 Members on a Standing Committee. Perhaps he should take advice. If he rereads the Standing Order, he will realise that the words "Provided that", just before paragraph (2)(i), are extremely important, and have an overriding effect.
  Surely the basic requirement of the Standing Order, in regard to Wales, is that all Welsh Members should serve on a Standing Committee considering a public Bill—and this is a public Bill—relating exclusively to Wales. It is interesting to note that a specific distinction is drawn between Wales and Scotland. In relation to Wales, the requirement is for "all Members" to serve; in relation to Scotland, it is for
  "not fewer than sixteen Members representing Scottish constituencies."

  961
  Perhaps the Minister of State will explain why he thinks that distinction was drawn. There must be a rationale—and I can think of no better rationale than that it was thought right in 1907, when the Standing Order was introduced, for all Welsh Members to have their voices heard in Standing Committees. If the Government believe, or if any previous Government believed—although our memories of other Governments are now fading—that Standing Order No. 86 as it relates to Wales should be brushed aside and should cease to be one of the Standing Orders of the House, they should have said so. It now seems to have become the rule that Standing Order No. 86 is not to apply to exclusively Welsh legislation. If that is so, what the Government are doing smacks of serious intellectual dishonesty.
  Let us hear what the Government have to say. Do they foresee an occasion in the future when the second proviso of Standing Order No. 86 will apply? If so, we may at least have an example of an issue in the distant future when all Welsh Members will sit on a Standing Committee discussing Welsh legislation. If not, let the Government bring to the House a proper motion setting out their real policy, which is to bring an end to the second proviso of Standing Order No. 86.
  Mr. Wigley: Is not this the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question: the Government will never allow the provisions of the Standing Order to be used while they are in office, but they will not do away with them because they will want to use them when they are in opposition?
  Mr. Carlile: That may be right; but, if it is, the Government should tell us so to enable the people of Wales to judge whether this case has any merit.
  The Minister should tell us what the Government regard as appropriate qualifications for the hon. Members nominated to the Committee. I draw special attention to Standing Order No. 86(2), which states that, in
  "nominating such Members the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the qualifications of those Members nominated and to the composition of the House".
  I take the Minister's point that the Government will want a majority on a legislative Committee, but there are various ways of ensuring that that happens: there may be a Committee of 63 Members, or it can be achieved by debating part of the Bill in a Committee of the whole House. That would present no problems and there are plenty of precedents for it. It could easily be done and would ensure that everyone who wished to have his say could do so.
  If that is not to be the case, and so that we can judge whether to vote with or against the Government tonight, the Minister should tell us what he regards as appropriate qualifications to press on the Committee of Selection and which might lead to the selection of an English or Scottish Member to serve on the Committee—presuming, of course, that the Government can find a Scottish Conservative Member.
  I hope that the Minister will confirm that an ability to remain silent in the heat of battle—to hold a gun but not to fire it—is not a qualification for someone wishing to be a member of the Standing Committee, although I suspect that the real intention is that there should be not only
  962
  soldiers standing stock still but also a few unloaded guns sitting on the Government Back Benches in that Committee.
  Sir Wyn Roberts rose—
  Mr. Carlile: Perhaps the Minister is about to answer all my questions.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to give us his speculative views on the what the thinking was when Standing Order No. 86 was drawn up in 1907. His interpretation is as plausible as any. I note, however, that the one part of the Standing Order to which he has not referred as much as he referred to the other parts is the reference to the requirement of the Committee of Selection to have regard to
  "the composition of the House".
  He mentioned it, but he did not expand on it. Surely he knows what it means.
  Mr. Carlile: With respect, while I was speaking the Minister must have been remembering the delicious paella that he was eating in Catalonia 36 hours ago. I dealt with that very point, but I shall remind him—[Interruption.] Perhaps there was some flamenco, too—who knows? I said that I recognised the fact that the Government would want their majority and that there were ways of ensuring that. One solution might be a Committee of 63 Members, as proposed in the amendment, and another might be to discuss part of the Bill on the Floor of the House. Nothing could better reflect the composition of the House than debating part of the Bill—for example, clause 1 and schedule 1—in a Committee of the whole House.
  I was asking the Minister to be a little more specific and I am glad that I am able to repeat what I said in order to penetrate the paella—perhaps there was some flamenco while he was eating the paella and that made his attention wander.
  What are the qualifications to be? Will one qualification be a familiarity with a rural area or rural counties? If so, that will be very welcome. Will another qualification be having spoken on Second Reading, which is the usual qualification for being selected to sit on a Standing Committee? If so, that, too, will be welcome. Or will someone be chosen who has been told that he has at least one hand on the greasy pole to ministerial office which might lead eventually to him as an English Member being appointed as Secretary of State for Wales? We should like answers to those questions, and I hope that we shall be given them.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: The House has the right to suspend Standing Orders, and it is right to do so on this occasion.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) cast a slur on people who play rugger. It was no doubt directed at those who live on this side of the border. As an Irishman who was brought up in Rugby and who was taught to play rugger, I defend the right to refer to the game of rugger. I believe that it enriches our experience as Members of Parliament for Welsh constituencies to hear speeches from colleagues across the border.
  Between February and October 1974, hon. Members who are far more experienced than I will recall that Britain had the misfortune to be governed by a minority Labour

  963
  Government with the help of some Labour supporters who, in those days, described themselves as Liberals. They implemented legislation affecting England. The Government were a minority Government even in the United Kingdom as a whole and were certainly in a minority in England and yet, under the first-past-the-post system that we rightly retain, the Government doubtless ensured that they controlled the Committees of the House. It was not regarded as undemocratic by the House or, presumably, by the electorate of England who gave Labour a working majority in October 1974.
  The Government have a mandate to introduce this legislation—[Interruption.] They have a mandate in Parliament to introduce it, but they could not do so effectively without having a majority on the Committee. Opposition Members are too quick to impugn the suitability of hon. Members from this side of the border to serve on the Committee. I do not know who will serve on it, but I have no doubt that many of them will have local government experience. In my previous incarnation as an Irishman living in England, as distinct from an Irishman living in Wales, I was privileged to serve as a councillor at district and county council level for 14 years.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I heard the hon. Gentleman today and yesterday speaking at length about Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny. I am from north Wales—I am none the worse for that—but may I ask how many hon. Members who represent English constituencies know anything about Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny?
  Mr. Sweeney: That is a question for which I am unable to give a precise, definitive answer, not having canvassed all my colleagues on the subject. I suspect that few hon. Members on either side of the House, whether they be hon. Members representing constituencies in Wales, Northern ireland, Scotland or England, will have the same detailed knowledge of those areas as does the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) or myself. That is not to say that we are justified in having each and every Member of Parliament who happens to serve a Welsh constituency on the Committee: That would make the Committee unwieldy in the extreme.
  To return to the point that I was making, many English hon. Members will have the experience similar to mine of serving in local government and, therefore, they will be well qualified to take part in deliberations on the form of local government, especially as the present form of local government in Wales is precisely the same—except that, of course, in Wales we have community councils instead of parish councils—as that which prevails in England.
  Mr. Michael: As the hon. Gentleman is commenting on the experience of Conservative Members, why is that experience never reflected in any feeling of affection and respect for local government?
  Mr. Sweeney: I strongly repudiate that and regard it as a slur on the many Conservatives in England and Wales who devote considerable time and energies to providing effective local government and to providing a level of service at a lower cost to council tax payers than is provided in Labour-controlled local authorities.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West said that the Labour Government suspended Standing Orders only when that was not opposed. With respect to Opposition Members, the
  964
  answer on this occasion is that they should not oppose the motion. Opposition Members should realise when they are beaten. The reality is that all Governments, of whatever colour, need a majority to ensure the passage of proposed legislation which is included in their manifestos. I urge the House to support my right hon. Friend on his excellent motion.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I strongly oppose the Government's motion. There are overwhelming reasons why it should be rejected and alternatives are available, including the amendment tabled by the Labour party, which would be much more acceptable for Wales.
  I speak as one who served for a couple of years as a councillor on the old Merthyr Tydfil county borough council. May I say in passing that I was delighted to hear yesterday that Merthyr Tydfil is coming back into existence in its own right. That is one of the few aspects in the Bill which give great pleasure.
  The Bill is a constitutional one and, as such, it should be debated entirely on the Floor of the House, or, at least, the many parts that have far-reaching implications should be considered in that manner. For example, in the other place, there was a debate on having an all-Wales elected tier of government as part of the Bill. If that is not a constitutional proposition, I do not know what is. As happened in the 1970s, when the then Conservative Opposition insisted that such matters be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House, surely today's provisions should also be dealt with on the Floor of the House. Not to do so is not only a disservice to Wales, but it does not follow patterns that have been established by precedent in the House. I am surprised that the Government have not recognised that.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, some of the detailed work could be considered in a Standing Committee and that we could have a split—the sort of motion that only a Minister bringing the Bill before the House has the right to put to the House. By not doing so, we are letting Wales down and letting the House of Commons down, too.
  Questions of deep principle arise in the Bill, such as how may we, as Welsh Members of Parliament, serve our constituencies? I accept the point that some hon. Members from English constituencies may have a contribution to make to the general argument about local government, although I suspect that the couple who spoke yesterday spoke for a deliberate reason: to ensure that they would not be Committee members. They quite clearly indicated their support for the retention of a county such as Montgomeryshire—an aspiration with which I certainly concur. That suggests a new principle—those who do not want to be Committee members will speak on Second Reading to avoid it.
  I make that point especially having followed the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), who rightly said that he and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) knew much more than anyone from any other part of Wales and certainly from England with regard to what was right for the good people of Wick. I accept that point. That is why hon. Members from Wales should have precedence over hon. Members from England. However good the general contribution of hon. Members from

  965
  England may be to the theory of local government, hon. Members from Wales know how that sort of legislation will affect their own square mile.
  Mr. Sweeney: The point that I was trying to make was that hon. Members from the rest of Wales were unlikely to know very much more about Wick, Ewenny and St. Bride's Major than those from English constituencies.
  Mr. Wigley: I even accept that. The point that I was making is that the people who know about Wick, Ewenny and St. Bride's Major should be on the Committee. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bridgend should be on the Committee to argue that case. Likewise, people who know what is needed in areas such as Dwyfor and Arfon should be on the Committee, or those who know about the needs of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, or of the needs of Ynys Mon, or of the needs of the various constituencies in Cardiff, or of Delyn, or of the two sides of Newport, or of Pembroke. What is good enough for the hon. Gentleman—he will be able to serve on that Committee—should be good enough for every other hon. Member who represents a Welsh constituency in the House.
  Mr. Sweeney: Surely the point is that only a small proportion of Opposition Members desire or need to be on the Committee. They have no particular axe to grind. As I said in an earlier intervention, many Opposition Members have not even deigned to attend the debate, which shows that they, at least, are not unduly concerned about it.
  Mr. Wigley: All four Plaid Cymru Members have certainly been here at various times during the debate, as has the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), representing the Liberals, and a good proportion of Labour Members—
  Mr. Michael rose—
  Mr. Wigley: I shall give way in a moment.
  Hon. Members from Wales need the right to be on the Committee, and the right to take part in proceedings on parts of the Bill with far-reaching effects on their constituents and on the local authorities that serve their areas. That is what the Standing Order is there to provide, so that every hon. Member from Wales can serve on a Committee that deals with legislation affecting Wales alone. The Bill falls into that category.
  Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people in the Vale of Glamorgan, which includes part of my constituency as well as the Vale of Glamorgan constituency, would be rightly horrified if the only views put forward from that area were those of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney)?
  Mr. Wigley: Indeed. Conservative Members from Wales can rest assured that they have a safe place on the Committee. They will be there whether they want to be or not, and they will have the opportunity to speak up for their constituents—an opportunity that the Standing Order provides for us, but which the Government, by what they are doing tonight, are denying us. That is unacceptable.
  Of course the Bill will affect all hon. Members from Wales. It will affect what happens to the pattern of local government in their areas and to the employees of the
  966
  district and county councils in their areas. It will affect me because in the town of Caernarfon the local government offices will presumably—
  Mr. Richards rose—
  Mr. Wigley: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Caernarfon will presumably have the offices of a smaller unit of local government than it has now with Gwynedd county council. The reorganisation will also affect towns such as Pwllheli, where many valuable local government jobs may be lost. I therefore believe that I have a right, as does every other hon. Member from Wales, to be on the Committee to argue the case. Our local authorities, our councillors and our electorate expect us to be there to speak for them.
  There are mechanisms that could allow that to happen, one of which is the amendment. Yes, it would allow a slightly larger Committee, although the Minister of State's arithmetic was not quite right, and his sum was one out. Be that as it may, there would be a slightly larger Committee, and hon. Members would be able to join. Perhaps some would have an interest only in certain parts of the Bill. They need not be there for all the proceedings, but at least they would have the opportunity to be there.
  The other possibility is a Committee of the whole House, which, as with certain other Bills, would enable hon. Members to take part in the debates on matters of direct importance to their constituents.
  How can we reasonably expect Members who represent English constituencies, however well versed they may be in the general theory of local government, to know of the problems experienced by a council such as Dwyfor, which undertakes all its work through the medium of the Welsh language? Welsh is the lingua franca of the council. How would that council carry out its work through the Welsh language in the new structure?
  If I were a member of the Standing Committee I should like to raise other questions—concerning, for example, the right of teachers to be elected council members, which has not yet been clarified. I am sure that hon. Members from all parts of Wales will have had the same sorts of questions raised by their constituents.
  There is a need for a Standing Committee that would allow us as constituency Members to take an active part. What was said earlier by Ministers and others who have defended the Government line made it clear that the Government regard it as perfectly in order for every issue raised in the Standing Committee to be redebated on the Floor of the House on Report. The occupant of the Chair at the time did not dissent from that idea, which can be the only interpretation of some remarks made earlier.
  I hope that the Government and those who organise the business of the House will be able to stand by that promise and ensure that each of us who is not a member of the Standing Committee—we are being excluded by the way in which the motion is being steam-rollered through the House—will have an opportunity to come back on Report and go through every decision taken in Committee, because we will have been denied the opportunity to take part in the debates.
  Another argument that I believe the people of Wales—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: We dealt with that idea earlier. I thought that I responded clearly to the hon. Gentleman by saying that the selection of amendments for discussion on

  967
  Report is a matter for the Chair, but that, of course, Report stage gives an opportunity for hon. Members not on the Committee to participate in the debates.
  Mr. Wigley:Of course the selection of amendments is a matter for the Chair, but the amount of time allowed is so often a matter for the Government, as we have seen this year. Important legislation—
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wigley: I shall give way in a moment.
  Important social security legislation has been steamrollered through the House, with guillotines applied. I hope that what the Minister has said now means that there will be no question of the Bill's being guillotined on Report, and that every amendment that is selectable and debatable will have the chance and the time to be debated on the Floor of the House, so that each of us, as Members from Wales, will be able to take part in those debates. If it goes on day after day and week after week, so be it, because the Government are making a rod for their own back.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the answer given by the Minister earlier, and bear in mind the fact that the Bill will probably be in Committee twice a week every week for perhaps a month or six weeks? We will be lucky if we get one day, one and a half days or perhaps a maximum of two days on Report. Does my hon. Friend think that that is fair, in view of the Minister's answer?
  Mr. Wigley: I am interpreting the Minister's comments to mean that we will get considerably more than one or one and a half days on Report; otherwise how on earth can we do what he said—debate all the amendments that are rightly selected by the Chair because they are in order? I trust that no amendments will be ruled out of order by virtue of the fact that they have been discussed in Committee. The fact that they are discussed in Committee will not allow constituency Members from Wales their right under Standing Order No. 86 to be involved in those debates. That right is being taken away from them tonight by a Government who do not represent Wales in any shape or form. Tonight, we are seeing the epitome of the breakdown of democratic government in Wales. In the amendment that was tabled on Second Reading, we saw the way in which constitutional legislation, which normally has consensus support, was rejected by 32 of the 38 Members of Parliament from Welsh constituencies; yet the motion is being railroaded through the House by a Government who have six out of 38 seats in Wales—they do not have a majority in Wales, and they can never aspire to one—to get a system of local government that suits their needs. To facilitate that, they are now rigging the Standing Orders to give them the majority that they need on the Committee.
  The lesson for the people of Wales is clear: they cannot expect democracy for Wales from this Chamber. This Chamber is systemically incapable of defending the wishes, aspirations and values of the people of Wales, even in legislation to do with Wales—and Wales alone—because the Government insist on having their way, irrespective of the wishes of the people of Wales.
  Until and unless we have our own elected Parliament in Wales with legislative power, we will have to suffer from the Government's behaviour year after year and decade after decade, giving us policies and structures of
  968
  government that undermine the wishes of the people of Wales and do not respond to the needs of our communities. That is the stark evidence for the need for us to have an elected Parliament, and the sooner we get it, the better.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Roger Evans: Madam Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that when Ministers come to the House and make statements, hon. Members are not called to ask questions if they have not heard the statements. Is it in order for hon. Members to speak in a debate when they were not present for the opening speeches from the Front Benches?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is no rule about that; it is at the discretion of the Chair.
  Mr. Evans: I believe in "back to basics". I had a commitment to dine my wife this evening and I took the view that that was more important than listening to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I came here after listening to the opening words of my right hon. Friend the Minister. I took the view—
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones rose—
  Mr. Evans: No, I shall finish this point. I took the view that the debate would follow the usual tedious, predictable course which we knew full well it would. As a great parliamentary occasion, this is mock outrage and indignation, and simply a squalid party-political battle of exactly the sort that all hon. Members who are here expected. Let me make that clear.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: What course of his meal was the hon. Gentleman eating when the Minister was speaking?
  Mr. Evans: Probably the first and second courses and then I came as quickly as I could. The Strangers' Dining Room is an excellent institution. I regard as very good those who afford all those facilities to us.
  Let me take the matter a step further. At the end of the day, it is party which matters. Party politics introduce an element of principle and unity, not regionalism, factionalism and constituency interests. The Government, rightly or wrongly, as Opposition Members might say, won the last general election with a platform to put forward their policies. I know that Opposition Members say that the Government should not have done so, but they might take a different view now. It is clear that the Government have a mandate from the electorate to carry out their election platform.
  The great difference between this place and the Italian Parliament is that under our system of one person, one vote, one constituency, at least what one votes more is more or less what one gets. There is none of the unpredictability which is a feature of other electoral systems. I have no doubt that the Conservative interest in Wales would be excellently served, as would be the Liberal interest in Wales, by some complicated system of proportional representation. There might be rather more of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on that sort of basis. But we are a United Kingdom Parliament and, on the basis of the accepted rules, that is

  969
  It is all very well indulging in mock indignation at what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has done this evening—a perfectly conventional and ordinary parliamentary manoeuvre for a Government who have a majority—but, in the end, it is complete nonsense. I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery construe Standing Order No. 86(2) as if it were a statute. We had the precise meaning of the proviso explained with the clarity and accuracy that I would expect of learned counsel explaining a point of law. But the House is not governed in its rules and orders by normal rules governing a statute. The majority ultimately, within those rules, gets its way, and rightly. It is what the British public expects.
  Mr. Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this place is the High Court of Parliament and that, although we do not construe the Standing Orders like a statute, because we have rather more flexible rules and procedures, nevertheless we should at least strive to reach a just solution rather than a solution that serves the narrow interests of one political party?
  Mr. Evans: Unhappily, the just solution is a matter of controversy. I suggest that the important thing is that the Conservative Government won the last general election and, on the basis of their majority, will have their way. That is how the rules are until the next general election.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although this may be the High Court of Parliament, Opposition Members would have something to say if we all turned up in our wigs and gowns?
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It might add, in the case of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, a certain dignity to the proceedings, but that is not the conventional way in which we proceed.
  Ultimately, the Government have a majority. They have a mandate and they must do what is right and proper.
  The second way of attacking what my right hon. Friend has done this evening is to say that, somehow or other, there is a lack of knowledge of what goes on in Ewenny, Magor or Wick, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I hope that my hon. Friend is having the dinner which his excellent speech deserved.
  If one debates a matter of English local government, one cannot seriously expect an hon. Member from Cornwall to be familiar with the details and intricacies of communities in Northumberland, or an hon. Member from Kent to understand what goes on in Carlisle or thereabouts.
  Mr. Wigley: That is the problem.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) says, with conviction and passion, that that is the problem and, from his perspective, he is absolutely right. If the Welsh republican movement wants to declare independence I can see that its argument is coherent and logical within the premises that it puts forward. But for those of us who stood for election, as did most of the hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, on the basis that we are the United Kingdom, that is a minority viewpoint
  970
  which, while eccentric, interesting and sometimes expressed with fascination and conviction, is simply, in the view of the great majority, wrong.
  I could develop this argument by pointing out that I do not think that the hon. Member for Caernarfon really understands the details in Llanthony or Portskewett. I could go on a geographical tour of my constituency to argue that perhaps not all hon. Members understand these points, but that would not be helpful. This is a perfectly straightforward, ordinary exercise of the Government's powers, a Government who command a majority in the House. That was the verdict of the British nation at the last general election and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he is doing.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: As has been said many times, the whole purpose of this Standing Order is to enable Welsh matters to be debated by Welsh Members. Our amendment is very much a second-best arrangement in that, at least, the Committee would include all Welsh Members, even if the Government had to bring in English Members to secure their majority.
  Why should Welsh Members, rather than English Members, be given precedence for the purposes of considering the Bill? Let us consider the process by which we arrived at this stage. A consultation paper was issued in 1991. During the consultation process, all Welsh Members were in close contact with people in local government. The White Paper that was issued subsequently generated further interest and debate. Then there were the Welsh Grand Committee debates on the Government's proposals. In addition, these matters have often been debated during Question Time. There was also the debate on the Queen's Speech, in which a number of important changes in the Government's proposals for Wales were announced. The debates in the House of Lords saw the involvement of Welsh Members in further consultation with those who have an interest in local government in Wales. Welsh Members have been constantly involved in the debate since the Government's consultation paper was issued about three years ago.
  How can English Members, parachuted in at the last moment, be expected to be as well informed as Welsh Members? Let us take, for example, what happened during the debates in another place. The Government were represented by the Lord Advocate, who is a Scottish earl. Let us look at some of the things that the Government, in notes and guidance, asked him to say. I refer hon. Members to columns 1735–36 of Volume 551 of the House of Lords Official Report, which record the reference of my noble Friend Lord Prys-Davies to the Minister's notes on clauses. Those notes point out that the weight of representations from the communities of Cynwyd and Llandrillo in Denbighshire was considered in the decision to allow them to move. In Flintshire, the changes covering the whole of Delyn reflected the overwhelming weight of local opinion. The communities of Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf had been added to Mid-Wales after the publication of the White Paper because of the strongly expressed wishes of local residents. But in respect of the Vale of Glamorgan and the Bridgend changes, the notes on clauses said that they were largely rural and agricultural communities and had more in common with the Vale of Glamorgan than with the town of Bridgend.

  971
  Nothing was said about the three tests of opinion. In one of those, there was a turnout of 75 per cent., and nearly 90 per cent. of voters in the communities of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick voiced their desire to remain with Bridgend. That was excluded altogether from the Government's notes. How could the Scottish earl be expected to know about things that had been deliberately hidden from him? Lord Rodger of Earlsferry was led to explain one of the reasons for the case that these three communities should go with the Vale of Glamorgan in these words:
  "Again, that is shown by the fact that in winter it is snow-ploughs from the Vale which clear the snow from the roads in the Wick area."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1738.]
  I have to tell the House that that is not true. All these roads are cleared by snow-ploughs from the Vale of Glamorgan. A snow-plough from South Glamorgan comes into Mid-Glamorgan in the community of Wick only because, when it gets to the boundary, there is no turning circle. The snow-plough has to come into Mid-Glamorgan and the community of Wick to turn round and get back into the Vale of Glamorgan.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Will the hon. Gentleman explain to me how the activities of the snow-ploughs relate to the number of Members who will form the Standing Committee?
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Quite simply, a Scottish earl in the House of Lords said something that was not correct about a community that I represent. Because of the Standing Order, I will not be able to represent those communities on the Committee. I would dearly love to serve on it, but the Government are stopping me representing my constituents, who do not want to be part of the Vale of Glamorgan, on the Committee.
  There are other circumstances in which the House will not be able to hear the true voice of the people of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick. The hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) has just returned to the Chamber. He will be able to testify that, at a meeting in my constituency last Friday evening, he told about 200 people, of whom only One wanted to go with him into the Vale of Glamorgan, that he would entirely ignore their views because he felt that what they wanted was not in their best interests. They had told him clearly they did not want to be there.
  Mr. Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that I also told the audience of some 175 people that I would represent what I perceived to be the best interests of my constituents? Does he agree that that is the duty of all hon. Members?
  Mr. Griffiths: Those people are not his constituents and they have told him plainly that it is not in their best interest to be in the Vale of Glamorgan. Quite a number of my constituents in the community of Ewenny can walk into the town centre of Bridgend in 10 minutes. If the motion is passed, those people will not be able to use the library in Bridgend because they will not be part of that community. If they do not work in that community, they will not pay tax in that community and they will be disbarred from using the facilities.
  What the Government propose for Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick is a complete negation of democracy: they are putting democracy into disrepute. Their proposal
  972
  negates the principles that they proposed for the reform —that it should be local and respect the wishes of local people. The Government are not doing that, and even at this stage I plead with Ministers to make a change that everyone in the three communities, apart from one person, would welcome.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: We are approaching the end of the debate and we are about to see in the Chamber a spectacle that disgraces our democracy. From the four corners of the Palace, from rooms and dining rooms, streams of Members will enter the Chamber to vote and decide on an issue of which they have no knowledge and in which they have no interest. We do not blame them because they are English Members—they are Members who represent English constituencies.
  Mine is not mock, but real indignation. The policy for Bills that affect Wales and only Wales is decided by people who are alien to Wales and have no knowledge about or interest in the subject.
  Mr. Richards rose—
  Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman must sit down as I am not giving way.
  A number of years ago, in the 1980s, I visited Estonia, which was then smaller than Wales. Estonians were saying that they were being run by a nomenklatura of people who could not win elections—by a particular party and its fellow travellers. Estonia is now free, but Wales is still run by an unelected nomenklatura of Conservatives and their fellow travellers. That is no way to run a democracy.
  There was a debate in the Chamber on 31 January 1881 that continued for 41 hours. My speech will be briefer than that. That debate was significant for a number of reasons. It introduced part of the constitution of the Chamber. Mr. Speaker Brand closed that debate in a way which he had no power to do, but he did so with the collaboration of both Front Benches. The debate went on for those hours because of the collaboration of a group of people from another corner of the British Isles, led by Charles Stewart Parnell.
  We saw something yesterday in the Chamber which I think was ignored by the press, although it had some historic value. Every non-Tory Member signed a single motion, and we must learn from that. We must stay together in the Chamber. In the first vote in 1979, the anti-Tory vote in Wales was divided and the Tories ruled. They continue to rule because of that vote, and we must not let it happen again. We must realise the value of a union that comes together and sticks together.
  Another union of nations is being discussed at the moment. The Government are demanding that if 27 per cent. of the European Union decides to block a motion, it cannot go through. Here we have a nation where 85 per cent. of the representatives are against the Bill, and we are being denied. Where is the democracy in that? Is not it outrageous that that is the Government's view in the European Union, and that they deny us it here?
  Mr. Win Griffiths: What about subsidiarity?
  Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend mentions subsidiarity. Our definition of that would be that decisions should be taken at the best level—the level at which people have the most knowledge and where representation is most sensitive to the decision-making processes. To the Government,

  973
  subsidiarity means taking decisions at the level at which they have political control. That is not the case in Europe, because they have only one set of allies in Europe. They have broken away from the European Union and their only allies on the issue of the social chapter are Mr. Le Pen's fascists. Those people are the inheritors of—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman warms to his theme too much, may I inquire how this relates to the matter before the House tonight?
  Mr. Flynn: Because this is a matter of democracy, Madam Deputy Speaker. You interrupted me before I did in fact warm up.
  The whole process is about democracy. The point of Standing Order No. 86 is to allow every hon. Member elected by the people of Wales to determine Bills that affect Wales, and Wales only. We make no claims to sit on Bills that affect Scotland, Northern Ireland or England. [Interruption.] Most Welsh Members take no part in Bills that specifically affect England, and those are very rare. However, we demand that right for Wales in the name of democracy, justice and common sense.
  The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) is a great advocate of the name Monmouth itself, and he appeals to history in this matter. Yet the hon. Gentleman would like to see the name Gwent disappear from the map. Let us have some historical pedigree. The name of Gwent has existed for 2,000 years. One of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench, who was born in my constituency and is a former Home Secretary, has described when Christianity came to this country. When St Augustine brought it here, the ancestors of the speakers of anglo-saxon English were howling, pagan barbarians. At the same time in Wales and Ireland, there was a sophisticated Christian religion.
  I must sit down, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are being asked to accept that a wholly undemocratic system can be imposed upon us. What has happened in Wales is the reverse of what has happened in every country in eastern Europe. Those countries now have their own democracies, and they have people running them who were elected. The Government cannot be elected in Wales and, in imposing Bills that apply to Wales, they deny us the right to sit on Committees relating to them. We do not object to hon. Members representing English constituencies contributing to the debates—of course they can. However, I question whether the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), who regularly contributes to Welsh questions, is worth denying Welsh Opposition Members the chance to speak.
  I find myself limited to a few sentences tonight and I must sit down in a moment. The problem is the fatuous ramblings from Conservative Members. We have the psychotic, elephantine venom of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and speeches that are intended to waste time. That means that we, the elected representatives of Wales, are denied the opportunity of making the full speeches that we would like to make to the House.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: It is a great honour to be able to speak at the Dispatch Box and represent the Welsh cause. After I have made my speech,
  974
  I may never get the opportunity again, so I am grateful. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) for giving me such a wonderful warm-up speech.
  Standing Order No. 86 has existed for 87 years. For 85 of those years, it has not been the subject of any controversy or debate. Yet this Government in this period of office have, in less than two years, whipped their English Members through the Lobby to overturn the constitutional safeguards for Wales in Standing Order No. 86, not just once or twice; they are about to do it for the third time in less than two years. They did so on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, on the Welsh Language Bill and now on local government reform. What greater testimony can there be to the centralising tendency of the Tory party?
  As other hon. Members have mentioned, the Foreign Secretary is today in Europe. He is portrayed by his party as a champion of devolution. He is ranting against centralising Brussels, but here in London the least devolved of all Europe's democracies wishes to overturn the constitutional safeguards given to the people of Wales in the 1900s, would you please. What audacious hypocrisy that is.
  Mr. Roger Evans: While I understand the hon. Gentleman warming to his theme, the comparison with France suggests that we are a very decentralised, locally democratic country compared with the Jacobin republic, which believes in centralised administration. Does not he recognise that a prefect in every commune might be the ultimate Tory threat?
  Mr. Jones: From that intervention I can only gather that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) has not been to France for more than 20 years.
  Why do the Government, alone in Europe, feel so insecure that they deny the right of their constituent peoples to make any independent decision, even on when and where they can use their own language, while simultaneously jealously guarding their veto on collective action taken in Brussels? Even the Secretary of State must acknowledge that there is a certain degree of schizophrenia in that action.
  Standing Order No.86 would give all 38 Welsh Members the right to scrutinise and debate the Local Government (Wales) Bill in Committee. The Bill will change historic boundaries and institutions of long standing. In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason)—who made a useful speech —made much of the need to find the right balance between efficient delivery of service and the strength of local community and tradition. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about the importance of achieving and establishing that balance.
  The assessment of how to deliver efficient services is a contentious matter on which the Secretary of State will have no shortage of professional advice. Local knowledge is useful, but not, I contend, essential. But how are we to assess the second part of the equation—the strength of local community and tradition to which the hon. Member for Bromsgrove referred—if not by debate with local representatives?
  The Government will allow no more than 19 Welsh Members to serve on the Committee. Only 13 of the 32 Welsh Opposition Members who signed yesterday's amendment will have the opportunity to debate the Bill in

  975
  detail in Committee. Only Tory Welsh Members will have an automatic right to represent their constituents. We are all affected: there should be no first and second-class constituencies in Wales.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), suggested that the Government could get out of their difficulties by agreeing to debate important parts of the Bill—clause 1 and schedule 1—on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend offered the Government a way out of their problems.
  The hon. Members for Clwyd North-West (Mr. Richards) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) tried to explain that Opposition Members were somehow ineligible for the Standing Committee because of their Front-Bench responsibilities. I am grateful to the hon. Members for their concern. They clearly propose that the Government's decision to abandon Standing Order No. 86 is an attempt to aid the Opposition, to avoid causing us embarrassment. I can tell the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West that I have been inundated by pleas from my Front-Bench colleagues to serve on the Committee, and there is no rule to prevent them from doing so.
  They are my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) who is our spokesman on education; our law and order spokesman, if I can call him that, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael); certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and many others. I shall not mention them all. They are united in demanding their right to sit on the Committee, but I cannot provide all of them with the right to do that so I am afraid most of them will be disappointed.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, those who will sit on the Committee will be English Members whom we believe have no interest in local government in Wales. Time will tell, but we have had recent experience of the Welsh Language Bill. Nine English Members were parachuted into that Bill and an examination of the proceedings shows that between them they managed to contribute no more and no fewer than 41 words in the entire debate.
  The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. David Lightbown): That was far too long.
  Mr. Jones: That comment is to be expected. What proper debate or scrutiny can the people of Wales expect in the light of such a comment?
  No fewer than 19 Opposition Members managed with considerable difficulty to take part in yesterday's debate, but many of them will not be allowed to represent the strength of their communities when the Bill is examined in detail. Of course the hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and for Brecon and Radnor will be able to represent their communities, as will the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West in his own inimitable style. They will represent their communities whether they want to or not, but most Opposition Members will be excluded and, as a result, their communities will be denied the advocacy of their elected Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has reason to congratulate the Government on some of the decisions that they took yesterday, but what
  976
  about my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Rhondda and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells)? They have important issues that they want to raise in detail in Committee, but they will be excluded. I tell Conservative Members what my hon. Friends know: the strength of community feeling in Merthyr is no less than that in the Rhondda or in Cynon Valley or Taff Ely. As a Rhondda boy, I speak with some feeling about the strength of community feeling there. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend wishes to represent the strength of community feeling that remains in Bridgend. He has done so today and he did so briefly yesterday, but he should have the opportunity to debate the matter when the Committee meets before the Easter recess.
  Reading the debate on 15 April 1907, following which Standing Order No. 86 was instituted, I was struck by the similar arguments being used then, as now, and, by and large, by the same political parties, although my own political party was a rather minor part of that Parliament. Then, as now, the Conservatives—calling themselves the Unionist party—were not too well represented in Wales. Indeed, in the 1906 election they did not succeed in electing a single Welsh Tory. If today's Tories continue to treat Welsh sentiments with such disregard, they could soon find themselves repeating that 1906 result.
  During that debate, the Conservative Member for Gravesend, Sir Gilbert Parker, remarked:
  "Behind the proposals of the Prime Minister"—
  then Sir Campbell-Bannerman—
  "was a process of devolution … intended to lead up to the larger policy".
  Some 87 years later, the people of Wales are still waiting for that. It has been a long time coming but we will get there, and quite soon now.
  Sir Gilbert Parker went on to make another statement which has loud echoes today:
  "Presently they would have from the Nationalist Benches"—
  meaning the Irish—
  "a proposal to establish an Irish Standing Committee."—[Official Report, 15 April 1907; Vol. 172, c. 674.]
  What an irony.
  Only last week, the Government set up an Irish Select Committee. Perhaps if devolution had been extended 87 years ago to the people of Ireland, the history of these British islands in the 20th century would have been somewhat different and less bloody.
  While talking of Ireland, may I take the opportunity of thanking the Irish Unionist Members who walked through the Lobby with us last night? I certainly shall not forget their support.
  The Government maintain that the Standing Committee must reflect the composition of the House, yet they are perfectly happy to set up Select Committees—such as the one dealing with Northern Ireland—which are clearly anything but representative of the House of Commons.
  If the Government argue that Select Committees are an entirely different matter and that only Standing Committees need reflect that balance, why do we have the prospect of eight or nine English Tories being parachuted into the Committee but no Ulster Unionists? Given the way that they voted last night, most Opposition Members would have more confidence in the interest and sympathy of Unionist Members than some bored, disinterested whipped Staffordshire Member who is reading his mail.
  Labour is prepared, though reluctantly, to concede to the Government a majority on the Committee if the Government will allow all Welsh Members the right to

  977
  take part. Our amendment would allow the Government to place 25 whipped and loyal foot soldiers on the Committee. That guarantees a Government majority, when the Minister has done his mathematics properly, yet enables the arguments to be made for all of Wales. How could we possibly be more accommodating than that?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: There is nothing wrong with my mathematics. There are 32 Welsh Opposition Members; 32 taken out of 63 leaves 31.
  Mr. Jones: I am surprised at the Minister's difficulty in learning from what has occurred already. One of those Welsh Opposition Members will, of course, be the Chairman. I was a Whip on the Welsh Language Bill Committee when a poor job was done by my opposite number and two Conservative Members went AWOL. Nevertheless, the Chairman voted with the Government, as all Chairmen have to do, and so succeeded in stopping an Opposition amendment.
  Rejecting our offer is a calculated insult to the people of Wales; calculated because the Government have no realistic ambition of gaining seats in Wales and, with so few at present, they are not unduly concerned at sacrificing what remains. Local government reform in England, especially in the south-east of England, will be treated in an altogether different fashion, with far more concern about the strength of feeling, about the views of elected Members and, above all, about the number of seats that they may lose.
  The six Welsh Tories today are in a difficult position. Let us have some sympathy for them. They know that they have their seats on a short lease. Their electors expect them to speak for Wales, but their party expects them to ignore Wales. What should they do? Welsh interests, they recite, are safeguarded here in a London Parliament. Yet they would tear up or set aside the rules of the House in order to secure advantage for their own party.
  Welsh Conservative Members say that there is no need for devolution, no need for a parliament or assembly in Wales. Any other conclusion, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor was saying to me the other day, would set us on a slippery slope with full independence and the end of the Union at the bottom. Those so-called Unionists have so little faith in the Union and so little faith in the historic and economic ties that bind the United Kingdom for better or for worse. This fragile flower, they believe, cannot allow the independence of action in Wales to determine whether we dam our own rivers, would you please, or whether we can draw up local government boundaries, or when and whether we can speak our own tongue.
  There comes a time when decisions like those and others will be taken not here in London but in Wales where they should be taken. If the Government succeed tonight in overturning the Standing Order, it will only bring forward the day when such decisions will no longer be taken here. I urge the House to accept the Opposition's amendment and to reject the Government's motion.
  9.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Last night, we had a symbolic wind-up of the Local Government (Wales) Bill
  978
  when two former councillors concluded the debate. Tonight, two former members of Cardiff city council have concluded the debate on how we should handle the Bill's Committee stage. I should congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on his appearance at the Dispatch Box this evening, although my congratulations must be full of sympathy for him. I feel sure that he will make a better fist of trying to handle the Welsh portfolio than the exhausted dinosaurs sitting alongside him who are now burnt out.
  I must take the hon. Gentleman to task. He sought to accuse my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of ranting today about Europe. What a monstrous charge. Clearly, it was the hon. Gentleman who was trying to rant, but he was completely out-ranted by that representative of the Welsh republican movement, the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
  I fear that there is one other hon. Member whom I must take to task this evening for his contribution—my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans). I have to reject what he said in that he was unkind about Opposition Members when he accused them of mock outrage, mock protest and mock indignation. He should know that what we heard from the Opposition Benches this evening was a traditional debate on Welsh affairs. We had the full depth of intellect and sincerity that they always bring to these matters. I want to make up for that with my hon. Friend, because I am grateful. We heard a scholarly legal discourse matching, even surpassing, that of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), in considering exactly the Standing Order that we are supposed to be debating this evening but which many hon. Members did not choose to debate. That is what we must be concerned about.
  My hon. Friend returned to the high point of debate that had been established by my right hon. Friend the Minister when he opened the debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his ringing endorsement of the motion.
  The debate for the Opposition was opened by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). In his typically gentle and thoughtful way, he suggested that we should not alter the rules. He sought to concede that, naturally, the Government would want to maintain their majority on any Committee examining a Bill. He then trotted out the most dubious of figures, which even he had to admit he could not understand, and said that there would be 63 members on the Committee, or, if he had got it wrong, 64. We were almost into a bingo caller's evening—"Any advance on 64?"
  Mr. Morgan: The Under-Secretary has changed his speaking style in this debate. He is trying to sound as though he is Wynford Vaughan Thomas describing the battle of Britain from the back seat of a Spitfire. We much preferred his old masonic lodge, retirement do, avuncular manner. What I actually said was that, in the almost inconceivable circumstance that I was wrong, the Government had a solution. I am not wrong. The Minister of State is not claiming that I am wrong, so why is the Under-Secretary taking so much trouble to accept that the figure of 63 gives the Minister the Government majority that he so urgently seeks? Am I wrong, or am I not wrong?
  Mr. Jones: That question was answered most succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), who nailed the hon. Gentleman's

  979
  point and said that he had come out once again with "Aberpergau" mathematics—his own peculiar breed of mathematics that only he could come out with. The hon. Gentleman tried to give us his personal interpretation of Standing Order No. 86(2)(ii).
  Mr. Morgan: The Under-Secretary says that it is my personal interpretation. I assure him that it comes from the authorities of the House. Has he checked with the authorities of the House—as I did before I spoke—the mathematics that would mean that 63 would give the Government a majority if the Chairman were an Opposition Member?
  Mr. Evans: Quite simply, if one takes 32 from 63—the number of non-Conservative Members of the House—that leaves 31. If one of those 31 is the Chairman of the Committee, that leaves 30 for the Government, does it not? That is quite simple mathematics that anyone can do. If the hon. Gentleman had stopped to think, he could have checked the mathematics before he had anything to do with the amendment.
  I refer now to the personal interpretation that the hon. Gentleman offered about Standing Order No. 86(2)(ii). I suppose that I had better reassure the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that I have read the Standing Order again this evening, and clearly my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has read it. Indeed, I am reading from his copy of it.
  Most amazingly, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West sought to accuse the rationale behind what we propose as gerrymandering, dragging out the same old arguments again. I was almost expecting to hear him claim that we changed our minds and are now going in for separate unitary authorities for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Blaenau Gwent because we believe that that is the simple step towards winning those constituencies at a general election.
  It was with a sense of nostalgia that I listened to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West—not that he made his usual speech. I looked back to Hansard of 9 June, which reports that I moved the suspension of Standing Orders to deal with the Bill that is now the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993. I found, amazingly, that the hon. Gentleman had engaged in an old ploy, and waved the old school tie at me. "We boys from Whitchurch grammar must stick together!" That was his cause for intervening on my speech—a tactic which he has used more than once.
  I do not know whether I have ever thanked the hon. Gentleman for using the old school tie in that way. In fact, he is not the only hon. Member with whom I share an old school tie; I also share one with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
  Once, when I was speaking from this Dispatch Box, I found that I was running out of material and that my speech was likely to finish early. My Whip told me that, whatever I did, I must carry on speaking until 7 pm. Suddenly, I saw a lifebelt in the Chamber—the hon. Member for Cardiff, West was trying to intervene. When the hon. Gentleman gets going, a Minister has minutes, even hours, to fill out his speech.
  But I must not confine my remarks to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. I want to sum up, properly, all the important questions that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) referred to the basic criteria on which Opposition Members
  980
  might serve on the Committee, or might not think it appropriate to do so. He listed 12 Opposition Members who—because of Front-Bench responsibilities, or for other reasons—might be considered ineligible, or consider themselves ineligible. He went on to discourse very knowledgeably on hon. Members' contributions in regard to local government, and local government reorganisation.
  Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that his hon. Friend was entirely wrong? Opposition Members represent their constituencies first. That is why we want to sit on the Committee—even those of us with Front-Bench responsibilities.
  Mr. Jones: No, I do not accept that my hon. Friend was entirely wrong. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I mean to adduce from tonight's debate confirmation from his hon. Friends that my hon. Friend made an appropriate contribution!
  The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) acknowledged the criteria advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West—I think because he recognised that he had been identified as being to the fore on the Opposition Benches in taking an interest in local government matters. The concept was expanded by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, who suggested in an intervention that membership of a local authority would be an appropriate criterion—another form of selection to contribute to a debate begun by my hon. Friend.
  The question of eligibility was further enhanced by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). His view was that English Members would not say enough in Committee. I find it difficult to reply to anything else that the hon. Gentleman said, as the rest of his speech rehearsed arguments about the Bill. That is not the context of tonight's debate. I am afraid, however, that his suggestion that English Members should not sit on the Committee because they would not say enough suggested to me the truism about empty vessels.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor explored further the apparent hostility to English Members, citing last night's speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). His view—which has been echoed by others—was that they had made valuable, worthwhile contributions; another instance is the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) to our debate on the Welsh Language Bill. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor made a meaningful point when he pondered the philosophical question whether the balance of contributions might not have much more to do with the absence of depth of the amendments tabled by Opposition Members in Committee.
  The House would do well to reflect on the hostility frequently displayed by Opposition Members towards Members representing English constituencies. Such hostility can sink as low as calling "Taff" in order to heckle non-Welsh Members who wish to speak during Welsh Question Time. It certainly betrays an arrogance that is completely unentitled and most inappropriate to our debate.
  I can at least contrast such hostility with the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for

  981
  Montgomery, who sought to debate the Standing Order. He asked whether we would be introducing new proposals to change it and in the same way that my hon. Friend—
  It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [11 March], That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 318.

  Division No. 168]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ainger, Nick

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

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Denham, John

  Allen, Graham

  Dewar, Donald

  Alton, David

  Dixon, Don

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dobson, Frank

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dowd, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Barnes, Harry

  Eastham, Ken

  Barron, Kevin

  Enright, Derek

  Battle, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Bayley, Hugh

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Faulds, Andrew

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joe

  Flynn, Paul

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Betts, Clive

  Foulkes, George

  Blunkett, David

  Fraser, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Boyes, Roland

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bradley, Keith

  Galloway, George

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gapes, Mike

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

  Garrett, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  George, Bruce

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Byers, Stephen

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gunnell, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hain, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Mike

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hardy, Peter

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Coffey, Ann

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Doug

  Connarty, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoey, Kate

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cousins, Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Cox, Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cryer, Bob

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Illsley, Eric

  982

  Ingram, Adam

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Parry, Robert

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Patchett, Terry

  Jamieson, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Janner, Greville

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jowell, Tessa

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Radice, Giles

  Keen, Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Redmond, Martin

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Reid, Dr John

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Rendel, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Lewis, Terry

  Rogers, Allan

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooney, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rowlands, Ted

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McCrea, Rev William

  Short, Clare

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan

  McKelvey, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Spellar, John

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mahon, Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mandelson, Peter

  Stevenson, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Straw, Jack

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maxton, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Meacher, Michael

  Vaz, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Michael, Alun

  Walley, Joan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Milburn, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wilson, Brian

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wise, Audrey

  Mudie, George

  Worthington, Tony

  Mullin, Chris

  Wray, Jimmy

  Murphy, Paul

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  O'Brien; Michael (N W'kshire)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Olner, William

  Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Ray Powell.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Ashby, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Amess, David

  Atkins, Robert

  983

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Faber, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baldry, Tony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bates, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beggs, Roy

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gallia, Phil

  Booth, Hartley

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boswell, Tim

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowis, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, John

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butler, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  Harris, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Churchill, Mr

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  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, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Eggar, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Elletson, Harold

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evennett, David

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  984

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lightbown, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Maclean, David

  Sproat, Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Allan

  Marlow, Tony

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sykes, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thomason, Roy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Norris, Steve

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Paice, James

  Waller, Gary

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Ward, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pawsey, James

  Waterson, Nigel

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Watts, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whitney, Ray

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Richards, Rod

  Willetts, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Wilshire, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Yeo, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Sackville, Tom

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided:Ayes 317,Noes 271.

  Division No. 169]

  [10.18 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dover, Den

  Alexander, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dunn, Bob

  Amess, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Elletson, Harold

  Ashby, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Faber, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Fabricant, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bates, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Beggs, Roy

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Eric

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  French, Douglas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Booth, Hartley

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bowden, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowis, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bright, Graham

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorst, John

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burns, Simon

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butcher, John

  Hague, William

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hendry, Charles

  Colvin, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

  Hicks, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Horam, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Couchman, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

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

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

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunter, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  986

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Richards, Rod

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stewart, Allan

  Malone, Gerald

  Streeter, Gary

  Mans, Keith

  Sumberg, David

  Marland, Paul

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marlow, Tony

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Thomason, Roy

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thumham, Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Monro, Sir Hector

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

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Needham, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walden, George

  Norris, Steve

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ward, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pickles, Eric

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Willetts, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  987

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dowd, Jim

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ainger, Nick

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Allen, Graham

  Eastham, Ken

  Alton, David

  Enright, Derek

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Etherington, Bill

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Ashton, Joe

  Fatchett, Derek

  Austin-Walker, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barnes, Harry

  Fisher, Mark

  Barron, Kevin

  Flynn, Paul

  Battle, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bayley, Hugh

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Foulkes, George

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Fraser, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Fyfe, Maria

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Galloway, George

  Benton, Joe

  Gapes, Mike

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Garrett, John

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  George, Bruce

  Betts, Clive

  Gerrard, Neil

  Blunkett, David

  Gilbert, RtHon DrJohn

  Boateng, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Boyes, Roland

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bradley, Keith

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gordon, Mildred

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

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Byers, Stephen

  Gunnell, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harvey, Nick

  Cann, Jamie

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Henderson, Doug

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Home Robertson, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cox, Tom

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jamieson, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Janner, Greville

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Denham, John

  Jowell, Tessa

  Dewar, Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dixon, Don

  Keen, Alan

  Dobson, Frank

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  988

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Prescott, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Radice, Giles

  Lewis, Terry

  Raynsford, Nick

  Litherland, Robert

  Redmond, Martin

  Livingstone, Ken

  Reid, Dr John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rendel, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  McAllion, John

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rogers, Allan

  McCartney, Ian

  Rooker, Jeff

  McCrea, Rev William

  Rooney, Terry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKelvey, William

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McLeish, Henry

  Salmond, Alex

  McMaster, Gordon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Madden, Max

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Short, Clare

  Mahon, Alice

  Simpson, Alan

  Mandelson, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, David (SheWeston)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Soley, Clive

  Martlew, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  Maxton, John

  Spellar, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Meale, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, Alun

  Stevenson, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Straw, Jack

  Milburn, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Tyler, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Vaz, Keith

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morley, Elliot

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Watson, Mike

  Mudie, George

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mullin, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Murphy, Paul

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wilson, Brian

  Olner, William

  Winnick, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wise, Audrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Worthington, Tony

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Wray, Jimmy

  Parry, Robert

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Patchett, Terry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pope, Greg

  Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. John Cummings.

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for consideration of the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords] shall consist of twenty-eight Members, including not fewer than nineteen Members sitting for

PETITION

  Video Material
  10.31 pm
  Mr. David Alton: It is my privilege to present a petition containing 100,000 signatures in support of an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill that will soon be tabled by almost 150 Members of Parliament who are drawn from all political parties. It seeks to introduce a new classification of "not suitable for home entertainment" to prevent gratuitously violent material being retailed or sold in video shops.
  The petition states:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of residents of the United Kingdom sheweth
  The overwhelming evidence that exposure to images of a degrading or violent nature on film, television or video can desensitise the viewer and act as a trigger in the commission of acts of violence; that children are particularly at risk and that current systems of 'watersheds', parental oversight, and legislative regulation are inadequate.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will amend the Criminal Justice Bill before you at this time to ensure that such images are not available on video or broadcast on television, including cable and satellite networks.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  The petition is signed by Dr. Robert Song, the tutor in moral ethics at St. John's college, Durham, who is the chairman of the Movement for Christian Democracy and whose name is at the head of the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  The Solent (Habitats)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank Madam Speaker for allowing me this important debate. It has been prompted by a number of factors, the first of which is my election to the position of commodore of the House of Commons yacht club. It grieves me when I hear the suggestion that yachting and marine wildlife are not compatible. There is nothing that a yachtsman enjoys observing more than a shag or a cormorant busily fishing in the Solent. Yachtsmen and women are a more environmentally conscious group than practically any other sporting group. Indeed, I do not know whether the Minister has ever had the pleasure of observing dolphins playing around the bow of a sailing ship, or of watching the sun go down in the company of oyster catchers and curlews. If not, I tell him that they represent some of the most magical moments in our crowded lives.
  My first reason for the debate is the desire to hand over to our grandchildren the wonderful inheritance of wildlife in the Solent, of which we are temporary custodians. My second reason is that there have been tremendous improvements in the quality of the Solent waters. Cetaceans are good indicators of pollution levels, and their return in recent years to the Solent is a better testimony to the Government's record than all of the Hansards and fine speeches in the world.
  The suggestion that the Solent should be redesignated and no longer considered an estuary for the sake of the urban waste water treatment directive is worrying indeed. I am pleased that the National Rivers Authority is opposing that, and I hope very much that Ministers are too.
  My third reason is that, as a paying member of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight wildlife trust, I promised that I would campaign for the Government to designate the Solent water under the habitats directive, and to get the Government to put right the problem that was created by the Law Lords in the now famous Alverstone marshes case. The marshes became a site of special scientific interest —or a SSSI as we more commonly know it. Despite that, considerable environmental damage was done on that site.
  My fourth and final reason is the encouragement that the Select Committee had from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). The members of the Committee were extremely disappointed by the Government's response to the report on coastal zone protection and planning. In correspondence with the Committee Chairman, the Minister gave us hope that the recommendations would be more carefully considered in future.
  Yesterday, I attended the Royal Yachting Association's annual general meeting, which was presided over by Her Royal Highness Princess Anne. Again and again, the fear of the licensing of yachtsmen and the registration of boats came up at the meeting. Surely to goodness the opportunity of managing and regulating the Solent and the nation's coastal zone is wholly preferable to a raft of busybody legislation, which is about as enforceable as television and dog licences, and is also very intrusive.

  991
  The Committee heard today the Minister's official Robin Sharp, who was positive in his evidence to us about the future and about the possibility of the regulations. I hope that we will hear from the Minister that he is positive also.
  In an article on the subject on 21 February in The Times, the environment correspondent, Nick Nuttall, stated:
  "The Government is this summer expected to announce two big marine nature reserves to improve protection for the wildlife around Britain … Conservationists claim that the Species and Habitats Directive offers tremendous opportunities for drafting tough laws to conserve the nation's marine heritage from over-fishing, shipping, pollution and dredging. But rather than bringing new laws in June, they say, there is growing evidence that the Environment Department will use old legislation that has proved to be inadequate."
  Britannia rules the waves, but the Department of the Environment wavers on the rules.
  I must pay tribute to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and to Adrian Penrose, the society's parliamentary officer, for help with the debate. The harbours and estuaries of the Solent support abundant plants, worms, molluscs and shellfish which, in turn, provide food for a large number of birds. In mid-winter, the Solent holds more than 110,000 wading birds and 45,000 wildfowl, making it the sixth most important site for water birds in the United Kingdom. It is internationally important as a bird migration route from the Arctic to Africa. Approximately 15 per cent.—25,000—of the world's population of dark-bellied Brent geese spend the winter on the Solent.
  The wildlife value of the Solent's estuaries extends beyond its birds. The inter-tidal areas are important feeding and spawning grounds for commercially valuable fish. In addition, the Isle of Wight is home to the starlet sea anemone, a globally threatened species. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will yet consider that it may be a suitable candidate for the Prime Minister's Darwin initiative which he announced at the Rio conference.
  The Government's statutory advisers, English Nature, describe the Solent and the Isle of Wight as being of national and international importance. It is an area of transition between the Lusitanean warm temperate and Boreal cold temperature provinces, with flora and fauna from both. In 1976, the United Kingdom ratified the Ramsar convention, named after the meeting venue of Ramsar in Iran. Those who are so used to juggling with the alphabet soup of Whitehall should note that the Ramsar convention takes its name after the town. That is another reason why I am having the debate this evening—I always refer to my wife as the ayatollah.
  Contracting parties to the convention are required to promote the conservation of listed wetlands. More generally, contracting parties are exhorted to plan the wise use of wetlands in all areas of policy planning and formulation. Where listed sites are involved, damaging development can proceed only in the urgent national interest. Alternative sites are required to be listed in place of any so developed.
  Almost all the Solent's inter-tidal areas have been notified as SSSIs and designated as special protection areas under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds, to which the United Kingdom is bound under European law, and as Ramsar sites. So far, only Chichester, Langstone and Pagham harbours have been designated as both. Last year, additional guidance was issued for the implementation of the wise use concept and appended to
  992
  resolution 5.6 of the Kushiro conference, which was the fifth conference of the contracting parties to the Ramsar convention.
  In addition, the United Kingdom Government will shortly publish regulations to implement the EC habitats and species directive which requires, inter alia, protection of the wider marine environment. The Government's commitments under the biodiversity action plan and national sustainability strategy also require protection of the wildlife interest of the Solent.
  The threats and problems facing the Solent are many. Despite its size, the Solent is under threat from permanent habitat destruction and from disturbance and pollution. Much of that stems from human population pressures. About 1.1 million people live within just 10 miles of the Solent and the whole area has seen substantial growth in recent years.
  From 1930 to 1980, almost an eighth of the inter-tidal area of the Solent was lost to land claim and development. Although each individual threat may be small, together the threats add up alarmingly. Continued threats today include losses of habitat to roads and landfill and the many marinas and offshore facilities. With more than 32,000 yacht berths and moorings, the Solent is claimed to have the largest recreational sailing fleet in the world. The increasing numbers of sailboards, jet skis and other fun craft place ever greater pressure on the system. Shoreline activities and developments also have an important effect.
  Disturbance to feeding or roosting birds prevents them from feeding and can be particularly harmful especially in the short winter days. Fast motor boats sailing close to and sometimes landing on the islands and spits holding nesting birds lead to increased nest predation and breeding failure.
  Nature reserves such as those of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Langstone and Chichester harbours and the reserves of the statutory bodies and county trusts make a positive contribution to reconciling different conflicts in the coastal zone. Several local authorities have also established local nature reserves. The Newtown river nature reserve, which has been established in conjunction with the National Trust, is just such an area and one I know well, as I grew up there as a boy.
  The RSPB spends thousands of pounds annually helping to resolve the impacts of recreation on wildlife, for example, in Langstone harbour. With careful management —and I emphasise that—nature reserves can provide enjoyment for people without damaging the environment that they have come to visit, which is precisely the point that we made in the report on coastal zone management and why we hope yet to see a more positive result and response from the Government.
  The Solent suffers when there is a pollution incident such as the illegal washing of ships' tanks either in the channel or even in the Solent itself. For some years, I have been calling for greater identification of tankers using the channel as a route so that the culprits can be more easily identified and a greater number of prosecutions brought. English Nature describes the Solent as a top 10 important area for marine wildlife round England. The conservation of the Solent depends on the involvement and support of the local community. The estuaries and harbours are important local assets and their wildlife is becoming increasingly significant as a resource for recreation and tourism.
  The existence of all coastal users requires careful zoning of competing needs such as fishing, sailing and

  993
  water skiing to avoid potential conflicts and damage to wildlife. This, in, turn requires the active involvement of harbour and planning authorities. The working cooperation of Langstone and Chichester harbours is a good example of best practice.
  The Solent and planning causes us particular difficulties. The artificial split of planning functions within the coastal zone into landward and seaward elements is a major barrier to the adoption of an holistic and more effective strategic planning and management approach. I believe, as does the RSPB, that local authority jurisdiction should be extended seawards to allow coverage of marine developments. That approach was endorsed by the Select Committee on the Environment inquiry, but, sadly, it was almost totally rejected, without reasons being given, in the Government's response. We understand from the officials who appeared before the Committee this morning that they have received more than 1,000 representations on the consultative documents, which I hope the Minister will take as strong reinforcement of the Committee's arguments.
  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds also fully supports other recommendations of the inquiry, such as the development of a national coastal unit with a national coastal strategy and regional coastal groups. In addition, the RSPB believes that local authorities should be able to make byelaws to manage recreation offshore, including zoning sensitive areas.
  In its final recommendations on the future local government of the Isle of Wight, the Local Government Commission for England noted the concerns of the three councils involved, supported by Hampshire county council, that the seaward boundaries of the Isle of Wight should be extended further into the Solent because they felt that some control by a public body was needed to protect the public interest.
  Will the Government consider extending local government jurisdiction seawards to provide greater protection of the public interest as the Select Committee on the Environment asked and as has been promised this very day in a special note from the Minister's advisers on this point? Will the Solent be made a marine special area for conservation under the new habitats and species directive, and how will the United Kingdom honour the requirements for environmental impact legislation that caters for the cumulative effects of separate projects? Finally, how will the United Kingdom monitor the effects of authorised actions and carry out unbiased environmental audits of those actions when they have been completed?
  I can remember many things on the island from my youth. I can remember when there were no marinas and when boats were wooden, but the one thing that I cannot remember, although some of my constituents can, is puffins, those delightful little creatures with the orange beaks, nesting at the Needles. We have not seen them for many years in the Solent. As I grow older and more grey, I shall treat as the ultimate test of the success of our environmental policies the return of puffins to that most famous landmark of the Isle of Wight, the Needles.
  10.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has spoken with great authority about the important issue of wildlife and the Solent and, in particular, about the possible designation of the area under the Ramsar convention. As my hon. Friend made clear, in 1976 the United Kingdom became a signatory to the Ramsar convention, so called because of the meeting venue of Ramsar in Iran. That was an intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for international co-operation for the conservation of wetland habitats.
  The main objectives of the convention are to stem the loss of wetlands now and in the future and to promote the wise use of them. Under the convention, contracting parties such as the United Kingdom are also required to include wetland conservation considerations within their national land-use planning and to promote the conservation of wetlands through the establishment of nature reserves. In addition, we are obliged to designate at least one wetland for inclusion in the "List of Wetlands of International Importance".
  There are now more than 600 wetlands of international importance worldwide. We have designated 73 Ramsar areas. Indeed, there are more Ramsar sites in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the world.
  The enormous range of wetland habitats throughout the United Kingdom—from rain-fed northern peatlands through valley bogs and fens to lakes, rivers and estuaries —makes them of particular importance. Clearly, areas of our natural heritage, such as the Solent, are of international importance. We certainly recognise our responsibility to maintain the Solent's diversity of natural heritage of wildlife for future generations.
  English Nature, the Government's statutory adviser, is preparing a detailed case for the designation of Southampton water and the Solent as a Ramsar site and special protection area under the EC birds directive. English Nature intends to consult local people, local planning authorities and everyone with relevant concerns before April next year. When the consultations are complete, English Nature will submit its proposals to us. We shall be consulting other Government Departments about the proposed designations at the same time as English Nature consults local people, so that everything can proceed at all possible speed.
  We wanted to designate Southampton water and the Solent as a Ramsar site and special protection area this year. Alas, there have been a number of delays which, with the best will in the world and a full commitment to the initiative, have been unavoidable. As I know my hon. Friend.appreciates, the Solent is a complex natural habitat made up of a number of sites of special scientific interest and English Nature has identified further areas which it considers may well merit inclusion in the SPA/Ramsar area of designation. Some of those areas are around the Isle of Wight.
  Obviously, the latest ornithological information available will be reviewed and, where appropriate, the SSSI boundaries will be amended accordingly. It is important work, but it is also time consuming. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate our wish to reflect the

  995
  fullest possible extent of the wetland habitats and the areas of ornithological interest when the international SPA/Ramsar designations are made.
  In the meantime, following the precautionary principle, we protect special protection areas in the same manner as designated sites. Potential Ramsar sites are given similar protection. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will normally call in all planning applications, both within SSSI boundaries and outside, which are likely significantly to affect sites of international importance and recognised national importance. Potential Ramsar sites and SPAs are rigorously protected. We are determined to protect their nature conservation. Only reasons of overriding national public interest can interfere with the protection afforded by such designation.
  I fully support everything that my hon. Friend said about the importance of nature conservation in the Southampton water and Solent potential SPA/Rarnsar areas. The proposed areas consist of a series of estuaries with extensive mudflats and associated salt marshes. The mudflats support large numbers of wintering waterfowl and breeding gulls and terns. In particular, they support internationally important numbers of wintering clarkbellied Brent geese and nationally important numbers of six or seven different types of waders and different types of breeding Sandwich tern, common tern and little tern.
  I understand that there have been some concerns at English Nature's proposals to notify new SSSIs in the area and expand water and the Solent. Clearly, a balance has to be struck between those who gain their living from the land or sea and who are concerned that statutory designation might impede their ability to husband their livelihoods and the wildlife and conservation interests inherent in an important habitat. I hope that, by carrying out extensive discussions and consultation with local people, English Nature can come forward with proposals that command local support.
  The measures that we have taken provide the most comprehensive legislative framework for nature conservation ever seen in this country and stand comparison with the measures taken by any of our European partners or anywhere in the developed world. The new EC habitats directive comes into force this June. That directive lists a number of habitat types, such as coastal areas like the Solent, for which special areas of conservation must be designated under the directive. Those, together with the special protection areas classified under the birds directive, will make up the Natura 2000 network of designated areas. The habitats directive lists criteria that must be applied in the process of selection of the sites.
  At present, to ensure that we comply with the directive, the statutory nature conservation advisers, co-ordinated by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, are working on an assessment of the United Kingdom nature conservation resource. That work is well under way, but it will still be a little time before we are able to announce which sites we consider may, subject to consultation, qualify for inclusion on our national list. So, understandably, it is difficult to say now whether the Solent will be recommended as qualifying as an SAC in its own right under the habitats directive. Of course it will definitely in any event be part of the Natura 2000 network by virtue of its impending SPA designation under the birds directive.
  We are fully committed to the implementation of the habitats directive. Last year, we set out our proposals. We made it clear that regulations would be laid before the
  996
  House to transpose the directive into national law and, because the habitats directive amends the birds directive, such regulations will also cover SPAs.
  There have been many responses to the consultation paper. We have been carefully considering them, and will shortly introduce the regulations. They will place a clear duty on the relevant Secretaries of State, the nature conservation agencies and other bodies to comply with the directives by using their existing powers, amended and augmented as necessary. The regulations will also make provision to amend the town and country planning legislation.
  Mr. Barry Field: Do I take that to mean that my hon. Friend is promising us legislation that will put back the clock to before the Alverstone marsh case, which meant that the SSSI designation was not everything that everyone thought that it was in terms of protecting a site?
  Mr. Baldry: I hope that I had made it clear that we are fully committed to ensuring that the birds directive and the habitats directive are implemented in full and that full protection is accorded to SSSIs. I also hope that I have made it clear that in so far as there has been any delay in implementing an SPA/Ramsar designation in the Solent and Southampton water, it has simply been because we want to ensure that the full extent of those SSSIs are included within that designation.
  For marine sites, our proposals are to create a framework for the various bodies with jurisdiction in the areas concerned to work together to prepare a scheme of management to ensure the necessary conservation objectives. Such bodies must include the sea estuaries committees and harbour authorities as well as English Nature and will also include recreational interests. I am sure that such an approach will ensure that all concerned can pursue their interests in ways are compatible with the sustainable management of the areas involved. My hon. Friend, as commodore of the House of Commons yacht squadron and a naturalist, and as someone concerned with the livelihood of the Isle of Wight, has made it clear that it is perfectly possible to reconcile all those interests and still ensure good nature conservation.
  My hon. Friend has asked whether the Government will consider extending local authority jurisdiction seawards. Among other things, the Select Committee on the Environment, of which my hon. Friend is a member, issued a report on coastal zone protection and planning which called for a more comprehensive and integrated approach to coastal zone management. The Government welcomed the report as a valuable contribution to the debate and drew attention to a number of initiatives such as new planning and policy guidance and the publication of a strategy for coastal defence in England and Wales.
  The' coastal planning guidance, published in September 1992, is the most important statement on planning our coast for 20 years. It is the first time that we have set out comprehensive planning guidance covering both the open coast and the estuaries of England and Wales. Development should now be limited to that which genuinely needs to be located there and guided towards areas that are already largely developed. Making provision for development in appropriate locations is essential if we are to safeguard what is best about our natural coastline for future generations. The advice also encourages a high level

  997
  of co-ordination between local authorities and interest groups to develop plans for stretches of coast, particularly estuaries.
  As my hon. Friend has said, officials from my Department gave evidence today to the Environment Select Committee. I am sure that he is right when he says that their evidence was positive and constructive. I am sure that they clearly set out established policy on our approach to enhancing coastal protection.
  My hon. Friend also asked what specific actions we will take to implement the new guidance on the wise use of wetlands. As he said, resolution 5.6 of the conference of the contracting parties to the Ramsar convention called on contracting parties to implement the applicable provisions of the guidance. The guidance urges, among other things, contracting parties to promote policy, including the use of legislation to implement wise use. The guidance on wise use is designated for contracting parties around the world, including developing countries. Our existing policies and legislation, as set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" and our biodiversity action plan, embody the principles that the guidance seeks to promote.
  Important wetlands, particularly Ramsar sites, are protected by, among other things, the SSSI network, which we have already discussed. The Government and the statutory nature conservation bodies that have responsibility for protecting SSSIs are fully conversant with, and committed to, the "wise use" concept, and forthcoming guidance and the new planning and policy guidance note on nature conservation will have regard to the use of wetlands, and our land use planning system should, and will, ensure that all relevant considerations are taken into account in determining development proposals.
  998
  Government policies ensure, and we shall ensure, that the nature conservation of Southampton water and the Solent marshes will receive strict protection. Ramsar and SPA designation will give the clearest possible recognition to the international importance of the Solent. English Nature knows of the importance that we attach to the protection and designation of internationally important wildlife habitats. I am glad to say that English Nature has been provided with additional funding to accelerate the designation of Southampton water and the Solent, as well as other sites, because we are determined to implement both the EC birds directive and the Ramsar convention as speedily as possible.
  We are in no doubt about the importance of wetlands to wildlife and to our national heritage. For that reason, the United Kingdom has designated more Ramsar sites than any other country. Further areas such as Southampton water and the Solent marshes will follow. We believe firmly in the wise use of wetlands, a concept central to the Ramsar convention. Sustainability can perhaps best be defined as
  "the human use of a wetland so that it may yield the greatest continuous benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations."
  The arrangements that are in place in the UK for both the designation and protection of internationally important wildlife sites protect the legitimate interests of local people and the need to conserve our natural heritage for the sake of our children.
  I am sure that we can achieve all that. I hope that, in all our life times, we will see the puffins return to the Needles.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of quangos for which he is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago.

  Mr. Howard
  Such information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993" and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Library of the House.

  Self-financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many self-financing regulatory authorities his Department has set up since 1979; what was the annual running cost of each of the self-financing regulatory authorities in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment; and what it was last year and two years ago.

  Mr. Howard
  No self-financing self regulatory authorities have been set up by my Department since 1979.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many rules and regulations his Department has passed in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Howard
  The number of sets of rules and regulations signed by me or by previous Home Secretaries in each of the years 1991 to 1993 is as follows:

  Calendar year

  Rules

  Regulations

  Total number

  1991

  1

  19

  20

  1992

  9

  25

  34

  1993

  6

  15

  21

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions under section 31 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 have been undertaken in each year since 1979; in what countries the defendants were serving; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on procedures instituted under section 31 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948, as amended by schedule 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 are not collected centrally by my Department.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutes concerning the welfare of captive animals in terms of(a) circuses, (b) zoos, (c) pet shops, (d) breeding establishments, (e) kennels, (f) residential homes and (g) other.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Protection of Animals Act 1911, as subsequently amended, governs the welfare of all captive and domestic animals. The following statutes provide additional safeguards in the individual sectors mentioned:

  The Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

  The Zoo Licensing Act 1981

  The Pet Animals Acts 1951 and 1983

  The Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991

  The Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963

  The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 regulates the keeping of such creatures in the home. Other principal animal welfare statutes are:

  The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937

  The Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949

  The Cockfighting Act 1952

  The Abandonment of Animals Act 1960

  The Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act 1962

  The Riding Establishments Acts 1964 and 1970

  The Farriers (Registration) Acts 1975 and 1977

  The Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the approved strength of the West Midlands police force in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The establishment of the West Midlands police was 6,509 on 1 April 1979 and 6,977 on 1 April 1993.

  Italy (Extradition)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations Her Majesty's Government have received since 1980 from the Italian authorities to extradite suspected criminals and terrorists; what has been his response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since 1980, the Italian Government have requested the extradition of 67 people from the United Kingdom, for a wide range of offences.

  Of these, 61 were accused of the offences for which their extradition was requested and six had been convicted. Sixteen of those sought have been returned to Italy, eight requests have been refused and 12 remain outstanding. Of the remainder, either the requests were subsequently withdrawn, or the person sought could not be traced here or was arrested in another country or was deported from this country. In one case, the person sought committed suicide before the conclusion of the proceedings.

  Fines (Non-Payment)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were imprisoned for non-payment of fines and other debts who were legally represented at the hearing at which they were imprisoned in the most recent year for which records are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of people legally represented at specific types of hearings is not collected centrally.

  Forensic Psychiatric Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations underlie the timing of the changeover of funding of the forensic psychiatric service in Doncaster to the Prison Service.

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

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 16 March 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, to reply to your recent Question about Prison Service funding of psychiatric services in Doncaster.
  There are no plans to change the way in which the Forensic Psychiatric Service for prisoner patients is funded. Medical treatment of prisoners transferred to an outside hospital is funded by the District Health Authority in whose area the prisoner resided before imprisonment.
  The three establishments in the Doncaster area, Lindholme, Moorland and Hatfield, contract in and pay for a visiting consultant psychiatrist. The Prison Service receives no funds from the District Health Authority in support of this service.

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. Howard
  One, who was recruited directly from outside the civil service.

  Management Systems
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department's computer-aided facilities management systems cost; from whom they were purchased; how many person hours were required to commission them; what the estimated and actual saving has been from their operation; and to what extent the use of such systems accounts for the apparent rise in theft noted in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) of 16 February,Official Report, column 804.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Department has no computer-aided facilities management systems in place.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Sex Discrimination Tribunals
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make legal aid available to women appealing to industrial tribunals in cases of sexual discrimination.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no plans to extend full civil legal aid to any type of case before an industrial tribunal. However, legal advice and assistance under the green form scheme is available to those who are financially eligible.

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. John M. Taylor
  Neither of the chief executives of HM Land Registry and the Public Record Office, the agencies for which the Lord Chancellor has responsibility, is paid more than £82,925 per annum excluding performance-related bonuses.

  The current chief executive of HM Land Registry was appointed from within the registry after open competition. The current chief executive of the public Record Office was formerly director of special collections at the British Library.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Dividend Stripping
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if the Commissioners have been involved in dividend stripping as distinct from any gilt stripping activities; and if he will list the gains from such activity in each of the last five years?

  Mr. Alison
  The amounts shown in my answers of 25 February and 4 March on the subject of gilt stripping represented the differences between interest on gilts calculated on the receipts basis and interest calculated on the accruals basis. No such alternative bases apply to dividends from equities: in common with other investment funds, the Church Commissioners account for dividends on the receipt basis and consider it impractical either to account for dividends on the accruals basis or to recalculate with hindsight what the dividends would have been if calculated on this basis.

  While the Commissioners continue to manage their investments with the intention of generating a high level of income, this is achieved in relation to their equities portfolio through the selection of appropriate investments.

TREASURY

  Ways and Means Advances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the interest currently paid on ways and means advances; and for what reason he needs to pay any interest.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Most ways and means borrowing takes the form of surplus Exchequer moneys, which are used to minimise Government borrowing overnight. No interest is paid on such borrowing, though interest must be paid at market-related rates to attract ways and means advances from other sources.

  Taxation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number and percentage of basic rate and higher rate taxpayers in(a) Lancashire, (b) Cambridgeshire and (c) the United Kingdom for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table provides estimates for 1991–92, the latest available year for which information can be provided below the United Kingdom level.

  Basic and higher rate taxpayers 1991–92

  Taxpayers liable at only basic rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  000s

  Per cent.

  000s

  Per cent.

  Lancashire

  601

  95·2

  30

  4·8

  Cambridgeshire

  326

  94·2

  20

  5·8

  United Kingdom

  24,800

  93·9

  1,620

  6·1

  Sub-Saharan Countries (Debt)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his Department's plans for assisting sub-Saharan countries in meeting debt repayments to multilateral agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The poorest countries benefit from the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility (ESAF), which provides highly concessional long-term assistance at an interest rate of only 0·5 per cent. in support of economic reform in the poorest countries. The United Kingdom has just announced that it will provide an extra £50 million to subsidise the interest rate of the ESAF successor facility, on top of our earlier contribution of up to £327 million; over time the United Kingdom will contribute about one ninth of the subsidy required by ESAF.

  These countries also benefit from concessional credits from the World Bank's International Development Association, to which the United Kingdom contributed £620 million at the last replenishment, which concentrates on lending to the poorest countries. They also have help meeting interest repayments on non-concessional loans to the World Bank through the bank's fifth dimension facility.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Charges
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he is having with regard to future methods of paying for water.

  Mr. Atkins
  The basis of charging for water is a matter for the water companies. It is among the topics discussed at meetings with the Director General of Water Services and representatives of water companies.

  Liverpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the standard spending assessment and revenue grant provision as proposed for the city of Liverpool in 1994–95; and if he will undertake a complete review of the city's financial situation in consultation with Liverpool city council.

  Mr. Curry
  Standard spending assessments are calculated on principles applicable to all authorities, taking 674
  account of each authority's social, demographic and physical characteristics. Liverpool's SSA of £419 million for 1994–95 is equivalent to £875 per head, the third highest of any metropolitan district. The total external support for Liverpool that year, which includes revenue support grant, SSA reduction grant and redistributed non-domestic rates, will be £363 million, equivalent to £758 per head, again the third highest.

  We look each year at the calculation of standard spending assessments. In the forthcoming round we will certainly bear in mind the points made by the city of Liverpool and by the hon. Member. It is for the city council to manage within the resources available to it: it would not be appropriate for me to intervene in the way implied in the question.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to stop further categories from jumping the homelessness housing queue.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady O. Maitland).

  Municipal Housing Policy
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on developments in Government policy on municipal housing.

  Sir George Young
  The Government are extending the benefits of competition in the provision of local authority services to council housing management, consulting on new proposals for access to local authority and housing association tenancies and introducing important new rights for council tenants.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average increase in council tax bills for 1994–95.

  Mr. Curry
  The average headline council tax based on those authorities for which my Department has actual or provisional information shows an increase of 2·4 per cent. over the 1993–94 average.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the top and bottom 10 council taxes so far declared.

  Mr. Curry
  The top and bottom 10 headline council taxes (band C, two adults) based on actual and provisional information where available are:

  1994–95 headline council tax (band C)

  Highest 10 authorities

  Liverpool

  770

  Manchester

  691

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  686

  Coventry

  669

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  658

  Salford

  658

  Bristol

  652

  Middlesbrough

  645

  675

  1994–95 headline council tax (band C)

  Hartlepool

  643

  Kirklees

  635

  Lowest 10 authorities

  Westminster

  218

  Wellingborough

  261

  Wandsworth

  306

  Isles of Scilly

  358

  City of London

  368

  Hambleton

  396

  Tewkesbury

  398

  Rochester upon Medway

  402

  South Cambridgeshire

  408

  Teesdale

  409

  Rents
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce legislation to limit the amount that property companies and private landlords can charge in residential rents.

  Sir George Young
  None.

  Bathing Water Directive
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his current proposals for re-negotiating the EU Bathing Water directive.

  Mr. Gummer
  We will be examining the proposal for revision announced by the EC Commission on 16 February to assess how far it concentrates on essential quality and health parameters and is a framework directive meeting the requirements of subsidiarity, up-to-date science and cost-effectiveness.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his correspondence with his opposite number in the European Commission in relation to the Cardiff bay barrage and the EC Habitats Directive.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1 March at column 643.

  Local Government, Staffordshire
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the review of local government in Staffordshire.

  Mr. Curry
  The Local Government Commission began its review of Staffordshire in December 1993, and interested parties have until 8 April to submit their initial proposals to it. The commission will then publish draft recommendations for consultation. In preparing its final report, the commission will take account of any representations made about the draft recommendations. The commission proposes to submit its final report and recommendations for Staffordshire to my right hon. Friend in the autumn.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations were undertaken in the development of the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his plans for the application of CCT to housing management.

  Sir George Young
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 26 November 1993 at columns 264–65; to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 15 December 1993 at columns 733–34; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 21 January 1994 at columns 871–73.

  Community Stadium, Southampton
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to determine the appeal on the planning application for a new community stadium at Stoneham, Southampton.

  Mr. Baldry
  The appeals will be decided as soon as possible.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest there are in England and Wales; and how many of these were created in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Gummer
  In England, at 3 March 1994 there were 3,775 SSSIs. This includes 45 sites notified or re-notified to date in the current financial year. I am advised by my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, that there were 882 SSSIs, at 31 December 1993, in Wales. This includes 32 sites newly notified between 1 January and 31 December 1993.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to secure an independent inquiry into the comparative fairness of the standard spending assessment from one region to another; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Standard spending assessments are calculated on a consistent basis using the same formulae for each authority. We carried out a thorough review of the SSA system for 1994–95 in partnership with the local authority associations.

  The Audit Commission published a study of the SSA system in May 1993. The Environment Select Committee published its own report on SSAs earlier this year. The Government will publish their response to the Select Committee's recommendations later this month.

  Water Quality
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet representatives of the water companies to discuss water quality.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend meets regularly with representatives of the water companies to discuss a variety of issues including water quality.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on United Kingdom compliance with EU water quality directives.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom is committed to fulfilling its obligations under these directives.

  Fraud and Corruption
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about fraud and corruption in local government.

  Mr. Curry
  It is the responsibility of local authorities themselves, both members and officers, to take measures to prevent and detect fraud and corruption in their affairs. The Audit Commission's recent report on probity in the public sector concluded that"probity in local government is generally in good order".
  There is no room for complacency, however; fraud and corruption are always to be condemned, wherever they occur.

  City Pride
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken in relation to City Pride.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave earlier to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme).

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what actions have been taken in relation to City Pride.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what actions have been taken in relation to City Pride; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The partners in the three City Pride cities, Birmingham, London and Manchester, have all formed partnerships to take forward the preparation of prospectuses for their areas, and are making good progress.

  Rural Housing
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses have been completed with Housing Corporation funding in rural areas in each of the last three years.

  Sir George Young
  The Housing Corporation's capital programme provided 98 new homes in rural areas—defined as settlements with a population of 3,000 or less—in 1990–91, 491 in 1991–92, 1,665 in 1992–93 and 1,701 this financial year up to the end of February 1994. These figures exclude completions of new homes which were approved before 1989–90, since the Housing Corporation did not collect such information on rural schemes approved prior to this date.

  Waste Water
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportions of waste water in each member state of the European Union are treated.

  Mr. Atkins
  The percentage of population in each member state served by sewage treatment works is given in the table:

  Member State

  Percentage of population served by sewage works

  Belgium1

  33

  Denmark

  100

  France

  52

  Germany (West)

  92

  Greece

  76

  Ireland

  44

  Italy

  60

  Luxembourg

  92

  Netherlands

  90

  Portugal

  45

  Spain

  47

  United Kingdom

  88

  1 Wallone region only

  Source: 10th Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, Municipal Waste Water Treatment, volume I, May 1991.

  Water Analyses
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which member states of the European Union there are available for public inspection analyses of water and waste water.

  Mr. Atkins
  In England and Wales analyses of water and waste water carried out by water companies, local authorities, and the National Rivers Authority, are made available for public inspection. The drinking water inspectorate publishes annually the results of the analyses of drinking water. So far as we are aware, comprehensive information is not available on the position in other member states.

  Domestic Consumers
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial means he will employ to encourage efficiency and conservation for domestic consumers.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department uses a number of financial means to encourage domestic energy efficiency.

  The home energy efficiency scheme provides grants for basic energy efficiency measures for vulnerable members of society. On 1 April funds for the scheme are to be almost doubled and the scheme extended to elderly and disabled people. Local authorities run substantial council housing repair and improvement programmes which include energy efficiency measures. The new single regeneration budget will incorporate energy efficiency work currently covered in the estate action programme. VAT on domestic fuel and power will also contribute to improved efficiency and conservation.

  Acid Batteries
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment United Kingdom authorities are able to make of the health effects on battery recycle workers in industrialising third world nations which import acid batteries from the United Kingdom for recycling.

  Mr. Atkins
  There is no requirement under present legislation for United Kingdom authorities to make assessment of the type suggested. When the EC Waste Shipments Regulation applies in May, the export of waste for recovery will be prohibited if a competent authority of dispatch has reason to believe that a shipment will not be managed in accordance with environmentally sound methods in the country of destination. Guidelines for environmentally sound recovery operations are being prepared by a working group under the Basel convention.

  Sustainable Development Strategy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evaluation he has made of the relevance to the United Kingdom sustainable development strategy of the report to the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection on the monitoring by the EC of the implementation of Agenda 21 of the UN Conference on Environment and Development by Mrs. Guadalupe Ruiz-Giminenez Aguilar, MEP.

  Mr. Atkins
  None yet. The report by the Committee on the Environment was tabled in the European Parliament on 3 January and so far as I am aware remains subject to discussion.

  Water Disconnections
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of domestic water disconnections in each London borough for 1993.

  Mr. Atkins
  Data on disconnections by local authority district are not available centrally.

  Local Records
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to abolish the county records offices.

  Mr. Baldry
  As my right hon. Friend considers the recommendations of the Local Government Commission in each of the shire counties, he will be looking to ensure that they enable adequate provision to be made for all existing local government functions, including records and archives.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy on the level of public expenditure on(a) the collection and maintenance and (b) the availability locally for public inspection of local records.

  Mr. Baldry
  These are matters for local authorities to decide.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he proposes to allow the Energy Savings Trust to offer a lower rate of support to eligible owner-occupiers than to social housing; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to exclude low-rise flats from the Energy Saving Trust grant schemes; and if he will consider including (a) low-rise owner-occupier flats and (b) low rise social housing flats that are an integral part of housing layouts in energy savings trust schemes.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Energy Saving Trust is an independent organisation. The terms of its schemes are for the trust to establish in consultation with the bodies providing the funds.

  Government Offices
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, columns 38–39, if he will provide the total cost of each listed refurbishment where such figures are available, an analysis of the nature and cost of each refurbishment where it is available on an economic basis and the total cost of all refurbishments in (a) the SW1 postal district of London and (b) the remainder of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  As advised in my answer of 7 March,Official Report, columns 38–39, the detailed information requested on the nature and cost of the 77 refurbishment schemes listed cannot be provided at an economic cost.

  Hazardous Wastes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the reason for the proposed increase in expenditure between 1993–94 and 1994–95, on hazardous wastes, as set out in figure 10 of his annual report and expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1996–97, Cm. 2507.

  Mr. Atkins
  The expenditure represents contributions to trust funds established under the UNEP Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and their disposal. Until this year, the United Kingdom made voluntary contributions of United States $50,000 to support the work of the convention. From 1994, the United Kingdom is required to make a mandatory contribution as a party to the convention of United States $119,930. The United Kingdom also makes additional voluntary contributions to the Basel technical trust fund which assists developing and other countries in need of assistance to implement the convention.

  Since the figures in Cm. 2507 were finalised, it has been agreed that the United Kingdom should pay its mandatory contribution at the start of the relevant calendar year. As a result the first mandatory payment will now fall in 1993–94 and total payments in 1993–94 will be £131,807.

  Lancashire (Capital Receipts)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority in Lancashire the capital receipts held by them resulting from the sale of land, property and other assets.
  681
  Mr. Baldry
  The available information is as follows:

  Usable capital receipts at 1 April 1993 £'000

  Lancashire county council

  3,427

  Blackburn

  0

  Blackpool

  6,561

  Burnley

  1,184

  Chorley

  982

  Fylde

  458

  Hyndburn

  0

  Lancaster

  619

  Pendle

  1,391

  Preston

  1,823

  Ribble Valley

  1,097

  Rossendale

  12

  South Ribble

  243

  West Lancashire

  1,434

  Wyre

  371

  Tenant Participation
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of section 16 and section 87 funding for tenant participation initiatives.

  Sir George Young
  Support in the form of grants is available both directly and indirectly to tenants to encourage and develop greater tenant participation in the management of local authority and housing association housing. The powers to pay grant derive from section 429A of the Housing Act 1985—as inserted by section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986—and from section 87 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 respectively.

  With the introduction of the right to manage on 1 April 1994, section 16 grant will be focused increasingly on the development of tenant management organisations. Grant provision of £6·4 million is available during 1994–95.

  Housing association tenant participation is sponsored by the Housing Corporation. In 1994–95 the corporation expects to spend £2·4 million in providing grants under section 87. The emphasis of this programme is on the establishment of tenants groups and for aid to housing associations wishing to involve tenants in the management of their homes.

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of quangos for which he is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the numbers, funding and staffing of non-departmental public bodies is published annually in "Public Bodies," copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Self-financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many self-financing regulatory authorities his Department has set up since 1979; what was the annual running cost of each of the self-financing regulatory 682
  authorities in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment; and what it was last year and two years ago.

  Mr. Baldry
  Only one relevant authority has been set up since 1979. The Office of Water Services—OFWAT—was established in 1989 by the Water Act.

  The figures for its running costs over the last three financial years are:

  £ million

  1991–92

  5·7

  1992–93

  6·1

  1993–94

  18·2

  1 Estimate.

  Staff figures for those years are respectively—

  Number

  1991–92

  116

  1992–93

  131

  1993–94

  153

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many rules and regulations his Department has passed in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Baldry
  The number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament by my Department in each of the last three years was as follows:

  Number

  1991

  149

  1992

  181

  1993

  174

  Environmental Health Officers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many environmental health officers there were in each of the last five years; how many support staff they have; what they cost in each year; what mileage allowances were offered to environmental health officers; and whether they get cars supplied.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is not available centrally.

  Integrated Government Office for London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state(a) the location of the new integrated Government office for London and when it will commence operations, (b) the numbers of civil servants attached to, or related to, specific Government Departments to be posted to it, (c) the number of any other employees located there, (d) the date when he expects to announce the name of the services' regional controller and (e) the date that post will be taken up.

  Mr. Baldry
  The principal regional offices of the Departments of Employment, Environment, Trade and Industry and Transport responsible for London are
  683
  currently located at 236 Grays Inn road, Millbank tower, Bridge place and 2 Marsham street respectively. In the short term, the functions of the new office will continue to be performed from those offices. The Government Office for London will open for business in April, staffed by some 320 civil servants from existing regional offices and related divisions. We hope to announce the appointment of the regional director in the near future and the successful candidate should take up their post shortly thereafter.

  Shopping Centres
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his current planning guidance in respect of out-of-town shopping centres.

  Mr. Gummer
  Planning policy guidance note 6 contains our current policy. It encourages retail development that respects town centre vitality and viability, in locations that are accessible by a choice of means of transport and which encourage economy in fuel consumption. PPG 13, published yesterday, underlines the importance of these policies.

  Bradford City Centre Project
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the funding of Bradford's city centre project; what funding applications from the project he has received in the past year; how many have been(a) approved, (b) refused and (c) how many are still being considered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: The Department is currently funding the Bradford city centre project under the urban programme and under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985. We have received no representations about the project's funding. The Department has offered BCCP section 73 grant to expand the organisation's outreach scheme in 1994–95.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid and Trade
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the reasons for the dates of approval of individual aid and trade provision projects not being given in the list to which he referred in his answer to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) of 28 October 1993,Official Report, column 732; and if he will now make it his policy to provide the approval dates to Parliament.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The aid and trade provision scheme was established in 1978 and has been successful in securing over 270 overseas projects for Britain. In many of these projects the extended period of negotiation has meant that the project has been submitted for approval on more than one occasion. The list of successful ATP projects placed in the Library of the House is based on the dates when the formal Government-to-Government agreements or exchanges were signed for each project; this is the operative date for project commencement. Details of the 684
  dates of each individual approval is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. There are no plans to maintain such records centrally.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answers of 3 March,Official Report, column 800, on what basis the payment to Antah Biwater JV is consistent with his answer on payments to Malaysian companies.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My answers in the Official Report, column 800 are consistent. The status of the rural water supply project had changed from that of a proposed project to that of a project formally agreed between the two Governments before the payment referred to was made.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the ODA appointed a temporary rock expert to the Pergau design review panel; what is the cost likely to be of further steel lining for the power tunnels; what assessment the ODA has made of whether the contractors had an adequate geological evaluation of the cost of the project when they were given the work; if he will place in the Library the relevant documents explaining the geological reasons requiring an increase in Balfour Beatty—Cementation costs; and if he will make it his policy that any extra cost should be borne by the contractor.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  ODA appointed a rock mechanics expert for 2 weeks in early 1993 to advise Tenaga Nasional Berhad Malaysian power authority and ODA whether the design of the power tunnel and power cavern proposed by the contractor would ensure long term satisfactory and safe operation of the completed project. The cost of the additional steel lining in the power tunnel is the subject of a claim by the contractor for extra payment; this is currently being discussed by the contractor and Tenaga Nasional Berhad. Geological information available to the Contractor was taken into account in the price submitted to DTI and ODA in March 1989 and at the time of contract signature in 1991. Under the terms of the contract it is the contractor's responsibility to deliver the completed project for a fixed basic price subject only to (i) the application of agreed indices for cost escalation of certain items and (ii) for specified geological risks, the cost of which is to be shared between the Contractor and the client. The geological reasons for the likely cost increase for further steel lining are the concern of the contractor and Tenaga Nasional Berhad. ODA is not a party to the contract between them. ODA will not meet any of the additional costs.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which international relief organisations have been forced to evacuate their humanitarian activities and in which locations in Sudan; and what representations he has made to the Sudan Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Information provided by Operation Lifeline Sudan indicates that a number of agencies have
  685
  been affected by the fighting. World Vision has reduced numbers in Thiet; GOAL and AICF have taken people out of Ame, Aswa and Atepi camps, as has IRC; and AAIN has been forced to reduce its staff in Maridi and evacuate its staff from Mundri, as has Oxfam from Mundri. Relief workers have also withdrawn from Ulang, Kier and temporarily from Akobo.

  The United Nations has, with our support, made direct representations to the Government of Sudan about the indiscriminate bombing of civilians and the effects of the hostilities on the distribution of relief aid.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom gross national product was spent on overseas aid in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The figures are as follows:

  United Kingdom net official development assistance as a percentage of GNP 1979–1992

  Year

  Percentage

  1979

  0·52

  1980

  0·35

  1981

  0·43

  1982

  0·37

  1983

  0·35

  1984

  0·33

  1985

  0·33

  1986

  0·31

  1987

  0·28

  1988

  0·32

  1989

  0·31

  1990

  0·27

  1991

  0·32

  1992

  0·31

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Ministerial Receptions
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the cost of receptions held by Ministers in his Department in 1993–94.

  Mr. Brooke
  The cost of such receptions is included in the running costs for my Department, which are published in the annual report.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many bottles of(a) whisky and gin and (b) sherry and port were consumed by his private offices in 1993–94.

  Mr. Brooke
  None.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the cost of new furniture for his private office during the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Brooke
  Such purchases are included within my Department's overall administration expenditure, which is published every year in the annual report.

  Arts (Business Sponsorship)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he proposes to take over the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts current management difficulties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts—ABSA—is a company limited by guarantee with charitable status. As part of its activities, ABSA administers on behalf of my Department the business sponsorship incentive scheme. In that regard, my Department maintains a close working relationship with ABSA. I am not aware of any current management difficulties related to the scheme which would require action on my part.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the management arrangements at the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts in respect of handling Government grant aid; when the organisation was last evaluated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  In July 1993 the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts reported to my Department on the outcome of an independent, external review of its financial and management arrangements for the Government-funded business sponsorship incentive scheme. In the light of that detailed review, I am satisfied that efficient and effective systems are in place.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what instructions have been given to the Director General of OFLOT about how he discharges his responsibilities under section 5.6 of the invitation to apply to run the national lottery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  None.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) whether the article by Mr. Richard Branson in the Sunday Times of 20 February, constitutes a breach of section 5.6 of the invitation to apply; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what constitutes a breach of section 5.6 of the invitation to apply to run the national lottery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  This is an operational issue and therefore a matter for the director general of the national lottery.

TRANSPORT

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of quangos for which he is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago.

  Mr. Norris
  The information which my hon. Friend seeks is contained in "Public Bodies 1993" and previous editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rules and regulations his Department has passed in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department passed 91 statutory instruments in 1993, 115 in 1992 and 100 in 1991. A significant proportion of these set fees and charges only.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information is available to his Department about the range of costs of fitting seat belts to minibuses and coaches.

  Mr. Key
  The diversity of vehicle types and the way in which they are constructed are such that it is not possible to estimate the full range of costs involved in fitting belts to individual vehicles.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Launched as agency

  Total expenditure (£ million)

  Staff

  Total expenditure (£ million)

  Staff

  Total expenditure (£ million)

  Staff

  Driving Standards Agency

  1990

  50·0

  2,105

  52·5

  2,192

  51·3

  1,898

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  1990

  2·5

  80

  2·6

  84

  2·7

  75

  Vehicle Inspectorate1

  1988

  40·3

  1,653

  41·2

  1,879

  50·5

  1,861

  1 Traffic examiner staff passed to the Vehicle Inspectorate's establishment in 1991–92, but the inspectorate became formally responsible for their costs in the following financial year.

  Vehicle Licensing
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport into which vehicle licensing category mechanical organs fall which are permanently fixed to the vehicle and used for display purposes only.

  Mr. Key
  Vehicles used to transport mechanical organs for solely private purposes, for example use at charity events, fall to be licensed in the private and light goods—PLG—tax class. The HGV rate would apply only where there was a commercial purpose.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of those consulted in respect of proposals on passengers and goods vehicle operating licences circulated on 27 May 1993.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer of 14 December 1993 at column 592. In addition the Department sent copies of the consultation document to a wide-ranging number of bodies and individuals with an interest in operator licensing.

  "O" Licences
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to implement the proposals for continuous "O" licensing included in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill; how the annual fee for the renewal of the "O" licence is to be paid and collected; what provision

  Self-financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many self-financing regulatory authorities his Department has set up since 1979; what was the annual running cost of each of the self-financing regulatory authorities in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment; and what it was last year and two years ago.

  Mr. Norris
  Four relevant authorities have been established since 1979.

  The Rail Regulator was appointed and the office of the Rail Regulator was established as a non-ministerial Government Department on 1 December 1993. However, the majority of the Rail Regulator's statutory functions will not be exercisable until the remaining provisions of the Railways Act are commenced at the beginning of April 1994. The Rail Regulator's running costs for 1994–95 are estimated to be £5·2 million. The average planned staffing establishment for 1994–95 is 55.

  The executive agencies of the Department of Transport listed in the table have regulatory functions and are required to recover total costs through fees and charges. Information given is taken from agencies' annual reports.

  there will be to bring to the attention of the licensing authority any misdemeanour committed by an operator during the previous year; how and how often the licensing authority will check an operator's licence; on what basis the licensing authority will decide to hold a public inquiry following objections to an "O" licence proposal or transfer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Continuous operator licensing will be introduced as soon as possible after Royal Assent, consistent with the need for a smooth transition from the current system. Details of changes to fee arrangements are currently the subject of separate consultation. Any further changes as a consequence of continuous licensing will also be the subject of prior consultation. The enforcement of the requirements on vehicles subject to operator licensing will be unaffected by the change to continuous licensing. Checks on the details of an operators business will continue to be made at the same five year intervals as provided by the present five year licensing system and operators will continue to be required to notify the licensing authorities about changes whenever they occur. The licensing authorities will continue to hold public inquiries as at present when they need to be satisfied about a matter arising out of an application for a licence or a variation of a licence. In addition, at the five-yearly review point, they will also be able to hold inquiries to consider objections to the operating centre of an operator.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect the proposal to end the requirement for "O" licence operators to prove to
  689
  the Traffic Commissioner that they have adequate maintenance facilities for their vehicles, set out in his Department's 1993 consultation document, will have on (a) road safety and (b) general vehicle maintenance standards.

  Mr. Key
  This proposal is not being taken forward. Operators will continue to be required to satisfy traffic commissioners that they have adequate maintenance arrangements for their vehicles.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many public inquiries have been held in each traffic region in each of the last three years in respect of(a) HGV operator licences and (b) PSV operator "O" licences; and, in each case, if the operator licence was revoked or retained; and, in the latter case, what conditions were applied.

  Mr. Key
  The appendices to the annual reports of the licensing authorities and traffic commissioners published for the last three years, 1990–91 to 1992–93, contain information on the number of public inquiries held in each traffic area. Specific information about disciplinary inquiries is in the main text of each licensing authority's report.

  Of those cases heard at public inquiry, the number of goods vehicle and public service vehicle operator licences revoked or retained, or where conditions were applied to PSV operator licences is in some instances mentioned in the reports and appendices to the reports. More detailed information on the action taken by each traffic commissioner and licensing authority against operator licences could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Copies of the "Annual Reports of the Licensing Authorities" and "Annual Reports of the Traffic Commissioners" are available in the Library of the House.

  Road-rail Transport
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the current capacity of combined road-rail transport operations.

  Mr. Freeman
  Table 5.14 of Transport Statistics Great Britain 1993 contains statistics on "other traffic" which includes intermodal road-rail traffic. A copy of this publication has been placed in the Library.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what documentary evidence will be required relating to the destination of the loading unit used in a combined transport operation from or to a rail terminal; and what enforcement measures will be implemented.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1994, which were laid in the House on 25 February exempt from the 38 tonne maximum weight limit a vehicle carrying a loading unit as part of a combined transport operation either(a) to a railhead pursuant to a contract for the transport of that unit by rail, or (b) from a railhead to which the unit has been transported by rail. The regulations require a document to be carried in the cab of the vehicle which specifies, in the case of (a), the railhead, the date of the relevant contract and the parties thereto or, in the case of (b), the railhead and the date and time at which the unit was collected from the railhead.
  690
  Enforcement of lorry weight limits is carried out by the vehicle inspectorate, the police, and local authority trading standards departments. The 44 tonne weight limit will apply only to vehicles carrying containers and swap-bodies and therefore vehicles not carrying these weights will be unable to operate legitimately above 38 tonnes.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details and locations of the rail terminals he has identified for use by 44-tonne lorries in combined road-rail transport operations.

  Mr. Freeman
  Any rail terminal with facilities for the transhipment of containers and swap-bodies will qualify as a railhead for the purposes of the relevant regulations. It will also be necessary for the loading units in question to travel, or to have travelled, by rail on a network operated by British Rail or under a network licence.

  Tickets
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to replace the limitless journey travel card with a stored-value ticket limiting the number of journeys that can be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have made clear their commitment to continuation of the London travel card and have no plans to replace it by a stored-value ticket. The stored-value ticket which London Transport will shortly be introducing as part of its current trial of smart card technology on buses in Harrow will be in addition to, not a replacement for, the present travel card.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations have been held with existing traffic area staff about his proposals to turn the existing traffic areas into executive agencies.

  Mr. Key
  Traffic area office staff have been kept informed about the proposal for executive agency status and will be consulted as proposals are developed.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations have been held between his Department and the Council on Tribunals about his proposals to turn the existing traffic areas into executive agencies; and whether agreement to such a proposal would need to be given by the Council on Tribunals.

  Mr. Key
  The Council on Tribunals views will be sought before any decision is taken on whether to give the traffic area network executive agency status.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the future responsibilities of traffic commissioners under his proposals to turn the existing traffic areas into executive agencies;

  (2) what will be the relationship as regards decision making at traffic area office level between the traffic commissioner and the chief executive if his proposals to turn the existing traffic areas into executive agencies are implemented.

  Mr. Key
  The responsibilities of the traffic commissioners for the licensing and disciplining of operators and drivers would remain unchanged if it were decided to
  691
  establish a traffic area network executive agency. The chief executive or director of the executive agency would be responsible for the management and performance of the traffic area offices, whose staff would continue to provide support for the traffic commissioners.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations have been held with the road haulage industry about his proposals to turn the existing traffic areas into executive agencies.

  Mr. Key
  The proposal for executive agency status is concerned with improving management and will not affect the operator licensing regime; nevertheless, any views expressed by the road haulage industry will be given careful consideration.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations have been held with traffic commissioners about his proposals to turn the existing traffic areas into executive agencies.

  Mr. Key
  Traffic commissioners are being consulted through the senior traffic commissioner and are represented on the steering group that has been established to develop the proposals for agency status.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many air misses there have been in each of the last four years involving aircraft(a) taking off and (b) landing at (i) Leeds-Bradford and (ii) Humberside airports.

  Mr. Norris
  The responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority—CAA.

  All air miss reports in United Kingdom airspace, involving civil or military aircraft, are investigated initially by the joint air miss section of the National Air Traffic Services, which is a joint CAA/Ministry of Defence organisation. They are then examined by the joint air miss working group—JAWG—an independent committee drawn from a wide cross-section of responsible aviation bodies.

  The records held by the joint air miss section, of air miss reports submitted by pilots show that for the period in question, no air miss reports were submitted for Leeds airport, while for Humberside airport only two such reports have been submitted. The first incident occurred on 23 May 1991 and involved a civilian aircraft in the final descent phase of its flight, which came into conflict with a military aircraft. The second incident took place on 13 October 1992 and also involved a loss of separation between a military aircraft and a civilian aircraft. The latter was in the landing phase of its flight. In both cases the incidents were subsequently judged by the JAWG to have involved no risk of collision.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) of 21 February,Official Report, column 83, if he will set out the terms of reference of the sociological study of hard-core drink-drivers being carried out with the assistance of the Portman Group; and if he will make a statement.
  692
  Mr. Key
  The study is designed to give a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding drinking and driving offences. The contract for this research was let by the Portman Group, which is funding the study, and it would be for it to decide whether to release any details at this stage.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce a discount for those purchasing in advance electronic tags for crossing the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Key
  Discounts of 20 per cent. for cars and light vans and 10 per cent. for heavy vehicles are already available on electronic tags valid for one month or three months, based on the assumption of 22 and 66 return trips respectively. These are the only discount requirements on the concessionaire, Severn River Crossing plc, under its concession agreement with the Secretary of State. Any further discounts are a matter for SRC's commercial judgment.

  Copia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has about the sinking of the fishing vessel Copia; what consideration he has given to recovering the ship and crew; what representations he has received on the subject; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) where responsibility lies for the recovery of bodies on fishing vessels sunk in inland waters; what arrangements are made for such a recovery in the case of the Copia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: The marine accident investigation branch inquiries into the accident are in progress. No representations have been received by this Department on the subject, other than the letter of 7 March from the hon. Member.

  The Department will not contemplate salvaging a wreck except where there are firm grounds for surmising that raising a wreck would establish the nature and cause of the accident and there are no other means of achieving this.

  There is no general requirement on the part of any official organisation to recover bodies in such circumstances. Nevertheless, immediately after the accident when police divers located the wreck they looked for the bodies of the crew, but unfortunately without success.

  Shipping Register
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the representations he has received for Liverpool to be the base for a national open register of shipping; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: Since the Baltic Exchange's proposals for a British open register for shipping were received in early December, the Liverpool chamber of commerce and industry has written to reaffirm its support for it and for the proposal that the registry should be located in Liverpool.

  As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 24 January, Official Report,

  693
  column 78, the proposal raised complex issues which required careful study. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Road Franchising
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to franchise local roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We have no such plans.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Self-Financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  'To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many self-financing regulatory authorities his Department has set up since 1992; what was the annual running cost of each of the self-financing regulatory authorities in each of the last three years; and what was the staffing establishment at the latest available date, last year and two years ago.

  Mr. David Davis
  There are no self-financing regulatory authorities in the departments for which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has responsibility.

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number of quangos for which he is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last two years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago for the comparable bodies.

  Mr. David Davis
  Such information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993" and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many rules and regulations his Department has passed in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Rules and regulations made by my Department during this period are as follows:

  Chessington Computer Centre Trading Fund Order (1993)

  Race Relations (Prescribed Public Bodies) Regulations (1994)

  Research Councils (Transfer of Property etc) Order (1994)

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will give a full report of progress on the citizens charter since the publication of the first report in November 1992.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  "The Citizen's Charter Second Report: 1994" setting out progress in fulfilling citizens charter commitments across the public service is published today. Copies of the report have been placed in he Libraries of both Houses.

WALES

  Management Systems
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department's computer-aided facilities management systems cost; from whom they were purchased; how many person hours were required to commission them; what the estimated and actual saving has been from their operation; and to what extent the use of such systems accounts for the apparent rise in theft noted in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) of 16 February,Official Report, columns 884–85.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office does not have a computer-aided facilities management system. However, a computerised system holding information relating to the Department's information technology assets is in place and a project is under way to provide by the end of the year a system which will cater for the Department's real estate, property management and asset inventory requirements.

  The existing system was purchased from Workgroup Systems at a cost of £7,500 and commissioning is estimated to have taken 150 person hours. It was installed in order to provide a secure record of assets rather than in the expectation of direct savings. There is no evidence to suggest that it has influenced the level of reported theft and losses.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many persons responded to press advertisements inviting applications for positions on non-departmental public bodies in Wales in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many persons who responded to press advertisements for positions on non-departmental public bodies have been appointed by him in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Redwood
  More than 2,500 people made inquiries following the advertisements in Welsh newspapers in July 1993 inviting nominations to the Welsh Office register of candidates for public appointments. Of these, 959 returned completed nominations. Most of the nominations were received between September 1993 and January 1994. The new names have been added to those considered as and when vacancies arise.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which non-departmental public body chairman and board members will be required to hold their annual review meeting with Ministers in the first quarter of the year 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: My ministerial colleagues and I hold meetings with all the NDPB chairmen to consider their targets for the forthcoming year. Some of these will take place during the first quarter of this year.

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the 1975 equal pay directive as it refers to Wales.
  695
  Mr. Redwood
  The 1975 Equal Pay Directive is implemented in Great Britain by means of the Equal Pay Act 1970 as amended by the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1993.

  Female Workers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the part-time earnings of female workers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  According to the New Earnings Survey, in April 1993 average gross earnings for part-time females on adult rates in Wales were £71·30 per week for manual employees and £101·90 for non-manual employees. These averages are similar to those of most other regions.

  F. L. Steelcraft
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much grant aid has been paid out from public funds in the past to(a) F. L. Steelcraft or (b) F. L. Steelcraft Ltd. of Borth, Aberystwyth, Wales; and on what dates.

  Mr. Redwood
  To comment on the Department's relationship with individual companies would be a breach of commercial confidentiality.

  Farm Workers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake a tour of Wales meeting farm workers to discuss wages, conditions of work and the future of the Agricultural wages board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The future of the Agricultural wages board is currently being considered in the light of the responses to the consultation exercise completed last year.

  Earnings
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to improve the wages of female workers.

  Mr. Redwood
  My strategy is based on the continued success of United Kingdom macroeconomic policy; improving standards of education and training in Wales; improving access to markets; and ensuring a good supply of development land and facilities for industry and commerce. The continuing success of this strategy should enable average earnings for both men and women in Wales to increase still further.

  Documents
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the titles of all items published during the last three years by his office and by all public bodies to which he makes appointments, which were available for sale, and which were published in the English language only indicating the price, reference numbers, and dates of publication in each case;

  (2) if he will list the full titles of all publications issued during the last three years by his office and by public bodies to which he makes appointments, which were
  696
  available for purchase, and which were printed in both the Welsh and English languages, indicating the prices, reference numbers, and dates of publication in each case.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information as requested is not centrally available but details of documents published by the Department indicating the price, reference numbers, year of publication and whether available in Welsh are contained within the "Welsh Office Publications List 1992". It is published annually and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives or schemes he has launched in Wales to compensate disabled people for the additional value added tax costs being imposed.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the package of assistance announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement on 30 November 1993 at columns 922–24.

  Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 595, regarding cardiac surgery in Wales, what level of additional resources is being made available and to which health authorities for purchasing purposes; in which trusts and directly managed units for provider purposes new facilities are being developed; and what are the relevant dates for commencement and completion of such developments.

  Mr. Redwood
  In addition to their discretionary allocations, from which cardiac services are also purchased, £6·5 million is available in 1993–94 to assist health authorities move towards the target level of cardiac surgery in Wales. I shall announce provision for 1994–95 in due course.

  We have completed the development of cardiac facilities at the University Hospital of Wales which can now deliver 800 adult cardiac operations a year. New facilities, which will deliver the balance of need in South Wales, are to be developed at Morriston Hospital NHS Trust. Planning is currently underway and the centre is expected to become operational in 1997.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many rules and regulations his Department has passed in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of rules and regulations made by statutory instrument for Wales alone by the Secretary of State for Wales during the past three years is as follows: 1991–73; 1992–131; 1993–84.

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of quangos for which he is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what is was five years ago.
  697
  Mr. Redwood
  Such information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993" and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Library of the House.

  Health Service Costs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of administration costs for family health service authorities for Wales as a whole for each year since 1989–90, indicating the percentage increase in constant prices which has taken place since 1989–90 and the latest available year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Revenue expenditure of family health service authorities in Wales on administration was £4,242,000 in 1989–90, £6,910,000 in 1990–91, £8,265,000 in 1991–92 and £9,150,000 in 1992–93.

  This represents an increase over the period of 81 per cent. at constant prices. In 1992–93 the cost of this administrative expenditure represented 1·9 per cent. of the total spent on family health services in Wales.

  Source: FHSA White Paper Accounts.

  Self-financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many self-financing regulatory authorities his Department has set up since 1979; what was the annual running cost of each of the self-financing regulatory authorities in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment; and what it was last year and two years ago.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office has not set up any self-financing regulatory authorities since 1979.

  Welsh Economic Council
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what decision he has reached on the proposal to establish a Welsh Economic Council.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have carefully considered the responses to the Government's consultation paper on this proposal and have decided to proceed with the establishment of a Welsh Economic Council.

  The Welsh Economic Council, which will be classified as an advisory non-departmental public body, will provide a forum for discussing with wealth-creators and interest groups the economic and industrial progress of Wales. Its role will be to advise on areas like improvements in training and education and to discuss how to boost enterprise, jobs and development further.

  The council will comprise between 10 and 20 members from the private and public sectors, appointed by me on an
  698
  individual, rather than representational, basis. It will usually meet no more than three times a year, with the first meeting to be held on Wednesday 30 March.

  Health Service Funding
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what decisions he has now reached about the allocation of resources for hospital and community health and related services for Wales in 1994–95.

  Mr. Redwood
  I announced on 17 December my decision on the overall allocation to the national health service in Wales for 1994–95. Within the £2,076 million cash available I now propose to allocate £1,536 million to hospital and community health services—H and CHS—and the cash-limited element of the family health services—FHS—in Wales.

  The funds will be distributed as follows.

  Health authorities will receive £1,295 million for current purposes—an increase of £53 million or 4·3 per cent. over 1993–94 plans. Health authorities will receive £113·5 million for capital investment. The sum of £67·4 million will be provided for education and training of NHS staff and as contributions toward the running costs of England and Wales bodies, and family health service authorities will receive £14 million for their management and administration costs and £45·8 million for general medical service practice support costs.

  In addition, authorities and trusts will be expected to generate efficiency savings of 2·25 per cent. and to achieve a further 5 per cent. reduction in their management, administrative and clerical costs. These savings will be available to meet the cost of pay settlements next year and for further investment in patient care.

  Details of the allocations to health authorities and family health authorities and the provisional external financing limits for NHS trusts is contained in a statement which has been placed today in the Library of the House.

  Cathedrals
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what conclusions he has reached on the provision of grant aid for cathedrals.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  After careful consideration of detailed information presented to us by the cathedral authorities and on advice from our independent advisers, the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, we have decided to help underpin the architectural needs of Welsh cathedrals.

  Over the next three financial years we will set aside some £675,000 towards the restoration costs faced by Welsh cathedrals.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Entry Clearance Officers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance is given to entry clearance officers overseas regarding answering queries from solicitors about their clients' applications for visas; if he will publish this guidance; and what plans he has to issue revised guidance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Entry clearance officers overseas are advised that posts should reply direct to letters from solicitors in the United Kingdom on routine matters unless they have reason to believe that the Home Office or the FCO has already become involved. In that case, the letter should be briefly acknowledged and a copy sent to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, with a memorandum containing relevant information.

  There are no plans to revise this advice.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people currently work as entry clearance officers in British embassies and high commissions; where they are situated; what grades they work at; what number and percentage are women; and what is the ethnic breakdown of officers.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1993, 259 man-years were spent at British posts overseas on entry clearance officer—ECO—work. This figure includes staff who have other responsibilities as well as entry clearance work.

  Most ECOs are grade DS9 or equivalent—immigration officer in the case of immigration service staff serving on secondment, or LEII in the case of locally engaged ECOs.

  A list of posts designated to receive applications for entry clearance is available in the Library of the House.

  A precise breakdown of the gender and ethnic background of those officers currently serving as ECOs could be furnished only at disproportionate cost, but 50 per cent. of the FCO's DS9 complement are women, and 1·6 per cent. are from ethnic minorities. I understand that the corresponding figures for immigration officers overseas are 22 per cent. and 4 per cent.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what training entry clearance officers receive.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All diplomatic service officers receive induction and other vocational training. Those appointed as entry clearance officers also attend a three-week training course in London before taking up their appointments. Locally engaged ECOs also attend these courses.

  Home Office staff seconded as entry clearance officers attend a short pre-posting "conversion" course.

  Like other staff, ECOs also receive on-the-job training, in the light of their posts' workload and resources.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many requests he received from hon. Members in(a) 1993, (b) 1992, (c) 1991 and (d) 1990 to exercise ministerial discretion over visa applications; in how many in each year the decision of the entry clearance officer was overturned; to how many in each year he replied personally; and to how many in each year the migration and visa unit replied.
  700
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The table shows the number of representations on visa matters received during 1990–93 inclusive and the number which received ministerial replies. The others were replied to by the migration and visa correspondence unit, except in cases where no reply was necessary.

  Total

  Ministerial replies

  1990

  4,561

  884

  1991

  4,577

  588

  1992

  5,069

  287

  1993

  5,879

  346

  It is not possible to say how many of these representations specifically requested the exercise of ministerial discretion, but many of them did so, if only by implication.

  Ministers overturn ECOs' decisions only in exceptional circumstances, as described in my letter to the hon. Member of 7 July 1993.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance is given to entry clearance officers overseas regarding answering queries from hon. Members about their constituents; if he will publish this guidance; and what plans he has to issue revised guidance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Entry clearance officers at posts are instructed not to reply direct to letters received from Members of Parliament but to acknowledge them and return them to the migration and visa correspondence unit for reply.

  The arrangements for handling enquiries on immigration were set out in the booklet "Representation by Members of Parliament on Visa and Immigration Cases—A Guide" which was circulated to Members under cover of my letter of 7 July 1993.

  There are no current plans to update this guidance.

  Belize
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the Belize Government for assistance consequent upon the withdrawal of the battalion from Belize; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have made it clear to the Belize Government that we stand ready to participate in any consultations that they may request on Belize's future security and that we are prepared to play our part in any consultations which would lead to an appropriate response should the security of Belize be threatened in the future. We will also maintain our programme of assistance to the Belize defence force and Belize will continue to be a beneficiary under Britain's bilateral aid programme.

  Jammu and Kashmir Document
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to date with the Indian authorities in respect of Madam Speaker's statement of 21 February,Official Report, column 21, regarding the document from Jammu and Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have taken no action with the Indian authorities.

  "National Security"
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide an explanation of the phrase "national security" used in the Intelligence Services Bill; and how this term relates to the use of the term "national security" in section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The term "national security" has been in general use for many years and is well recognised and understood in statute. It is used in both the Intelligence Services Bill and Data Protection Act 1984 in the same way as in the many other statutes in which it is included with no further definition.

  "Serious Crime"
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the differences between the meaning of "serious crime", used in the Intelligence Services Bill[Lords] and the term "serious arrestable offence" used in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A detailed definition of "serious arrestable offence" is provided in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for the particular purposes of that Act. The term "serious crime" is widely understood and in the context of the Intelligence Services Bill does not require further definition.

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

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has signed two public interest immunity certificates since 1990. The first was dated 26 June 1991 and the second 26 January 1992. Both were signed in connection with the case of Andrew Balfour, who was dismissed from the diplomatic service.

  Chemical Weapons Treaty
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to introduce legislation to ratify the chemical weapons treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We intend to introduce the legislation necessary to ratify the chemical weapons convention as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Korea (Military Manoeuvres)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on reports of the cancellation of team spirit military manoeuvres on the Korean peninsula.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Exercise Team Spirit is a matter for the Governments of the Republic of Korea and the United States of America.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to secure a report from the Pakistani authorities concerning the murder of Mohammed Afzal in Juarah village, Pakistan on 4 October 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British high commission in Islamabad continues to press the Pakistani authorities for a full report. However, as Mr. Afzal was a dual British-Pakistani national, they are not compelled to provide it.

EDUCATION

  Self-financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many self-financing regulatory authorities his Department has set up since 1979; what was the annual running cost of each of the self-financing regulatory authorities in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment; and what it was last year and two years ago.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has set up no self-financing regulatory authorities since 1979.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many rules and regulations his Department has passed in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's records give the number of general statutory instruments passed in each of the last three years as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1991

  59

  1992

  68

  1993

  74

  TOTAL

  201

  The number of local statutory instruments for each of the last three years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1991

  12

  1992

  9

  1993

  7

  TOTAL

  28

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the number of quangos for which he is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago.

  Mr. Boswell
  Such information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993" and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Pupils (Exclusion)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils are wrongly excluded(a) for a fixed term, (b) indefinitely and (c) permanently, in the (i) north, (ii) central and (iii) south districts in Manchester.

  Mr. Forth
  Such information is not held centrally.

  Doncaster College
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what correspondence he has had with the principal of Doncaster college during the last three months in respect of(a) the appointment and (b) the ending of appointment of college governors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  There has been no such correspondence during this period between my right hon. Friend and the principal of Doncaster college. The Department has, however, received correspondence from a governor on a number of matters relating to the conduct of the corporation and this is being pursued with the chairman of governors of Doncaster college.

  School Tuck Shops
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to recommend to the governing body of schools that only drinks which are sucrose-free should be stocked in tuck shops on school premises indicating from which manufacturers such drinks can be bought.

  Mr. Forth
  Local education authorities and, where appropriate, governing bodies of self-governing—grant-maintained—schools are responsible for providing meals and any other food, including drinks, at their schools. It is for them to decide what is provided, taking into account local circumstances.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Receptions
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of prime ministerial receptions in 1993–94.

  The Prime Minister
  The cost to my office of ministerial receptions in 1993–94 is included in the overall administrative expenditure which is published every year in the Cabinet Office departmental report.

  Iraq (Sanctions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister following the meeting on 23 February between the head of the middle eastern department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Riad El Taher and the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will consider the case for urging the United Nations to lift sanctions before the summer heat arrives in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates; and what estimate he has made of the incidence of disease in the river valleys.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: I am looking into the specific point which the hon. Member put to me in the House on 8 March.
  704
  The Security Council decided on 18 January that there are no grounds for lifting sanctions but medical supplies have never been subject to sanctions. There is no authoritative estimate of the incidence of disease in the river valleys.

  Renault
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 581, whether he will urge the French Government to sell Renault to a German car manufacturer.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Paul Bennett
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister signed in July 1992 the public interest immunity certificate in relation to the prosecution of Paul Bennett.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and learned Friend the then Home Secretary signed the certificate.

  Royal Tour (Caribbean)
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the purpose of the royal tour of the Caribbean and the cost, including the use of the royal yacht Britannia; and under which expenditure heads the cost will be borne.

  The Prime Minister
  The purpose of Her Majesty the Queen's visit to Commonwealth countries and dependent territories in the Caribbean basin and to Bermuda was to reaffirm the close relationship which exists between the United Kingdom and those countries and territories. In each destination a number of specific objectives were achieved. These included demonstrating the importance we attach to our continuing responsibility for the dependent territories; and the Queen's continuing commitment to her realms. The visit to Guyana marked our recognition of the restoration of democratic government there.

  Costs to the United Kingdom will be borne by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Metropolitan police and by Buckingham palace. Exact figures are not available: some bills have not yet been presented and the cost of diplomatic service staff who worked on the visit could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on the cost of individual voyages by the royal yacht is not maintained.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 January,Official Report, column 850, which treaty provisions will apply when deciding whether the European Parliament will be consulted on the ratification of GATT.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Parliament will be consulted in accordance with the provisions of article 228 of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Maastricht treaty. The Foreign Affairs Council agreed on 21 February that the assent procedure, as set out in that article, will apply.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Management Systems
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department's computer-aided facilities management systems cost; from whom they were purchased; how many person hours were required to commission them; what the estimated and actual saving has been from their operation; and to what extent the use of such systems accounts for the apparent rise in theft noted in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) of 16 February,Official Report, columns 857–59.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The majority of the systems were developed in-house using existing equipment with the remaining six systems being purchased at a cost of £320,000 from the companies listed:

  Britannia Information Business Systems Ltd.

  BIS Ltd.

  RMS Service.

  It is not possible to estimate the time taken to commission the various systems.

  The systems were not designed with the intention of producing savings, but as an effective and efficient means of providing proper asset management. Therefore no figures for savings are available.

  At this stage the systems have not had any discernible impact on the identification of theft.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many rules and regulations his Department has passed in each of the last three years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Statutory rules laid

  Statutory instruments made by the Secretary of State

  Regulations

  Orders

  Regulations

  Orders

  1991

  12

  25

  3

  3

  1992

  10

  20

  3

  6

  1993

  19

  17

  Nil

  4

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of quangos for which he is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Such information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993" and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Arts (Business Sponsorship)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what reports he has sought or received from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts (Northern Ireland) on its recent sex discrimination admission; and if he will make a statement on the 706
  Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts' capabilities to conform to the law and accepted standards of good practice in recruitment and selection policies and procedures;

  (2) what action he proposes to take to ensure that the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts (Northern Ireland) designs and implements appropriate equal opportunities and fair employment policies, following its recent sex discrimination admission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  My Department is aware of a settlement by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts in a recent sex discrimination case. Senior appointments within the association are made by its headquarters office in London in consultation, as appropriate, with regional committees.

  The Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts is an independent company and it is a matter for it to ensure that its recruitment policies conform with the law and with accepted standards of good practice.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of whether the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts (Northern Ireland) conforms to his recently promulgated policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  None. Northern Ireland Departments are still considering how best to apply the policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines to services provided by or on behalf of the Government in the Province.

  Ulster Young Militants
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will proscribe the Ulster Young Militants; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The question of whether this and other organisations should be proscribed is kept under review. The fact that a particular organisation is not proscribed confers no immunity from prosecution in respect of criminal acts which it or its members may commit.

  Victim Support
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the outcome of Victim Support Northern Ireland's request for additional funds to develop its services to victims of crime in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government acknowledge and commend the important work carried out by the staff and volunteers of Victim Support Northern Ireland to provide advice and support for the victims of crime. The organisation has been directly funded by the Northern Ireland Office since 1988.

  Victim Support Northern Ireland recently submitted a request for additional funding to enable it to create an executive management structure and develop its services to people of Northern Ireland. The Government recognise the importance of these developments and have allocated an additional £60,000 to the organisation. This represents a 30 per cent. increase on current annual funding—which will

  707
  bring total funding to £267,000 in 1994–95, and underlines the Government's commitment to the provision of effective support for victims recovering from the distress caused by crime.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many bottles of(a) whisky and gin and (b) sherry and port were consumed by his private offices in 1993–94.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not available.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many rules and regulations his Department has passed in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the tables.

  Number

  Statutory instruments made

  1991

  84(21)

  1992

  87(101)

  1993

  77(21)

  Government Bills which became Act

  1991

  4

  1992

  1

  1993

  2

  1 Orders in Council which are included in the total.

  Ministerial Receptions
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of receptions held by Ministers in his Department in 1993–94.

  Mr. Hague
  The cost of ministerial receptions and similar functions so far in 1993–94 is £4,990·60.

  In addition, the annual reception for disabled people and representatives of disability organisations was held on 10 March at an estimated cost of £6,000.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) council tenants, (b) housing association tenants, (c) private tenants and (d) owner occupiers were in receipt of housing benefit in the Doncaster area for the latest date for which he has figures available; and what were the figures (i) 12 months and (ii) 24 months ago.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  Percentage of Tenants in Receipt of Housing Benefit in Doncaster

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Local Authority

  65

  64

  62

  Housing Association2

  not collected

  40

  47

  Private3

  58

  not available

  not available

  Data Sources:

  The housing benefit management information system quarterly caseload counts of the number of claims where housing benefit is in payment, and,
  708
  1991 census figures and the housing investment programme returns made to the Department of the Environment for 1992 and 1993 of the numbers of tenancies, by tenure type.

  Notes:

  1 Because the information has had to be drawn from various sources, consistent data for the three years cannot be provided. The figures are, therefore, the best estimate based on the available information.

  2 The number of housing association tenants in receipt of housing benefit was not collected before May 1992.

  3 The information on private tenancies is not available for 1992 and 1993 because the data source of tenancy types cannot isolate owner-occupiers from non-housing association private tenancies. It also cannot identify unoccupied dwellings.

  4 Owner-occupiers in England and Wales have not been eligible for housing benefit (rate rebates) since April 1990 when community charge benefit was introduced.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement as to why the Child Support Agency's headquarters in Belfast refused to believe that the husband of Christine Joyce, the late Derek Joyce, had died four years ago, for the purposes of continuing to pay widow's benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  Owing to a clerical error, a maintenance application form was sent to Mrs. Joyce on 19 April 1993. An apology was sent to Mrs. Joyce on 4 May 1993 and the case was closed. The agency has had no further contact with Mrs. Joyce.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases referred to the Child Support Agency by hon. Members in 1993 have not yet resulted in a conclusive response being provided; and what action he is taking to ensure that such delays are avoided.

  Mr. Burt
  The chief executive of the Child Support Agency received more than 2,200 letters from hon. Members in 1993, of which 255 remain to be answered. Targets for answering letters are not currently being met, but necessary steps are being taken to ensure that letters from hon. Members are answered as promptly as possible.

  Maternity Pay
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement concerning maternity pay in Wales and on the EC pregnant workers directive 1992.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on 8 March at cols.139–40. The proposals outlined in the reply include maternity pay in Wales.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether the Benefits Agency requests the Prison Service to inform it if a person is received into custody in England and Wales;

  (2) how much benefit he estimates was claimed fraudulently by prisoners in England and Wales last year;

  (3) how much he estimates to be the total amount of benefit fraudulently claimed by prisoners in England and Wales between 1987 and 1992;

  (4) how many fraudulent claims from prisoners in England and Wales have been reported by staff or the inmates themselves to the relevant authorities since 1987;
  709
  (5) what action has been taken since 1988 to close loopholes which may contribute to fraudulent claims for benefit from prisoners in England and Wales.

  Mr. Burt
  As with all referrals of benefit fraud, individual reports of benefit claims continuing after people have entered prison are always followed up, investigated where necessary and benefit terminated where appropriate. We do not, however, keep statistics to enable us to separate this type of fraud referral from other categories and are not, therefore, in a position to quantify historical losses.

  In response to the continuing problem of benefit fraud amongst prisoners new controls were introduced on 4 March. The Prison Service now provides the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service with a weekly list of all newly convicted prisoners in England and Wales. This will ensure that all benefit recipients have their cases reviewed on entry to prison.

  Furthermore, an exercise is being carried out by the three agencies to identify all benefits payments being made in the name of people who are currently in prison. Investigations will follow, benefit will be terminated where appropriate and recoveries sought in all overpayment cases. Prosecutions will also be considered in each case.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the national insurance contributions unit informs the Benefit Agency following the receipt of form F1113 after a claimant is received into custody.

  Mr. Burt
  If a prisoner indicates on form F1113 that he was receiving a social security benefit immediately prior to his arrest the Contributions Agency informs the appropriate district office of the Benefits Agency or the Employment Services Agency, or both. However, new procedures now incorporate a full exchange of information between the Prison Service and the Benefits Agency so that all benefit claims will be reviewed on a person's entry to prison in England and Wales.

  Information Technology Services Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are(a) the staff numbers at each location of the Information Technology Services Agency and (b) the numbers of such staff at each location who are banned from transfer to other posts elsewhere within the Government service; what is the operative date of the ban; and on what date staff were made known of the ban.

  Mr. Hague
  The Information Technology Services Agency—ITSA—employs 4,500 permanent staff at locations in the north east, north west, Reading and London. ITSA's plans to transfer its day to day operations to the private sector, announced on 31 January, may affect up to 2,000 jobs mainly based in the north east and north west. Staff will be expected to transfer with the work under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  None of ITSA's staff has been banned from applying for posts elsewhere within the Government service.

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of quangos for which he is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to 710
  each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago.

  Mr. Hague
  Such information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993", and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Self-financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many self-financing regulatory authorities his Department has set up since 1988; what was the annual running cost of each of the self-financing regulatory authorities in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment now; and what is was last year and two years ago.

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the budget for his Department's district social fund in respect of the Doncaster area for the current year as set at 1 April 1993; whether the budget was subsequently increased; how much remains in the budget; how many applicants have been refused a grant, giving the reason for refusal; how many applicants have been refused a loan, giving the reasons for refusal; how many applicants refused made an appeal; and how many of these appeals were successful.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 March 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Social Fund (SF) in the Benefits Agency's (BA) Doncaster District.

  Details of the initial budget allocations for the Doncaster District for the 1993–94 financial year are in the Library. There has not been any subsequent additional budget allocation this year. The balance outstanding as at 28 February 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, was £100,544 for grants and £130,270 for loans.

  You asked for the number of applicants refused a grant or loan in the District. Information on the SF is not kept by SF applicant but by SF application. At 28 February 1994 the numbers of grant and loan applications refused were 4,873 and 4,407 respectively. The reasons for refusal are given at Annex A.

  The new Social Fund Computer System, introduced to Doncaster in September 1993, provides a more detailed record of the reason each individual item within an application is refused. This was not previously the case. Consequently, statistics from the two systems are not always compatible.

  There is no right of appeal against discretionary SF decisions. Applicants dissatisfied with a decision may seek a review of the decision and this is initially conducted within the District. If still dissatisfied, the applicant can ask for a review by the Independent Review Service (IRS) which is independent of the Department and the Agency. For the period 1 April 1993 to 28 February 1994, 1,503 review applications were received by Doncaster District. These figures include those that requested a review by the IRS. Overall, 370 resulted in a changed decision.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  711

  Annex A

  Details of grant and loan refusals for the Doncaster District— 1 April 1993 to 28 February 19941 by reason.

  Reason for refusal

  Grants

  Loans

  Not in receipt of income support (IS)

  412

  520

  In receipt of IS for less than 26 weeks

  —

  1,959

  Direction 4 not satisfied

  8,694

  —

  Applicant exluded by Direction

  1

  3

  No serious risk to health or safety

  —

  720

  Requested amount below minimum allowable

  12

  100

  Repeat application

  156

  474

  Item excluded by Direction

  94

  158

  Alternative item available

  8

  43

  Help available from another source

  25

  80

  Grant awarded on loan request

  —

  567

  Savings over £500 meet cost

  7

  3

  Savings over £1,000 meet cost (customer or partner over 60)

  3

  2

  Enough money available to meet crisis

  —

  1

  Total debt exceeds £1,000

  —

  10

  Inability to repay

  —

  191

  Insufficient priority

  13

  602

  Other reasons

  54

  137

  1 Latest available data

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what restrictions are currently being imposed on payments from the social fund in Coventry;

  (2) what extra provision has been made to meet the extra demand on the social fund as a result of Bosnian refugees taking up residence in Coventry.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Robert Ainsworth, dated 15 March 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Social Fund (SF) in Coventry.

  Firstly, you asked what restrictions are currently being imposed on payments from the SF in Coventry. It might be helpful if I explain that it is the duty of the Area Social Fund Officer (ASFO) to manage the District SF allocation so that the highest priority needs are consistently met throughout the year. To do this the ASFO issues guidance to Social Fund Officers (SFO) on the high, medium and low priority needs within the District. It must be pointed out that whilst SFOs must take this guidance into account it is not binding on them. As such, a SFO may raise the priority of an application in order to make a payment.

  I can inform you the ASFO at Coventry has decided that high and medium priority application can be consistently met from the District allocation. Other than the exclusions mentioned in the Secretary of State directions no restrictions are imposed on any Benefit Agency District with regard to making payments from the SF.

  Finally, in answer to your second question, the District has been able to meet the SF expenditure as a result of applications from Bosnian refugees taking up residence in the Coventry area from their existing allocation.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Recipients (Hospital)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to clarify whether the item in social security form BR2215, referring to the need to inform the Benefits Agency if a recipient goes into hospital, applies to out-patient visits.
  712
  Mr. Hague
  The administration of retirement pension and widows benefit, for which this form is used, is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 March 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about clarification of the wording in form BR2215.

  Form BR2215 is used where a customer has their Retirement Pension or Widows Benefit paid direct into an account every four or thirteen weeks. The form comprises of a set of notes which advise the customer which changes in their circumstances should be reported; the form is issued every year at the time of the uprating. The note which refers to "going into hospital" does not apply to customers who are visiting a hospital as an out-patient. The wording of the note on the BR2215 is identical to the corresponding note that appears in order books.

  We have no evidence to suggest that the present wording is misleading our customers into notifying us of out-patient visits. Therefore, at this stage, there are no plans to alter the wording of the note.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cold weather payments have been made in each region of Scotland since October 1993.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the cold weather payment scheme is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 14 March 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many cold weather payments have been made in each region of Scotland since October 1993.

  Statistics relating to cold weather payments are not collated on a regional basis, however they are kept for each Benefit Agency District.

  The attached appendix shows the number of cold weather payments made to people in the areas covered by each Benefits Agency District in Scotland from 1 November 1993, the date when the current cold weather payment season began, to 31 January 1994, the latest date for which figures are available.

  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Cold weather payments in Scotland 1 November 1993 to 31 January 1994

  Benefits agency district

  Number of payments

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  16,686

  Clyde Valley

  32,297

  Coatbridge

  24,157

  East Lowlands

  35,495

  Fife

  31,984

  Forth Valley

  28,354

  Glasgow City

  21,081

  Glasgow East

  37,892

  Glasgow Laurieston

  36,842

  Glasgow South West

  20,730

  Glasgow West

  22,794

  Grampian and Shetland

  43,815

  Highlands and Islands

  20,671

  Irvine and Kilmarnock

  25,848

  Lomond and Argyll

  8,538

  Lothian Central

  20,787

  Lothian West

  26,700

  Renfrew

  23,381

  713

  Benefits agency district

  Number of payments

  South West Scotland

  26,107

  Springburn and Cumbernauld

  26,471

  Tayside

  48,538

EMPLOYMENT

  Ministerial Receptions
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of receptions held by Ministers in his Department in 1993–94.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cost of receptions held by Ministers in the Employment Department in 1993–94 is £4,042.

  Employment Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what aspects of Government employment policy are subject to legal proceedings.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All actions, decisions or legal instruments by Government Departments are in principle subject to judicial review. The EC Commission may bring infraction proceedings under article 169 of the EC treaty where it believes the legislation of a member state is inconsistent with EC law. A member state may also bring proceedings in the European Court of Justice to challenge the legal basis on which EC directives or other instruments have been adopted.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for two areas of employment law which are currently subject to judicial review or infraction proceedings:

  (i) The Unfair Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 1985, which introduced the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal, is being challenged as constituting indirect sex discrimination in the case of R. v. Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Smith and Perez;

  (ii) proceedings against the United Kingdom under article 169 of the EC treaty, in respect of the acquired rights and collective redundancies directive, are currently before the European Court of Justice, where the outstanding issue is whether the United Kingdom must specifically provide for employee representatives for the purpose of consultation.

  The United Kingdom has initiated proceedings in the European Court of Justice to challenge the health and safety legal basis of the recently adopted directive on working time.

  Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest annual accident figures for(a) the Doncaster area and (b) South Yorkshire, as a whole; and what are the corresponding figures for (i) five years and (ii) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information is provided in the following table. Due to changes in the reporting of major injury legislation, figures for 1983 are not directly comparable with those for later years.
  714
  Occupational injuries in Doncaster and South Yorkshire as reported to the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates and local authorities1

  Fatal

  Major2

  Over 3 days3

  Doncaster

  1988–89

  —

  216

  955

  1992–935 4

  2

  206

  824

  South Yorkshire

  1988–89

  8

  940

  4,785

  1992–935 4

  9

  831

  3,923

  1 Injuries at work to employees and self-employed people, and members of the public injured as a result of someone else's work activity. Figures based on reports made under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations for the calendar year 1983 and under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  2 Chiefly amputations, serious fractures and other injuries requiring hospitalisation for more than 24 hours. The definition was extended by the introduction of RIDDOR in April 1986 and therefore later figures should not be directly comparable with those for 1983.

  3 Injuries causing incapacity for normal work for more than three days.

  4 Includes injuries reported to HSE's quarries inspectorate.

  5 Provisional.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of(a) full-time male employees and (b) part-time female employees since May 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates of part-time and full-time employees are available only for quarter months. The available information is shown in the table:

  Employees in employment: Great Britain (Seasonally adjusted)

  Thousands

  Male Full-time

  Female Part-time

  Jun 1979

  112,390

  3,837

  September 19932

  9,405

  4,794

  Change

  -2,985

  +957

  1 June 1978. Male full-time estimates are not available for 1979.

  2 Latest available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people were shown as out of work or seeking it in the labour force survey, in each quarter since 1979; what was the percentage of official unemployment as measured at the time and the percentage on the unemployment count as now calculated; and if he will make a statement explaining trends in the differences between the figures.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The official measure of unemployment from the labour force survey is shown for the period requested in the table. These figures have remained the same as when first published. For comparative purposes, the claimant unemployment figures on the consistent seasonally adjusted and unadjusted bases are also given. Since the introduction of the internationally comparable International Labour Organisation measure of unemployment in 1984 both official measures of unemployment have shown broadly similar trends.
  715

  Comparative Great Britain unemployment rates 1979–1993 (seasonally adjusted)

  Period1

  ILO unemployment rate (per cent.)2

  Claimant unemployment rate (per cent.)3

  Unadjusted unemployment rate (per cent.)4

  Spring 1979

  25·6

  4·0

  55·4

  Spring 1981

  29·5

  7·6

  510·4

  Spring 1983

  211·0

  10·3

  12·9

  Spring 1984

  11·7

  10·4

  11·3

  Spring 1984

  11·7

  10·4

  11·3

  Spring 1985

  11·1

  10·8

  11·6

  Spring 1986

  11·1

  11·0

  11·7

  Spring 1987

  10·6

  10·3

  10·8

  Spring 1988

  8·6

  8·3

  8·7

  Spring 1989

  7·1

  6·3

  6·4

  Spring 1990

  6·6

  5·4

  5·5

  Spring 1991

  8·2

  7·4

  7·6

  Spring 1992

  9·5

  9·5

  9·6

  Summer 1992

  9·9

  9·7

  9·7

  Autumn 1992

  10·2

  10·1

  10·0

  Winter 1992–93

  10·6

  10·5

  10·7

  Spring 1993

  10·3

  10·3

  10·5

  Summer 1993

  10·3

  10·3

  10·3

  1 From 1979 to 1983 the labour force survey was carried out biennially, and between 1984 and 1992, annually. Since spring 1992 the LFS has been conducted quarterly.

  2 The labour force definition of unemployment applied for the years 1979–1984. Thereafter, the internationally agreed ILO definition of unemployment has been used. This definition counts as unemployed those people without paid jobs who were available to start work within the next two weeks and had either looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview or were waiting to start a job they had already obtained. The LF definition of unemployment used prior to 1984 is essentially the same as the ILO version, except for the fact that it is based on looking for work in the single week prior to interview rather than four weeks as with the ILO definition. The ILO unemployment rate is the percentage of economically active people who are unemployed on the ILO measure.

  3 Seasonally adjusted unemployment consistent with current coverage. This series is based on the count of those claiming unemployment related-benefits at Employment Service local offices, formerly unemployment benefit offices—"the claimant count"—who on the day of the count were out of work, available for work, and actively seeking employment. The denominator used to calculate the rate consists of the unemployed, employees in employment, the self-employed, those on work related Government training schemes and Her Majesty's forces. The claimant count figures are the weighted averages of the published figures for the months of each LFS quarter.

  4 (a) "Claimant" or "Registrant" count figures that have not been adjusted for seasonal influences or for changes in the coverage of the monthly count.

  (b) From 1981 onwards the figures are from the claimant count. The 1983 rate uses the same denominator as the registrant count. Thereafter the denominator as described in (3) above.

  5 The 1979 and 1981 figures are from the "registrant count", a count of those registered as out of work. This count was abandoned in October 1982 when registration at a jobcentre became voluntary and threatened the integrity of the count. The denominator used to calculate the rate consisted of the unemployed and employees in employment.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the Race Relations Employment Advisory Group.

  Mr. Forsyth
  The members currently appointed to the Race Relations Employment Advisory Group are: Mr. S. Azam, Ms K. Carberry, Mr. R. Cochrane, Mr. E. Cotter, Mr. R. Gilbert, Dr. A. Hirmis, Ms M. Lai, Ms G. Mills, Mr. H. Ouseley, Mrs. K. Siviter, Ms S. Sootarsing, Mr. G. Taylor, Ms J. Tomlin, Mr. S. Ward and Mrs. C. Wells.
  716
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the committees for the employment of people with disabilities.

  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. Employment Service regional directors and directors for Scotland and Wales appoint members of these committees on behalf of the Secretary of State. However, Ministers appoint their chairmen, and I am attaching a list of the current chairmen. All current appointments to CEPDs expire on 31 March 1994. The committees will be reconstituted for a term of three years, and all appointments considered afresh, from 1 April 1994.

  Committees for the employment of people with disabilities Current chairmen (to 31 March 1994)

  Name

  London and South East

  Essex

  Mr. Maurice Austin

  Hampshire

  Mrs. Jennifer Anderson

  Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and North Buckinghamshire

  Mr. Peter Banton

  Isle of Wight

  Mr. David Guy, MBE

  Kent

  Mr. Robin Carver, MBE

  London North

  Mr. Geoffrey Busby, OBE

  London south

  (vacant)

  Oxfordshire, Berkshire and South Buckinghamshire

  Ms Anne Dreydel, OBE

  Surrey

  Mrs. Heather Sheppard

  Sussex

  Mr. Martin Long

  North West

  Cumbria

  Mr. Brian Porter, MBE

  Cheshire

  Dr. David Robertson

  Lancashire

  (vacant)

  Greater Manchester

  (vacant)

  Merseyside

  Mrs. Linda Morris

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Inverclyde and Argyll

  Mrs. Helen Ostrycharz

  Central Scotland

  Mr. Ian Sneddon

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Mr. John Henderson

  Glasgow, Renfrew and Dunbarton

  Mr. Alan Malcolm

  Grampian

  Mr. Keith White

  Highlands and Western Isles

  Mr. Donald Mackay

  Lanarkshire

  Mr. Arthur Bell

  Lothian and Borders

  Mr. John Denholm

  Orkney and Shetlands

  Mr. Peter Malcolmson, OBE

  Tayside and Fife

  Councillor Charles Farquhar

  Wales

  Clwyd and Powys

  Mr. John Ashton Edwards, OBE

  Gwent

  Miss Nina Shields

  Gwynedd

  Mr. Hugh Williams

  Mid Glamorgan

  Mr. Anthony Arnold, MBE

  South Glamorgan

  Mr. Lawrence Johnon

  South West Wales (covering West Glamorgan and Dyfed)

  Mr. William Gareth Davies

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford, Calderdale, and Kirklees

  Professor Mark Baker

  Humberside

  Mrs. Wendy Witter, MBE

  Leeds and North Yorkshire

  Dr. Patrick Nuttgens, CBE

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  Mr. Donald Fleet

  Wakefield, Barnsley and Doncaster

  Mr. Paul Jagger

  South West

  Avon

  Mrs. Susan Marshfield

  Cornwall and Plymouth

  Mrs. Margot Berry

  717

  Name

  Devon

  Mr. Peter McDonald

  Dorset

  Mr. Andrew Child

  Gloucestershire

  Mr. Neil Frewer

  Somerset

  Major General Tony Palmer

  Wiltshire

  Mr. Tim Papé

  Northern

  Cleveland

  Mr. Ted Fuller

  Durham

  Mr. Michael Smith

  North Tyne

  Dr. Graham Grant, MBE

  South Tyne and Wear

  Mr. Ian Armstrong

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Derbyshire

  Mr. Peter Broxham

  Leicestershire

  Mr. Philip Dawson Smith, MBE

  Lincolnshire

  Mrs. Katie Phillips

  Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire

  Mr. Paul Newton

  West Midlands

  Birmingham and Solihull

  Mrs. Jane Harrison

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Mrs. Jennifer Gove, OBE

  Dudley and Sandwell

  Mr. Michael Garrett

  Hereford and Worcester

  Mr. Michael Price, CBE

  Shropshire

  Mrs. Kate Moore

  Staffordshire

  Mr. Douglas Garvie

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  Mr. Harold Canning

  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, dated 16 March 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking who are the members appointed to the Committees for the Employment of People with Disabilities.

  There are 60 CEPDs, each with an independent chairman, and up to 14 members. Chairmen are appointed by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Employment with special responsibility for the employment of people with disabilities, on behalf of the Secretary of State. Members are appointed by my Regional Directors and Directors for Scotland and Wales, on behalf of the Secretary of State.

  CEPDs were established under the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. Their statutory role is to advise and assist the Secretary of State for Employment on matters related to the employment and self-employment of people with disabilities in their areas. In practice they work closely with my people within their areas, particularly with Placing, Assessment and Advisory Teams, in promoting employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

  Each Committee includes equal numbers (either two or three) of members appointed after consultation with organisations representing employers and workers—to represent employers and workers generally. The other members are appointed as independents on the basis of the personal contribution they can make to work of their Committee. They usually include the manager of a local sheltered workshop, a member of the medical profession and other with a direct interest in the employment of disabled people locally.

  Because members are appointed at regional level, and the Committees work primarily with PACTs locally, we do not maintain an up to date national list of the 800 to 900 members of the Committees.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new initiatives he plans to reduce youth unemployment in the Doncaster area.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The local employment service and training and enterprise council deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help 718
  young people in the area find the best and quickest route to employment. The number of young people who have waited for more than eight weeks for a youth training place in the Doncaster area has fallen by 98 per cent. in the last year. The Government intend to improve the range of opportunities available to school leavers still further in Doncaster and elsewhere by introducing modern apprenticeships in 1995.

  European Regional Funding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department assesses applications made for European Union objective 3 funding from Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The European social fund is very heavily subscribed and highly competitive. Initially, project selection criteria are applied by each of the sectors responsible for managing ESF applications. These criteria reflect the priorities set out in the objective 3 plan to use ESF resources throughout Great Britain for 1994 onwards. They ensure that sector managers recommend to the Employment Department those projects which provide high quality and best value for money. The Department then considers the applications and issues approval letters where appropriate. This assessment process applies to applications across the whole of Great Britain, including Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a list of all applications made for EU objective 3 funding to his Department in respect of areas of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Until the negotiations on the objective 3 plan to use European social fund resources throughout Great Britain have been concluded, it is not possible for the Employment Department to invite or approve any applications for ESF assistance. Meanwhile the sector managers involved in objective 3 have already applied selection criteria to prospective projects. This will minimise delay in submitting recommended applications to the Department once the Commission has approved the plan. I advised the hon. Member in the reply I gave to him on 14 February 1994,Official Report, column 643, that we continue to press upon the Commission the need to have an urgent decision.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will itemise(a) the key elements of policy listed in the principal items of the existing European Community's social action programme and (b) the principal items in the proposed social charter provisions restricted to the other 11 EU member states.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  For the complete list of items included in the social action programme, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 19 October 1992,Official Report, columns 116–20.

  The only item to have been taken forward so far under the agreement on social policy by the other 11 member states is the proposal for a Council directive on mechanisms for informing and consulting employees.

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of quangos for which he is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Such information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993" and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Library.

  Outdoor Education Centres
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all outdoor education centres, giving their location and the frequency of visits made by the Health and Safety Executive over the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not collected in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage response by each ambulance service in England meeting the minimum standard within the patients charter; what are the comparable figures for meeting the ORCON standard; what were the comparative figures for the previous two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is included in "Patient Transport Services 1992–93", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ambulance emergency response time standards, commonly referred to as ORCON standards, were first introduced in 1974. Revised standards, introduced following a 1990 review, are in the patients charter.

  Health Visitors
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health visitors are now being trained; and how many in 1984.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Year Ending 31 March

  Entries to Training

  1984

  848

  1992

  694

  Source: English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting Annual Report Table 5.3.

  The number of whole-time equivalent health visitors in 1994 was 9,700 and in 1992 was 10,250—an increase of 5·6 per cent. over the last eight years.

  Counterfeit Medicines
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many manufacturers of counterfeit medicines have been detected in the United Kingdom this year; and 720
  what steps are being taken by the Medicines Control Agency to protect NHS patients from counterfeit medicines, particularly in respect of those that are entering the country under the guise of parallel imports.

  Mr. Sackville
  Two. All reports of possible counterfeits are immediately investigated by the enforcement unit of the Medicines Control Agency, MCA, and any subsequent investigation given a high priority. The MCA also assesses the degree of hazard to the public and if necessary alerts relevant organisations and the public accordingly.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reports her Department has received of counterfeit medicines being(a) detected and (b) distributed in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990 and to date in 1994; and if she will name the products involved and the source of the products.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information in this detail could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department of Health receives between 20 and 30 such reports each year, the products involved are usually major brand leaders or—more recently—anabolic steroids. Eighty per cent. of the reports are related to "diverted" products. These products are legally manufactured within product specification but diverted to the United Kingdom from other markets.

  Greater London Health Authority
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was allocated to Greater London health authority purchasers in each year since 1990; and what percentage this represents of all revenue funding for hospitals and community health services in each year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Allocations to district health authorities as purchasers of health care were made for the first time in the 1991–92 financial year. It is the responsibility of regional health authorities to allocate resources to districts and this information is not separately identifiable in the information collected by the Department.

  Expenditure by district health authorities in Greater London in 1991–92 and 1992–93 is shown in the table; it excludes expenditure by general practitioner fund holders. The figures for individual authorities over the two years are not directly comparable in every case because of boundary changes.

  Figures for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Greater London district health authorities' expenditure accounted for 18·1 per cent. of total expenditure by district health authorities in England in 1991–92 and 18·0 per cent. in 1992–93.

  1991–92 (£)

  1992–93 (£)

  Barnet DHA

  130,730,177

  132,241,755

  Harrow DHA

  88,397,307

  90,006,782

  Hillingdon DHA

  83,518,302

  86,111,744

  Hounslow and Spelthorne DHA

  107,625,179

  112,230,351

  Ealing DHA

  103,110,478

  109,108,576

  Riverside DHA

  186,629,392

  194,018,538

  Parkside DHA

  238,303,679

  247,777,479

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood DHA

  153,568,011

  159,857,405

  Hampstead DHA

  60,483,821

  62,510,951

  City and Hackney DHA

  107,363,560

  99,429,552

  Newham DHA

  99,756,200

  103,351,059

  Tower Hamlets DHA

  80,426,175

  78,932,970

  721

  1991–92 (£)

  1992–93 (£)

  Enfield DHA

  96,196,452

  101,677,262

  Haringey DHA

  92,736,373

  99,423,594

  Redbridge DHA

  88,194,556

  92,187,298

  Waltham Forest DHA

  96,763,754

  100,435,238

  Bloomsbury and Islington DHA

  178,471,140

  191,942,037

  Bexley DHA

  71,303,254

  77,543,500

  Greenwich DHA

  91,659,692

  99,359,709

  Bromley DHA

  110,819,831

  119,819,385

  West Lambeth DHA

  88,371,499

  471,547

  Camberwell DHA

  84,269,767

  482,703

  Lewisham and North Southwark DHA

  145,155,564

  365,351,088

  Croydon DHA

  109,082,512

  116,944,624

  Kingston and Esher DHA

  68,653,248

  75,032,766

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton DHA

  96,517,808

  99,424,758

  Wandsworth DHA

  104,631,717

  111,878,599

  Merton and Sutton DHA

  132,302,204

  141,250,768

  Authority name

  1992–931

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1989–90

  1988–89

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  North Derbyshire DHA

  1,174

  364

  65,691

  133,139

  86,340

  South Derbyshire DHA

  300,615

  272,887

  332,618

  260,008

  206,840

  Leicestershire DHA

  132,907

  343,566

  199,517

  486,702

  550,638

  North Lincolnshire DHA

  33,106

  63,260

  67,243

  116,566

  58,369

  South Lincolnshire DHA

  505,789

  400,036

  275,659

  238,824

  280,774

  Bassetlaw DHA2

  —

  122,903

  52,677

  49,560

  46,758

  Central Nottinghamshire DHA2

  —

  61,576

  30,522

  25,842

  27,395

  Nottingham DHA

  256,491

  315,829

  202,942

  252,601

  172,033

  Barnsley DHA

  96,461

  51,293

  46,239

  51,051

  35,182

  Doncaster DHA

  0

  0

  43,246

  44,584

  41,742

  Rotherham DHA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield DHA

  0

  204,081

  453,053

  412,272

  295,469

  North Nottinghamshire DHA2

  67,282

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source: Receipts and payments returns for district health authorities.

  1 Latest figures available are for 1992–93 and are provisional.

  2 Bassetlaw and Central Notts merged to form North Nottinghamshire in 1992–93.

  Powered Wheelchairs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost of including powered wheelchairs for occupant control out of doors in the artificial limb and appliance centre service; and what plans she has to provide this service.

  Mr. Bowis
  Decisions about the issue of wheelchairs, including powered indoor-outdoor wheelchairs, are matters for arrangement between district health authorities and national health service trusts. No estimate of the cost of providing these wheelchairs on a national basis has been made. In 1991–92 total expenditure on the wheelchair service was £46·93 million.

  Number of places in staffed residential care homes for people who are mentally ill or have learning disabilities 1

  Doncaster DHA

  Trent RHA

  Local authority

  Private

  Voluntary

  Local authority

  Private

  Voluntary

  1989

  168

  0

  73

  1,530

  1,440

  470

  1990

  168

  0

  73

  1,550

  1,640

  580

  1991

  183

  0

  75

  1,520

  1,780

  880

  1992

  220

  0

  93

  1,550

  1,940

  910

  1 Includes places in homes primarily for elderly mentally infirm people.

  722

  1991–92 (£)

  1992–93 (£)

  Total, DHAs Greater London

  3,095,041,652

  3,268,802,038

  Total, DHAs England

  17,114,662,189

  18,182,143,979

  Source: Annual accounts of health authorities (England).

  Notes:

  1. Figures shown are for total revenue expenditure.

  2. Figures for 1992–93 are provisional.

  Private Beds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each district health authority in the Trent regional health authority the private bed income for each financial year since 1988–89 and for the current year to date.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the changes in the number of places in staffed residential care homes catering primarily for people who are mentally ill or have learning difficulties in(a) the Doncaster health authority area and (b) Trent regional health authority in each of the last four years, divided into (i) publicly owned, (ii) privately owned and (iii) voluntary sector owned.

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

  Cornwall Health Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the non-executive directors of the Cornwall health trust requested assistance towards the cost of their defence on charges of libel; and what is her Department's response.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Officials of the National Health Service Management Executive received a letter dated 26 January from the chief executive of the Cornwall Healthcare NHS trust asking that consideration be given to meeting the cost of the legal action against the trust's non-executive directors from central funds. Mr. J. H. Askham has recently been appointed as chairman of the Cornwall Healthcare NHS trust: officials will shortly be discussing with him the way forward for the trust.

  Limb Defects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations or research her Department is carrying out in respect of children who have been born in England and Wales during the last 10 years with missing or defective limbs; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on 1 March at column 678.

  Disciplinary Procedures
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures her Department has to collect information from NHS trusts in regard to disciplinary action taken under the new procedure HC(90)9.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We do not collect such information.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors accused of personal misconduct under the new procedure have appealed to the Secretary of State under paragraph 190(d) procedures, for each year since 1990; and of these how many cases were(a) dismissed, (b) settled through premature retirement and (c) reinstated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received representations from two doctors under paragraph 190(d) of the "Terms and Conditions for Hospital Medical and Dental Staff (England and Wales)" to refer to a panel the question whether their appointment was terminated on the sole ground of personal misconduct. These representations were made in 1993 and the cases are still under consideration.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many doctors suspended from duty under the new procedure HC(90)9 for each year since 1990 have been suspended for(a) personal misconduct, (b) professional misconduct, (c) professional incompetence or (d) some other substantial reason;

  (2) how many doctors suspended from duty under the new procedure HC(90)9, for each year since 1990, have had (a) internal hearings only and (b) full independent professional hearings under annex B HC(90)9 procedures; how many cases were dismissed; in how many cases settlements were made out of court involving premature retirement of the doctor; and how many were reinstated;
  724
  (3) how many doctors were suspended from duty under the new procedure HC(90)9 for each year since 1990 in each region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. Decisions on disciplinary action for hospital doctors or dentists rest with the employing authority or trust. This includes the decision as to whether to suspend a practitioner.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors suspended from duty under the new procedure HC(90)9 have been refused a request for a paragraph 190 hearing because the original ground for dismissal was personal misconduct.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Doctors who are suspended from duty cannot request a paragraph 190 hearing unless they are subsequently dismissed.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors dismissed under the new procedures HC(90)9, for each year since 1990, have appealed to the Secretary of State under paragraph 190 procedures; and of these how many cases were(a) dismissed, (b) settled through premature retirement and (c) reinstated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of 11 appeals have been lodged by doctors eligible to appeal under paragraph 190 of the terms and conditions of service since the new procedures set out in HC(90)9 were introduced in March 1990. None of these appeals arose from the application of the procedures in HC(90)9.

  Of these 11 appeals two were upheld, two were dismissed and one was withdrawn. The outcome of the remaining six appeals is not yet known.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sums she has expended in each of the last five years for research into(a) the causes and (b) the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department is funding a resarch project to investigate long-term progression in rheumatoid arthritis and to study aetiology and prognostic factors. Departmental funding for this ongoing project began in 1980 at the clinical operational research unit—CORU—at University college London. The project is being funded in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies. The central funding is approximately £15,000 per year although this forms only part of the £327,975 allocated to CORU in 1993–94 to undertake its remit of studying applications of operational research and information technology to clinical aspects of health care.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council—MRC—which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The MRC is an independent body deciding what research to support on its own expert judgment.

  Psychiatric Care (Women's Wards)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will direct that health authority purchasers must ensure that women who are admitted to psychiatric hospitals are guaranteed care on a women-only ward if they request it.

  Mr. Bowis
  Our advice to health authorities contained in the "Mental Illness Key Area Handbook", copies of which are available in the Library, is that one of women's particular concerns is the choice of a single sex ward or single sex area. In addition the patients charter requires health authorities to provide services which respect patients' privacy, dignity and religious and cultural beliefs.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ask the Mental Health Act Commission to monitor arrangements made for the aftercare of patients covered by section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, as recommended in the Ritchie report.

  Mr. Bowis
  We will consider this in consultation with the Mental Health Act Commission.

  Abortions
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were performed on women who were less than 13 weeks pregnant(a) in each regional health authority and (b) in each district health authority, in England and Wales in 1992 and 1993; and how many of these operations involved admission and discharge of the patient on the same day.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information for 1992 will be placed in the Library. For reasons of confidentiality, statistics for district health authorities are presented by DHA of woman's usual residence, not by DHA of termination. Information for 1993 is not yet available.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fee-paying private bed abortions were performed in NHS hospitals in each regional health authority in England and Wales in 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on private abortions carried out in national health service hospitals is collected as part of the hospital episode statistics system. The quality and completeness of this data is at present inadequate to provide regional level data but analysis conducted so far indicates that in both 1991–92 and 1992–93 the proportion of all abortions carried out in NHS hospitals that were performed privately was approximately 1·5 per cent.

  Osteoporosis
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available in each of the past five years to regional health authorities in London for screening osteoporosis; how many women in London have been screened for osteoporosis in each of the past five years; how many clinics exist in London for the specific purpose of screening for osteoporosis; and how many women in London have been diagnosed as suffering from osteoporosis in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no national population screening programme for osteoporosis and therefore no 726
  central funding as there is not yet evidence to show that such a programme would be effective. District health authorities are responsible for assessing need and for ensuring that suitable diagnostic services for individual women are made available.

  Medical Product Licences
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the licensing authority responsible for granting product licences for parallel imports of medicines is currently subject to a legal challenge in the courts.

  Mr. Sackville
  On 26 January a pharmaceutical company in the United Kingdom was granted leave for a judical review of a decision by the Medicines Control Agency, on behalf of the licensing authority, to grant a parallel import product licence to a company to market a product imported from Belgium. The hearing is expected in April.

  Blue-green Algae
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has concerning the number of people in the North West Water region who are allergic to blue-green algae.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The numbers of people with allergies are not available centrally.

  Illnesses including skin rashes, eye irritation, vomiting, diarrhoea, fever and pains in muscles and joints have occurred in people who swam through or swallowed water with an algal scum. Very few reports of such occurrences have come from the United Kingdom. There have been no reports of long term effects or deaths in humans from such exposures.

  In 1990, the Department advised that although algal scum is not always harmful, it is a sensible precaution to avoid contact with the scum and the water close to it.

  Accommodation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the tenure of the Trent regional health authority headquarters' premises;

  (2) what is the tenure of the Doncaster health authority headquarters' premises.

  Mr. Sackville
  Trent regional health authority headquarters is freehold. Doncaster health authority headquarters is leasehold for 125 years from 4 December 1992.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the average savings made by each fundholding practice in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 17 January at column 387.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the resources of fundholding general practice is being used to purchase health provision from the private sector; what is her policy in respect of such purchasing; and if she will make a statement.
  727
  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 7 February at column 52.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those health authorities which have indicated to general practitioners an inability to fund extra-contractual referrals during the current financial year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for individual district health authorities. The National Health Service Management Executive has issued guidance to district health authorities who are expected to work closely with general practitioners in managing their budget for extra contractual referrals. Copies of the guidance contained in FDL(93)07 are available in the Library.

  NHS Information
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will announce the results of the review of her Department's requirements for information from the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are anxious to do all we can to reduce further the number of forms which currently have to be filled in by national health service units and returned to the Department, as part of our statistical database.

  We have already reduced and rationalised the contents of 21 different forms. A further five returns are being abolished, because the information they contain is now available from other sources.

  In addition, I am pleased to announce that from 1 April this year the Department will no longer require returns giving the following information:

  Form KH10—Radiotherapy Machine Activity;

  Form KH13—Diagnostic Departments—Physiological Measurements;

  Form KO39—Hospital Eye Services.

  There is clearly a limit to the amount of information required by the Department and the NHS Management Executive on a national service regionally and locally administered. Moreover, release from the burden of filling in forms will give NHS units more time for activities which have a greater bearing on direct patient care.

  All statistical returns from the NHS are being continually reviewed.

  Michael Buchanan
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are the members of the inquiry team set up by the North West London mental health trust to investigate the care and treatment of Michael Buchanan, convicted of manslaughter after discharge from Shenley psychiatric hospital; and whether the report will be published.

  Mr. Bowis
  The membership of the independent inquiry panel is:

  Mr. C. Heginbotham, Chief Executive, Riverside Mental Health Trust (Chairman);

  Dr. R. Hale, Consultant Psychiatrist, Tavistock Clinic;

  Mrs. L. Warren, Non-Executive Member, Brent and Harrow Health Authority;

  Mr. T. Walsh, Assistant Director of Commissioning, Brent and Harrow Health Authority;

  Mrs. J. Carr, Non-Executive Director, Parkside Health NHS Trust.

  The report of this panel will be made public.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of food poisoning of all types were recorded monthly in each year since 1988, by health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available in the form requested. Data are published weekly, quarterly and annually by regional health authority, standard regions and local authority areas in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys MB2 series—Communicable disease statistics, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rules and regulations her Department has passed in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the tables.

  Statutory Instruments Made

  Number

  1991

  122

  1992

  147

  1993

  141

  Government Bills which became Acts

  Number

  1991

  1

  1992

  0

  1993

  0

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of quangos for which she is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993" and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Library.

  Peto Institute
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to her answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 597–98, what study her Department has made of the extent to which families and institutions in the United Kingdom now require the services of the proposed International Peto Institute in Budapest;

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of whether the proposed International Peto Institute will deliver training to meet United Kingdom standards and requirements;

  (3) when she will issue new briefing on conductive education;

  (4) what assessment she has made of whether the Government's policy that conductive education should be

  729
  available as an option within the system would be more effectively achieved by supporting the development of an equivalent facility in this country.

  Mr. Bowis
  The demand for the services of the proposed new International Peto Institute will become apparent when it comes into operation. Under the agreement between the United Kingdom and Hungarian Governments, the proposed new institute has to provide training in accordance with the standards established by the present Peto Institute. The Department of health has already provided funding under its section 64 scheme to the Birmingham Foundation for Conductive Education and the Hornsey centre. There are no current plans to issue guidance on conductive education.

  Self-financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many self-financing regulatory authorities her Department or its predecessors has set up since 1979; what is the annual running cost of each of the self-financing regulatory authorities in each of the last three years; and what was the current staffing establishment at the latest available date, last year and two years ago.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since 1979, the Department has set up the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting as a self-financing regulatory body.

  The total gross expenditure for 1992–93 was £8·657 million. Information on running costs for 1991–92 and 1990–91, and staffing for the last three years is detailed in "Public Bodies 1993" and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Library.

  London Health Authorities
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated by each health authority in(a) Inner London and (b) Greater London since March 1993; and what were the figures in each of the three previous years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not yet available for the period since March 1993. Information for previous years is published in "Ordinary and Day Case Admissions for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of total agricultural support through direct payments is secured annually by(a) the largest 20 per cent. of farmers and (b) the smallest 20 per cent. of farmers.

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that the information is not available. While the farm business survey collects details of direct agricultural support payments from a sample of farms, it does not provide us with farm by farm returns which would be required to answer this question.

  Horticultural Imports
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received about damage to United Kingdom growers caused by the importation of foreign horticultural produce, with particular reference to lettuces, tomatoes and cucumbers, at prices below the cost of production, packaging and transport; and what powers exist either in the United Kingdom or the European Community to prevent such market distortions whether caused by EC or non-EC member states.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department has received representations from the NFU and growers about difficulties in the markets for salad crops. Market management of horticultural crops is a matter for the Commission. However, under the transitional terms provided for in the treaty of accession, the Commission may take measures in the event of exports from Spain to the rest of the Community disrupting markets. Some horticultural produce, including tomatoes and cucumbers but not lettuces, are currently subject to a reference price system which establishes minimum import prices at certain times of the year for produce from third countries.

  Self-financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many self-financing regulatory authorities her Department has set up since 1979; what was the annual running cost of each of the self-financing regulatory authorities in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment now; and what it was last year and two years ago.

  Mr. Jack
  Unfortunately this question could be answered only at disproportionate cost. I will write to the hon. Member to explain why this is the case.

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the number of quangos for which she is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago.

  Mr. Jack
  Such information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993" and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Libraries of the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on parliamentary scrutiny of the use of public interest immunity certificates; what proposals he has to improve such scrutiny; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Scrutiny of public interest immunity certificates is a matter for the Courts in each case.

SCOTLAND

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of quangos for which he is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago.

  Mr. Lang
  Such information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993" and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many rules and regulations his Department has passed in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Lang
  The numbers of statutory instruments, including orders, schemes, rules, and regulations but excluding instruments made jointly with other Departments, made by my Department in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 are:

  Table 1

  Current expenditure by education authorities on repair and maintenance of school buildings

  £ million at 1992–93 prices

  1978–79

  1984–85

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Borders

  0·825

  0·941

  1·233

  1·215

  1·226

  1·240

  Central

  4·081

  4·374

  4·065

  4·105

  4·471

  4·400

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·850

  2·216

  2·889

  1·966

  2·875

  2·851

  Fife

  4·679

  5·878

  5·845

  6·359

  4·889

  5·697

  Grampian

  6·396

  9·848

  8·012

  8·439

  11·655

  15·726

  Highland

  2·303

  3·074

  4·394

  4·443

  4·012

  3·302

  Lothian

  12·949

  11·477

  8·182

  7·420

  7·309

  11·964

  Strathclyde

  58·646

  51·011

  49·342

  43·382

  43·785

  44·180

  Tayside

  4·351

  5·895

  5·705

  6·066

  6·844

  7·433

  Orkney

  0·186

  0·256

  0·265

  0·204

  0·220

  0·278

  Shetland

  0·325

  0·502

  0·574

  0·966

  1·322

  1·711

  Western Isles

  0·797

  0·500

  0·927

  1·166

  1·196

  1·001

  Table 2

  Capital expenditure by education authorities on school buildings

  £ million at 1992–93 prices

  1978–79

  1984–85

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Borders

  0·767

  1·423

  1·898

  3·491

  3·612

  2·718

  Central

  9·757

  1·688

  5·956

  5·175

  3·984

  5·877

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·906

  3·702

  2·158

  1·527

  3·251

  3·787

  Fife

  6·604

  4·489

  6·938

  9·539

  4·432

  5·104

  Grampian

  19·942

  9·046

  4·671

  6·413

  7·624

  6·725

  Highland

  8·243

  1·273

  4·656

  3·437

  3·818

  5·119

  Lothian

  25·029

  9·258

  13·802

  10·425

  8·709

  18·011

  Strathclyde

  64·691

  31·117

  31·590

  25·984

  31·037

  29·226

  Tayside

  6·407

  3·294

  4·200

  3·467

  3·980

  5·458

  Orkney

  1·159

  1·953

  1·181

  1·422

  0·431

  1·154

  Shetland

  4·923

  2·850

  0·863

  0·922

  1·490

  4·001

  Western Isles

  1·131

  1·502

  1·890

  2·512

  2·990

  2·499

  Notes:

  1. The figures in table 1 have been compiled from local authority financial returns and in table 2 from capital payment returns submitted by local authorities to the Scottish Office. Both sets of figures have been adjusted to 1992–93 prices using the GDP deflator.

  2. Generally capital expenditure (table 2) is less in later years compared with 1978–79. This reflects a substantial and progressive decline in school pupil numbers which has reduced the requirement for new school building.
  732

  Number

  1991

  307

  1992

  381

  1993

  346

  Not all such instruments will have contained substantive regulatory provisions; information as to which instruments contained such provisions is not held centrally.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding the amount spent by each local education authority in Scotland on the repair and maintenance of school buildings in(a) 1978–79, (b) 1984–85 and (c) in each year since 1989–90 at constant 1993 prices.

  Mr. Lang
  The available information is given in the tables. The capital figures in table 2 include expenditure on new building work as well as on repairs and maintenance, information on which is not recorded separately.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet determined the level of fee remission grant which will be available to parents under the assisted places scheme in school session 1994–95.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is making £10·251 million available for fee remission in 1994–95. Fifty-five schools across Scotland will participate in the scheme. This funding should enable the number of pupils currently benefiting to be maintained at slightly above 3,000.

  Sea Birds
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest information he has on the number and species of birds found dead recently on the east coast of Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: The Institute for Terrestrial Ecology, under contract to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, is investigating levels of heavy metals and pesticide residues in samples of dead sea birds beached recently. Initial results indicate no significant level of contamination.

  Surveys of beached birds are carried out by various organisations and I understand that post mortems have been carried out to determine the general condition of dead birds. In many cases birds have been found to have suffered starvation.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigations are under way on the causes of deaths of sea birds on the east coast of Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds organised a survey of dead birds on beaches in east Scotland on the weekend of 26 and 27 February. The number of dead birds recorded was nearly 6,400, which is four times higher than a similar count last year.

  Eighty per cent. of birds found were guillemots, but other prominent species were shag and razorbill. The total number of dead birds will never be known exactly, but an estimate of 50,000 total fatalities is still valid.

  Forestry Commission
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which forests have been sold by the Forestry Commission in each of the last five years; to whom they were sold; for how much they were sold; and to what use they were put after sale.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Lists giving details of the areas of forest land sold by the Forestry Commission from the start of the disposals programme in July 1981 to December 1992 are held in the Library of the House. The lists provide the name of the purchaser and the price paid where the purchaser has agreed that this information can be made public. The Commission is compiling a list of the areas sold in 1993 and a copy will be placed in the Library shortly. The Commission does not maintain records of the subsequent use of the woodlands it sells. However, woodlands cannot normally be converted to another use without planning permission.

  Freshwater Fishing Rights
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list full details, including the price of the lease from the Forestry Commission, of the freshwater fishing rights, excluding salmon, on Loch Awe and Loch Avich; and for what reasons the lease was not put up for public auction.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Forestry Commission's fishing rights on Loch Awe and Loch Avich are leased to the Loch Awe Improvement Association for three years from 1 May 1992. The rent is £1 per annum; the association manages the fishings on behalf of the commission and issues day permits to the public.

  The lease was not offered on the open market because the commission considered that a lease to the association would be more successful in conserving the fish stocks and increasing the availability of authorised fishing for freshwater fish in the lochs, in accordance with the objectives of the Loch Awe and Associated Waters Protection Order 1992.

  Motorways
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of motorway are currently(a) open, (b) under construction and (c) planned in Scotland either (i) as new motorway or (ii) as existing motorway being widened.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland there are 159 miles of trunk road motorway and a further 15 miles on non-trunk motorway, responsibility for which lies with local authorities.

  Twenty-two miles of new motorway is currently under construction, with a further 58 miles of new motorway planned.

  Much of the motorway network constructed in the 1960s and 1970s is reaching the end of its structural life and requires major maintenance or reconstruction. Some of this work may involve widening.

  Health Care International
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what system he has to monitor adherence to the conditions of authorisation as set out in the annex of the letter of authorisation for the Health Care International hospital at Clydebank dated 6 October 1987 and signed by N. S. Munro, assistant secretary, Scottish Home and Health Department.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office has regular contact with senior representatives of HCI. These discussions cover matters relevant to the development of the hospital at Clydebank, including those specified in the authorisation.

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

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  GPs (Drug Sales)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will estimate the annual value of sales of Adifax, Tenuate, Dospan and Duromine direct to general practitioners;

  (2) what plans he has to control the supply of dangerous drugs direct to general practitioners.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: This information is not available. The sale of medicinal products direct to GPs for private purposes is outwith the national health service.

  The supply of dangerous drugs direct to general practitioners is already strictly regulated under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and its subordinate legislation. Under regulations 9(4)(a) and 14(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985, an authorised supplier may supply schedule 3 drugs to a general practitioner only upon receipt of a written requisition.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will investigate allegations as to the sale of addictive dangerous drugs to general practitioners and their subsequent sale to customers for slimming purposes, without medical examination, at prices far in excess of the cost to the NHS;

  (2) what safeguards are in place to protect patients from being given addictive, hallucinogenic drugs for slimming purposes, without prior medical examination or control and supervision.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: If an allegation is made that a GP working within the NHS has breached his/her terms of service, it would be for the health board to consider in the first instance. The subsequent disciplinary procedure may involve the Secretary of State or the General Medical Council—GMC—at a later stage. Allegations of professional misconduct against a medical practitioner, whether or not he/she is working within the NHS, should be directed to the GMC.

  The safeguards in place to protect patients are as follows.

  All practising doctors in the United Kingdom must be registered with the GMC. A doctor found guilty of serious professional misconduct such as the prescription or supply of dependence—inducing drugs other than in the course of bone fide treatment, can be struck off or suspended from the register of the GMC.

  Also, detailed and specific guidance on the prescribing of drugs likely to cause dependence is provided in the British National Formulary—BNF—which is published

  General dental service expenditure on children in Scotland: 1992–93

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Gross expenditure (£000)

  Number of registered children

  Number of children in the population

  Cost per registered child (£)

  Cost per child in the population (£)

  29,626

  702,037

  1,153,147

  42·20

  25·69

  Notes:

  1. The gross expenditure on general dental services (GDS) in column (a) comprises capitation payments, weighted entry payments, child item of service payments for treatments given under capitation, and child item of service payments for treatments given on an occasional basis in the financial year 1992–93.

  2. Column (b) is the number of children registered with a general dental practitioner (GDP) at September 1992.

  3. Column (c) is for June 1992.

  4. Children may also be treated in the community or hospital dental services as well as in the general dental service. Children who are not registered with a GDP may receive GDS treatment on an occasional basis.
  736
  jointly by the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. The BNF is provided free of charge to all GPs within the NHS.

  Glasgow development agency
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the withdrawal of Glasgow development agency funding from projects in the city; and if he will take steps to ensure the loss of this money is made up.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: The question of funding support from the local enterprise company for individual projects in the city of Glasgow is a matter for Glasgow development agency.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Glasgow development agency has to reduce funding to(a) the Glasgow regeneration fund, (b) Glasgow works and (c) the Glasgow education business partnership.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: This is a matter for the local enterprise company, which I am sure will be happy to discuss the matter with the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the reasons for Glasgow development agency's withdrawal of funding from Firhill business centre; and if he will take steps to save the project.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: The organisation, decision making and performance of Glasgow development agency are matters for the board of the local enterprise company itself, and for Scottish Enterprise.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the reasons for Glasgow development agency's withdrawal of funding from Firhill business centre; and if he will take steps to save the project.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: The level of support which Glasgow development agency provides for the Firhill business centre is a matter for the local enterprise company, but my right hon. Friend is not aware of any decision on its part to withdraw funding.

  Dentistry
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount spent per child on general dental services, including in the calculation those not registered with a general dental practitioner.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: The information requested is as follows:
  737
  5. There is also some non-fee expenditure on general dental services (eg, reimbursement of non-domestic rates, maternity payments, and employer's superannuation payments) which cannot be apportioned between child and adult treatments. In the financial year 1992–93, this represented approximately 4 per cent. of expenditure on the GDS.

  Child Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his 'Department spends on child-care provision for the under-fives and out-of-school provision for children aged over five either directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, or indirectly through resources made available to local authorities or other organisations; what form of provision is thereby provided; how many places are thereby provided; and if he will make a statement on child care.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: Good quality day care has a valuable part to play in the development of young children. Out-of-school care can help older children to develop a broad range of interests and to adopt a positive approach to the use of their leisure time.

  The Scottish Office supports the provision of various forms of day care through the urban programme and through grants under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. In 1993–94 almost £7 million has been made available from these sources. Grants for out-of-school care projects are also available through local enterprise companies under the initiative launched last year by the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Within the local authority expenditure settlement for 1993–94 provision of £30·37 million was made for day care for children.

  The latest available information about the form and level of day care provision in Scotland is contained in the Scottish Office Bulletin "Services for Children 1991 and 1992", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

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

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: In 1993, I signed two public interest immunity certificates and in each of the other years none.

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

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: Such purchases are included within my Department's overall administration expenditure which is published every year in the annual report.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many bottles of(a) whisky and gin and (b) sherry and port were consumed by his private offices in 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: Detailed information of this sort could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people have died each year in Scotland from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease over the past five years;

  (2) if he will list the dates and locations of each death in Scotland from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease over the past five years and the respective dates on which the Department of Health's Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance units were first notified of each suspected case; and in any case where notification was not provided before death, if he will explain why notification was not provided earlier;

  (3) what is his Department's procedure for notifying health authorities of suspected cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: The number of people in Scotland who have died from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) in each of the past five years is as follows:

  Definite

  Probable

  Possible

  1989

  5

  —

  —

  1990

  3

  —

  —

  1991

  5

  —

  —

  1992

  4

  —

  —

  1993

  5

  2

  2

  The location of deaths from CJD, both definite and probable, for the period 1 May 1990 to 30 April 1993 is given in figure 1 of the second annual report of the CJD surveillance unit. Of the cases notifed to the CJD surveillance unit before death, this occurred on average 61 days before death. However, in five cases diagnosis was made at post mortem by the CJD surveillance unit's dedicated pathology laboratory. This is an important source of data for the unit as there is no diagnostic test for CJD in life.

  There is no departmental procedure for notifying health boards of suspected cases of CJD, since the information would already be known to the clinician involved in the case. Information on suspected cases is available from the unit's annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Management Systems
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General how much the Law Officer's Department's computer-aided facilities management systems cost; from whom they were purchased; how many person hours were required to commission them; what the estimated and actual saving has been from their operation; and to what extent the use of such systems accounts for the apparent rise in theft noted in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) of 16 February,Official Report, column 783.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Departments for which I am responsible have no computer-aided facilities management systems in place.

  Mr. Paul Bennett
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what representations he received from agencies of either the Government of South Africa, or the prosecution or judicial authorities of South Africa prior to committal proceedings against Mr. Paul Bennett;

  (2) what representations he received from agencies of either the United States Government or the United States prosecution or judicial authorities prior to committal proceedings against Mr. Paul Bennett.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General why a public immunity interest certificate was originally applied in the case of Paul Bennett; in what circumstances; and for what reason it was subsequently lifted.

  The Attorney-General
  Paul James Bennett was committed for trial on 22 May 1991 at Southwark Crown court by the Horseferry Road magistrates court. He then sought judicial review of the committal on the ground that he had been brought within the jurisdiction in circumstances which were unlawful.

  The applicant sought discovery of a number of documents relating to communications between police forces or prosecuting authorities, both in this country and abroad, in connection with the detention and investigation of crime and the apprehension of offenders. That is a class of document which ordinarily attracts public interest immunity and in July 1992 the then Home Secretary signed a public interest immunity certificate in respect of those documents. In the event the question of disclosure did not arise for decision at that stage because the divisional court dismissed the application for judicial review on the ground that it had no power to inquire into the circumstances by which a person had been brought within the jurisdiction.

  That ruling was the subject of a successful appeal to the House of Lords, which remitted the case to the divisional court on 24 June 1993. That court considered the question of disclosure on 19 October 1993. The Crown agreed on the advice of counsel that the court should be invited to order discovery of the documents, on the ground that they went to the heart of a factual dispute which had by then been made material by the decision of the House of Lords. The court upheld the claim for public interest immunity, but accepted that, in the circumstances of the particular case, the balance of the competing public interests lay in disclosure.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of quangos for which he is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago.

  Mr. Eggar
  Such information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993" and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Aid and Trade
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which aid and trade provision projects approved for Indonesia since 1979 could be used to support military activity; and what monitoring takes place of whether aid and trade provision projects are used to support Indonesian military activity.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply. The majority of the aid and trade provision allocations in Indonesia have been for civil infrastructure, e.g. for electricity generation, railways development and the provision of bridging materials. We have also supported projects for a wide range of other purposes, e.g. coal mining and improvement of university science facilities. None of the projects we have supported is designed to support military activity and we have no indication that any have been so used. Frequent monitoring visits to assess progress in implementation and ex-post project evaluation visits have not indicated any evidence of military use.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the Government's best estimates of the number of jobs created within the United Kingdom as a direct result of support provided to projects in developing countries under the aid and trade provision in each of the last five years; and if he will explain the method by which these estimates have been reached.

  Mr. Needham
  Projects supported by ATP have created a significant number of United Kingdom jobs since the scheme's inception in 1977–78. The precise number is difficult to estimate. This information could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which British firms have benefited from aid and trade provision assistance; by how much; and for what projects in Malaysia and Indonesia in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  For a detailed list of all ATP projects, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 28 October 1993,Official Report, column 732.

  Malaysia (Contracts)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated value of confirmed United Kingdom contracts and contracts presently under negotiation with Malaysian authorities; and how many British jobs are involved.

  Mr. Needham
  It is not possible to give precise figures. But exports worth hundreds of millions of pounds have been under discussion, involving thousands of jobs.

  Ryrie Rules
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how the Ryrie rules are applied to each agency and enterprise for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ryrie rules were abolished in 1989.

  Mr. Asil Nadir
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 575, what information he has as to whether the Official Receiver intends to apply for the suspension of the discharge of the bankruptcy of Mr. Asil Nadir.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Official Receiver is taking legal advice on matters relating to a possible application under Section 279(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 for the suspension of Mr. Nadir's automatic discharge from bankruptcy. The Official Receiver expects to be able to make a decision in the light of that advice in the near future.

  World Trade Organisation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers the World Trade Organisation will have once the general agreement on tariffs and trade is ratified to require a country that refuses to bring its legislation into line with a GATT ruling to change its laws.

  Mr. Needham
  The proposed World Trade Organisation (WTO) will have no powers to compel members to bring domestic legislation into conformity with the adverse findings of dispute settlement proceedings. In such circumstances, the member would be able to choose between bringing measures into conformity with WTO rules, offering compensatory market access concessions—either temporary or permanent—or accepting retaliatory withdrawal of market access concessions by the aggrieved member. Both compensatory and retaliatory measures would be proportional to the impairment involved—there is no punitive or coercive element.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what role he envisages for the World Trade Organisation once the GATT is ratified.

  Mr. Needham
  The proposed World Trade Organisation (WTO) will organise and help give effect to the structure of rules and market access commitments agreed among its prospective members in the course of the Uruguay round, as well as providing a forum for future trade negotiations as its members see fit. Each member of the WTO will itself be responsible for following those rules and implementing its market access commitments, assisted by the WTO secretariat. The secretariat will be fully accountable to WTO members.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the World Trade Organisation will be democratically accountable.

  Mr. Needham
  The proposed World Trade Organisation (WTO) will provide an institutional structure to give effect to the rules and market access commitments agreed between prospective members of the WTO in the Uruguay round. As such it will be fully accountable to its members.

  Engineering Products
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom output of engineering products in the fourth quarter of each year since 1979.
  742
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is provided in the following table:

  United Kingdom output of Engineering Products1

  Year

  Index of production Base year: 1990 = 100 (seasonally adjusted)

  1979–Q4

  86·1

  1980–Q4

  74·8

  1981–Q4

  75·3

  1982–Q4

  73·5

  1983–Q4

  76·8

  1984–Q4

  78·9

  1985–Q4

  79·3

  1986–Q4

  85·2

  1987–Q4

  86·3

  1988–Q4

  95·7

  1989–Q4

  100·0

  1990–Q4

  98·5

  1991–Q4

  90·7

  1992–Q4

  91·5

  1993–Q4

  91·6

  Source: Central Statistical Office

  1 Standard Industrial Classification (1992) Subsections DK, DL and DM

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the percentage change in imports of finished manufactures since 1973; what has been the change in United Kingdom production and exports of finished manufactures; and what has been the effect on manufacturing employment.

  Mr. Needham
  Between 1970 and 1993 the value of United Kingdom imports of finished manufactures increased by 1,450 per cent. Over the same period, the value of exports of finished manufactures increased by 985 per cent.

  Due to major differences between the industrial and trade classifications, it is not possible to provide comparable information on United Kingdom production and employment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, on current trends, United Kingdom manufacturing output will exceed the 1989 level by the end of the century.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On the basis of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95", manufacturing output is likely to pass its 1989 level within the next year and a half.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what figures for the terms of trade of manufactured goods from 1979 to date he is using for his study of the competitiveness of British manufacturing; and if he will publish these figures.

  Mr. Needham
  The terms of trade can be readily derived from unit value indices held on the Central Statistical Office database, which can be accessed from the Library of the House.

  Single Market
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has that United Kingdom manufacturers generally have gained more than they have lost as a result of the single market.

  Mr. Needham
  One year on from the completion of the single market framework, it is too early for a full assessment of its effect on United Kingdom manufacturers. It will take some time for companies fully to adjust to the single market changes and to exploit all the new opportunities. This is true for all member states: thus the European Commission will not be producing an assessment of the economic impact of the single market. until 1996.

  Nonetheless, a number of surveys indicate that British firms are already benefiting from the single market. For example, a CBI survey in November 1993 found that 68 per cent. of United Kingdom companies interviewed were experiencing greater opportunities for trade with the rest of the European Community now, compared with five years ago.

  In 1992 Customs and Excise produced an analysis of the costs and benefits to business as a result of changes under the single market customs, VAT, excise and trade statistics regimes. They have recently, as part of a single market implementation review involving consultation with about 1,000 businesses, carried out an initial validation of the cost/benefit analysis. This confirms the original assessment that there should be an overall net benefit to United Kingdom business of at least £440 million during the first five years. Additional benefits, arising from increased trade opportunities and the scope for efficiencies in transport units and stock levels, which were not included in the initial analysis, were also identified.

  Japan
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will urge the Japanese Government to reduce its export surplus by allowing the exchange rate to rise without imposing other impediments on trade.

  Mr. Needham
  The Japanese trade surplus is due to structural economic factors including the persistently high savings rate in Japan. Changes in the yen parity will be conditioned by market factors. We and our Community partners urge the Japanese Government to stimulate demand in the economy and to increase imports by macro-economic means such as the recent package of fiscal measures, and by introducing an effective programme of deregulation in the Japanese economy.

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of United Kingdom overseas investment in 1979; and what it was in 1993.

  Mr. Needham
  Information for 1979 is published in table 8.2 of "The Pink Book 1990, United Kingdom Balance of Payments". Information for 1993 is available only up to the third quarter. I refer the hon. Gentleman to "First Release, Balance of trade with countries outside the EC November 1993, Central Statistical Office, (94)191", table G. Both publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for south Yorkshire the post offices currently being considered by the Post Office for franchising.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that no post offices in south Yorkshire are currently being considered for franchising.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which post offices in south Yorkshire are still under the authority of the Post Office.

  Mr. McLouglin
  I understand from the Post Office that there are four directly-managed Crown post offices in south Yorkshire at Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield. In addition there are some 380 post offices with agency status in the county.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post offices in south Yorkshire have been franchised in each year since the introduction of the policy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of post offices which have been franchised in south Yorkshire are as follows:

  Number

  1992

  1

  1993

  2

  1994 (to date)

  1

  Of these, three resulted from Crown office conversions and one from the transfer of an agency office to a franchisee.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post and sub-post offices have been given agency status in south Yorkshire; and if he will list them.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that six Crown post offices have been converted to agency status in south Yorkshire. These are:

  Wombwell

  West street Sheffield

  The Moor Sheffield

  Mexborough

  Hillsborough

  Leopold street, Sheffield.

  SL Homes Ltd.
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the directors of SL Homes Ltd. last notified to Companies house;

  (2) what is the date of filing and the financial period covered by the most recent accounts filed by the company SL Homes Ltd.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Responsibility for the subject has been delegated to the Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency for which my Department is responsible. I have therefore asked Mr. Durham to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Durham to Mr. David Shaw, dated 14 March 1994:
  745
  The latest list of directors of SL Homes Limited notified to Companies House is as follows:

  Morris Aitchison

  William Drummond

  William McCracken

  Harry Sneddon Miller (resigned 20 August 1993)

  James McLean Chalmers

  John Davidson

  Brian John Dempsey

  William Paterson

  John Scullion

  The most recent accounts filed by SL Homes Limited cover the financial period 1 January 1991 to 31 December 1991 and were delivered to Companies House on 9 October 1992.

  The accounts to 31 December 1992 were due to be delivered by 31 October 1993 but are still outstanding. A default letter was issued to the company at its registered office address on 5 November 1993 informing the company that the accounts were outstanding. As a response was not received, a second letter was issued to the same address on 8 March 1994 in which the company was asked whether it is still in business or operation, to date we have not received a reply to this letter either. We now propose to issue final reminders to each director at their homes addresses.

  I hope this information is of help to you.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade following the letter to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, from the Minister for Trade of 17 February, if he will publish in the Official Report a correction to his answer of 8 February, Official Report, columns 228–29.

  Mr. Needham
  My letter of 17 February to the hon. Member has already been placed in the Library of the House. It corrected an omission from the list of witnesses to have appeared before the Scott inquiry in open session, provided in my answer to the hon. Member of 8 February,Official Report, columns 228–29. Mr. Stephen Day, formerly an official of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, appeared before the inquiry on 4 May 1993.

  Haulage Contractors
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with insurance companies concerning the impact of increased insurance premiums on haulage contractors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None. This is a matter for the commercial judgment of individual insurance companies, with which the Government cannot interfere.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what undertakings were given in respect of the timing of the nuclear review in response to the first report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee of Session 1992–93 on the future of British energy policy and the market for coal; when he now expects the review to begin; with what remit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 16 December 1993,Official Report, columns 759–60 to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant).

  Energy Industries
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what resources are committed to the monitoring of the performance of the publicly owned energy industries,746
  to which reference is made at page 50 of his departmental annual report 1994, and expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1996–97, Cm 2504.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is contained within part 5 of MINIS 93, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's contribution to the jointly funded programme promoting research into waste recycling and cleaner technologies to which reference is made at page 33 of his departmental annual report and expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1996–97, Cm 2504.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department has committed £11·2 million under grant schemes which closed to new applications during 1993 to support research and demonstration of innovative environmental technology. On 7 December 1993,Official Report, column 149 my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced a successor joint programme with the Department of the Environment which would have the aim of encouraging the adoption by industry of best practice in environmental technology and techniques. The Department will be contributing £11 million to this £16 million programme which is due to run for five years.

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. McLoughlin
  No agency chief executive in this Department is currently paid more than £82,925.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the sources of coal imported in 1993 by volume.

  Mr. Eggar
  Imports of coal by country of origin in 1993 were:

  Thousand tonnes

  USA

  4,288

  Australia

  4,105

  Colombia

  2,453

  Poland

  1,712

  South Africa

  781

  Russia

  713

  Canada

  632

  Other extra EC

  694

  Intra EC1

  3,022

  Total Imports

  18,400

  Source: HM Customs and Excise.

  1 Following the introduction of the "Intrastat" system for collecting data on trade with our EC partners, the figure for Intra EC trade involves some estimation of unrecorded imports. It also includes an estimated proportion of imports routed to the United Kingdom via other EC countries.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of coal imported in 1993.
  747
  Mr. Eggar
  The value of coal imported in 1993 is estimated as £687 million this includes types of coal which are not mined in the United Kingdom.

  Following the introduction of the "Intrastat" system for collecting data on trade with our EC partners, this value involves some estimation of unrecorded imports. It may, therefore, be subject to greater subsequent revision than figures collected on the previous basis.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what ways he plans to amend the individual divisional objectives in each of his departments to reflect the Government's commitment to deregulation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: The reduction of regulatory and administrative burdens on business is one of the Department's overall objectives. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is using the management information for Ministers—MINIS—system to ensure that divisional objectives reflect this as appropriate.

  Distillers plc
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to publish his Department's inspector's report on the takeover of Distillers plc by Guinness plc in 1986.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: The inspectors have not yet been able to conclude their enquiries and in consequence have not submitted a final report. When they do it will be considered for publication.

  Office of Water Services, Yorkshire
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what indication he has received from Eric Wilson on his proposed appointment as the chairman of OFWAT's Yorkshire customer services committee; what representations he has received concerning the decision not to reappoint Dianne Scott to the chair of the committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: The appointment of the chairman of OFWAT's Yorkshire customer service committee is a matter for the Director General of Water Services after consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I understand that no representations have been received by the President following the announcement of the appointment of Mr. Eric Wilson to the chair of this committee.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many members of OFWAT's Yorkshire customer services committee have, to date, tendered their resignation; what indications he has received from other members of their intention to resign from the committee; how many places on the committee are currently vacant; and what is the recommended total membership of the committee.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: These are matters for the Director General of Water Services.

  Vehicle Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the percentage change in the levels of exports of buses, coaches and mini-buses between 1988 and 1992; what were corresponding figures for United Kingdom (i) imports and (ii) exports from Germany, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Spain and France; which countries accounted for the bulk of the change in United Kingdom exports; and when he expects United Kingdom exports to reach their 1988 level.

  Mr. Needham
  The available data are published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited in the annual series of "Motor Industry of Great Britain, World Automotive Statistics". Data for United Kingdom exports of buses and coaches, defined as vehicles with 10 seats or more, in total and by country can be found in table 62; the equivalent for imports is in table 91. This publication is available in the Library of the House. My Department does not forecast the balance of payments.

DEFENCE

  Management Systems
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department's computer-aided facilities management systems cost; from whom they were purchased; how many person hours were required to commission them; what the estimated and actual saving has been from their operation; and to what extent the use of such systems accounts for the apparent rise in theft noted in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) of 16 February,Official Report, column 821.

  Mr. Aitken
  Information on computer-aided facilities management systems in my Department is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a computerised system known as the works information management system, is currently being introduced in MOD headquarters buildings in Whitehall, Bath and Glasgow, principally to provide a register of assets in accordance with Government accounting regulations. The system is operated under licence from Pierce Management Services and is being commissioned on behalf of my Department by Building and Property Facilities Management Ltd. at an estimated cost of £357,000, of which £253,260 has been spent to date. It is not possible to identify the hours spent on commissioning the system nor the savings from its operation, since it is not yet fully operational.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of the Defence Export Services Organisation; and what its annual expenditure was in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Defence Export Services Organisation exists to help British defence manufacturers market and sell their products abroad, within the parameters laid down by Government policy, and to dispose of surplus MOD equipment. The net cost of the organisation in 1993–94 is expected to be some £16·3 million. Changes in accounting conventions make exact comparisons with earlier years difficult.

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian 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. Hanley
  The chief executive of the Defence Research Agency is the one chief executive in my Department who earns more than £82,925 per annum. He was recruited from outside the civil service.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arms or defence-related equipment have been sold to the Philippines in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our policy to reveal details of arms sales to individual countries.

  Military Training
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fatalities occurred during static line training between 1970 and 1990; how many of them were head injury cases; and how many were reservists or Territorial Army members.

  Mr. Hanley
  There were five fatalities during the course of military static line training between 1970 and 1990, one of which resulted from injuries to the head. Four of these fatalities involved reservists or members of the territorial army.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deaths there were at the military training drop zone at West-on-the Green in the period 1978 to 1983; and what were the dates of each incident.

  Mr. Hanley
  There were four fatal accidents in the course of military parachute training at the drop zone at Weston-on-the-Green during the period 1978 to 1983. These occurred on 30 March 1978, 13 June 1978, 20 June 1979 and 16 September 1981. Static line parachute jumps were being performed in all four cases.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which is the largest civilian aircraft that could be landed at RAF Finningley in normal operating conditions.

  Mr. Hanley
  The runway, taxiways and parking area at Finningley are capable of normal use by aircraft of up to the size and weight classification of the Boeing 747. However, the operation of aircraft of this size is currently constrained by ground obstacles adjacent to the taxiways.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the length of the runway at RAF Finningley; and how many(a) civilian and (b) military aircraft have landed or taken off from RAF Finningley for each of the last four years and the current year to date.
  750
  Mr. Hanley
  RAF Finningley has a single runway, RW 20/02, which is 2,744·5 m in length. Civilian and military aircraft movements to or from Finningley in the past three years and the current year to date are as follows; figures for 1990 are not available:

  Year

  Civilian aircraft movements

  Military aircraft movements1

  1991

  17

  45,000

  1992

  16

  60,000

  1993

  20

  61,000

  19942

  4

  9,300

  1 Approximate.

  2 To date.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what scope there is to extend the existing runways at RAF Finningley within the aerodrome's existing curtilage.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is 800 ft of land between the airfield boundary and the threshold of the runway at Finningley. However, the use of this space for a runway extension is not considered practical, partly because of the obstacle presented to aircraft taking off or approaching by the railway line immediately outside the airfield's northern boundary, and partly because the land in question is low-lying and would therefore require extensive works to render it suitable for a runway extension.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which is the largest(a) military and (b) civilian aircraft to have landed, or taken off, from RAF Finningley during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The largest military aircraft to have landed at, or taken off from, RAF Finningley during the last 10 years is a Lockheed C5 Galaxy, and the largest civilian aircraft to have done so is Concorde.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total annual cost of running the aerodrome at RAF Finningley.

  Mr. Hanley
  For financial year 1993–94 the estimated running costs for RAf Finningley are £30,700,000. This includes the operating costs of units based at or run from RAF Finningley, as well as the operating costs of the airfield.

  Runway Capacity
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the airports and aerodromes in Yorkshire and Humberside that his Department owns or controls, other than RAF Finningley, what scope there is to extend the existing runways within the airports or aerodromes existing curtilage.

  Mr. Hanley
  The runways in question could in principle be extended by the following distances:
  751

  Runway

  Metres

  RAF Leeming (only one operational runway)

  1,000

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  RW 04

  100

  RW 22

  350

  RW 28

  220

  RW 10

  60

  Church Fenton

  RW 06

  Nil

  RW 24

  360

  RW 16

  120

  RW 34

  Nil

  Dishforth

  RW 34

  150

  RW 16

  Nil

  RW 28

  (after levelling) 320

  RW 10

  Nil

  Topcliffe

  No extension is possible at Topcliffe; the runways are due to be reduced in length to accommodate Army training requirements

  Apart from RAF Leeming, all figures assume that runway approach lighting could be placed on adjacent farmland.

  Airport Running Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the airports or aerodromes that his Department owns or controls in Yorkshire and Humberside, other than RAF Finningley, the total annual cost of running them.

  Mr. Hanley
  For financial year 1993–94 the total running costs for RAF Leeming and RAF Linton-on-Ouse are estimated at £54,760,000 and £20,300,000 respectively. The figure for RAF Linton-on-Ouse includes the cost of running the relief landing grounds at Church Fenton, Dishforth and Topcliffe.

  Airports and Aerodromes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the area of each of the airports or aerodromes that his Department owns or controls in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total area of each site is as follows:

  Site

  Area in hectares1

  RAF Finningley

  367

  RAF Leeming

  474

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  291

  Church Fenton

  206

  Dishforth

  191

  Location

  County

  Numbers

  March 1994

  November 1990

  RAF Alconbury

  Cambridgeshire

  2,159

  2,759

  RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge

  Suffolk

  0

  4,800

  RAF Brawdy

  Dyfed

  340

  340

  Broughton Moor

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  RAF Burtonwood

  Cheshire

  0

  250

  RAF Caerwent

  Gwent

  0

  6

  RAF Chicksands

  Bedfordshire

  1,237

  1,300

  Chilwell

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  RAF Croughton

  Northamptonshire

  420

  420

  RAF Daws Hill1

  Buckinghamshire

  724

  724

  RAF Edzell

  Tayside

  820

  820

  RAF Fairford

  Gloucestershire

  120

  40

  Felixstowe

  Suffolk

  30

  30

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of his Minister of State for the Armed Forces' visit to south Yorkshire on 27 January; what locations he visited; with whom he had discussions; what notification of his visit was given to hon. Members who have constituencies in south Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I visited Menwith Hill station, in north Yorkshire, on 27 January 1994. I received briefings on the current role of the station from various United States and United Kingdom personnel including the chief of station. I gave advance notice of this visit to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), in whose constituency Menwith Hill station is situated.

  United States Military Personnel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of United States military personnel based in the United Kingdom; how many United States military personnel are at each base or facility operated by the United States forces in the United Kingdom; what is the total number of United States military personnel based in each local authority area in the United Kingdom; and what are the corresponding figures for November 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently 15,954 United States military personnel based in the United Kingdom at the following locations. The breakdown, as of March 1994 and November 1990, is as follows:
  753

  Location

  County

  Numbers

  March 1994

  November 1990

  RAF Feltwell

  Norfolk

  62

  62

  RAF Fylingdales

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  Glen Douglas

  Strathclyde

  0

  19

  RAF Greenham Common

  Berkshire

  0

  2,000

  Holy Loch

  Strathclyde

  0

  2,100

  RAF Hythe

  Hampshire

  2

  2

  RAF Kemble

  Gloucestershire

  0

  19

  RAF Lakenheath2

  Suffolk

  4,288

  4,688

  RAF Machrihanish

  Strathclyde

  74

  104

  Menwith Hill Station

  North Yorkshire

  360

  360

  RAF Mildenhall

  Suffolk

  3,033

  2,650

  RAF Molesworth

  Cambridgeshire

  423

  16

  RAF Nocton Hall

  Lincolnshire

  12

  12

  RAF Oakhanger

  Hampshire

  275

  275

  RAF Sculthorpe

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  RAF Spadeadam

  Cumbria

  5

  4

  RAF St. Mawgan

  Cornwall

  100

  60

  RAF Thurso

  Highland

  0

  330

  RAF Upper Heyford3

  Oxfordshire

  1,194

  4,500

  RAF Upwood

  Cambridgeshire

  175

  181

  RAF Uxbridge

  London borough of Hillingdom

  100

  100

  RAF Wethersfield

  Essex

  0

  290

  1 Includes personnel at Dunstable, Eastcote, Hayes, Central London and West Ruislip.

  2 Includes RAF Feltwell and RAF Sculthorpe.

  3 Includes RAF Bicester (currently 0), RAF Little Rissington (currently 31) and RAF Welford (currently 37).

  European Regional Development Grant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what use his Department has, or plans to, put the £1,000,000 allocated by the European regional development fund grant listed in table 1 on cash plans of his Department for 1993–94, in his departmental annual report and expenditure plans, 1994–95 to 1996–97, Cm. 2501.

  Mr. Hanley
  The EC grant listed at table 1—Cash Plans—of Cm. 2501 reflects the payment during 1993–94 of the sum of £1,375,000 to the Royal British Legion as a contribution towards the design and construction of their joint services training and resettlement centre at Tidworth. The purpose of this grant is to provide job-related training for ex-service personnel and the wives and dependants of service personnel based in the Tidworth area, and for civilians in the local community.

  Self-financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many self-financing regulatory authorities his Department has set up since 1979; what was the annual running cost of each of the self-financing regulatory authorities in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment; and what it was last year and two years ago.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has not set up any self-financing regulatory authorities since 1979.

  Quangos
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of quangos for which he is responsible; how much in public funds has been given to each quango in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment of each quango; and what it was five years ago.
  754
  Mr. Hanley
  Such information is contained in the publication "Public Bodies 1993" and earlier editions of the same publication. Copies of all editions are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rules and regulations his Department has passed in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has not been responsible for any secondary legislation with a regulatory impact on business in the last three years.

  Sir Bedivere
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to invite tenders for the refitting of Royal Fleet Auxiliary Ship Sir Bedivere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  RFA Sir Bedivere is presently the subject of a competition for a ship life extension programme as opposed to a programmed refit. An invitation to tender for Sir Bedivere's SLEP was issued on 26 November 1993 and tender return date is 24 March 1994.

  Landing Platform Dock
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the project definition studies for the landing platform dock began; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  There have been two phases of project definition studies for the landing platform dock replacement. Initial project definition studies began in November 1991 and were completed in early 1993. A second phase commenced in May 1993 and is due to complete this spring. We will then take a decision on the issuing of an invitation to tender for the design and build of the first of class.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence project team's advice under the Malaysian memorandum of understanding, on the reasonableness of prices quoted by United Kingdom suppliers was based on the final delivered price in Malaysia.

  Mr. Aitken
  The advice given was on a Government-to-Government basis and as such is confidential.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which activities of United Kingdom suppliers are being monitored by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence project team under the Malaysian memorandum of understanding.

  Mr. Aitken
  The MOD project team monitors progress on those contracts designated under the MOU.
  756
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what elements within the designated contracts under the Malaysian memorandum of understanding the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence project team advised the Malaysian Government on how to negotiate most effectively.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has not been asked to provide advice on negotiations.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence project team set up under the Malaysian memorandum of understanding; how much of the cost will be covered by the management fee; and what are the component costs of the project team.

  Mr. Aitken
  The cost of the project team is funded entirely from the management fee.

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.
Lord Coleridge —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

The Lord Monkswell
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has received notification from the Clerk to the Justices of the Manchester City Magistrates' Court to the effect that Lord Monkswell was, on 14th March 1994, convicted at that court of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was sentenced to 14 weeks' imprisonment and ordered to pay £150 compensation.

Food and Medicine Labelling
2.39 p.m.
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking under the provisions of existing United Kingdom and European Community law to ensure that medicine dosage and food cooking instructions are clearly legible for those with normal eyesight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, it is already a requirement of both United Kingdom and European Community law that all labelling of medicinal products and all information required for foods, including cooking instructions, must be easy to understand, clearly legible, indelible and easily visible.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, can she say why the Government do not enforce that legislation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if there is a failure to comply with the requirements in regard to medicinal products, it is up to the Medicines Control Agency to enforce the legislation. With regard to food products, it is for the local authority, through either the trading standards or environmental health departments, to take action.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend suggest, through the Medicines Control Agency, that the expiry date of medicines be printed on the container? That would mean a considerable saving in money for the National Health Service, because people would know whether tablets were still good to be used.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is an excellent suggestion and I will willingly take it up with the Medicines Control Agency.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if it is a long-term date, can my noble friend ask the agency to add the requirement that the label should state what the pills are for so that one can remember?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is already a requirement that the date must be printed on the bottle or the box.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as the requirement to provide information increases alongside the trend in some products to reduce the size of the packaging, the manufacturer is forced to print an increased number of words in a smaller and smaller area? Will the deregulation Bill help with that problem by simplifying the requirements? Is the noble Baroness further aware that a noble Lord showed me only yesterday a bottle of nail varnish, the instructions for which neither of us could read, even when wearing our glasses?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am not an expert in nail varnish. However, when it comes to medicinal products under the new EC directive 92/27, it will be a requirement in future to provide a leaflet with the medicine giving a full explanation of what it is needed for and how it should be taken.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, can my noble friend say what the Government are doing to enforce those arrangements?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when breaches of the regulations occur, then clearly the matter must be taken up with the Medicines Control Agency and the local authority concerned.

Ronald McDonald House
2.42 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis Lord Lovell-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the family house (Ronald McDonald House) next to Guy's hospital, which enables families to live near their sick children and which provides accommodation for children receiving post-surgical treatment, will be replaced with equivalent accommodation after the proposed merger of Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this is a matter for the Guy's and St. Thomas's National Health Service Trust Board.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply but it will give no comfort to the Evelina Children's Family Trust which raised over £4 million to build, equip and run the Ronald McDonald House only four years ago. Is the noble Baroness saying that having made the major decision to move Guy's paediatric services to the St. Thomas's site, without any consultation whatever with the Evelina Children's

231
Family Trust, the Government have no responsibility to ensure that the level of service provided by the house will be maintained on the new site?
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, it is a question. I am framing my remarks as a question. Can the noble Baroness say also whether or not the £2 million of charitable funding will simply be wasted?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are full of admiration for the work of the trust and what it has achieved. We know how important it is for children to have at least one member of their family near them when they are receiving treatment and care. Likewise, it is equally important for parents to be near their sick children. The trust board recognises the immense contribution the unit makes to those objectives and to ensuring that paediatric services are efficiently and effectively used. The board is working closely with the Evelina Children's Family Trust to try to meet its concerns.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that under Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 the welfare of the child is paramount? Does that consideration not also apply to the National Health Service, so enabling parents to be near their children for as long as possible when they are in hospital, partly for the child's sake, partly for the parents' sake, but also partly for the nurses' sake, as children make much better progress when that happens? Therefore, is it not the policy of the National Health Service overall to support the help that such a house would give for both hospitals, St. Thomas's and Guy's?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. I agree entirely with my noble friend. That is why the trust is working hard with the Evelina Children's Family Trust in order to ensure that this unit is transferred to the St. Thomas's site and that it will continue to exist, albeit in a different form.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at King's College Hospital parents are allowed to sleep on camp beds by the beds of the children? Do the Government generally encourage trusts and hospital authorities to make such facilities available?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. In nearly every paediatric unit provision is increasingly made for parents and families of the children to stay with them when they are sick.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the problem goes far wider than Guy's or any other hospital in London? Many poor parents throughout the country cannot afford to visit their children in hospital, to the detriment of the child and the family. Cannot some special provision be made to pay for these families to visit their children in hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is preferable, if possible, to ensure that provision is made on the hospital
232
site so that travelling is cut to a minimum. With regard to travel allowances, that is the remit of my noble friend Lord Astor who deals with social security.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in a previous answer regarding the Guy's and St. Thomas's trust the noble Baroness said that Guy's would be developed in association with community services. Are not children's services particularly allied to community services? Would it not be appropriate therefore for the renowned paediatric unit at Guy's, made famous by the pioneer work of Professor Ronald McKeith, to be kept on the site at Guy's, liaising with the back-up services in the community and having the additional benefit of being close to the residential unit for parents mentioned in the Question?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the exact details of the provision of services at Guy's and St. Thomas's have not yet been decided. The trust is working on that at the moment. I suspect that there will be out-patient facilities for children at the Guy's site. In-patient facilities at the moment, I believe, are planned to be on the St. Thomas's site. Once the trust reaches some decisions there will be consultation. That is a requirement in the National Health Service and Community Care Act.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many organisations and individuals are concerned about what will happen, when hospitals close, to the charitable donations which they have made in good faith in order to improve hospital services? Will the Government in future discourage such donations to hospitals that are under threat?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords. The Government encourage as much community support for hospital facilities as they can. We recognise that there is an issue with regard to charitable organisations which have donated money. We know it is important that the trust for St. Thomas's and Guy's should work closely with those who have been major donors and with the special trustees. That is what it is doing at the moment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not the case, in relation to my noble friend's last answer, that the general law of charities makes provision by the doctrine known as cy pres for precisely the kind of question which was addressed to her?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is correct. I wish that he was at the Dispatch Box.

Right-to-Buy: Retirement Houses
2.50 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to stop the purchase of public sector retirement houses by families of the tenants for later resale.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran)My Lords, most public sector housing for the elderly is excluded from the right-to-buy scheme. Landlords are not therefore obliged to sell it. Where a landlord chooses to allow elderly tenants to buy their homes, we believe that those tenants should have the same freedom as other homebuyers to finance their purchase.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that, while I am primarily concerned with the shortage of affordable rural housing, the situation in the cities is exactly the same? In this case, there is no question of the parents wishing to have the satisfaction of owning their own house; it is purely for the benefit of their children, who may otherwise have a house and who may use the new house as a second home. If I remember the Bill when it went through this House, it was full of enabling clauses. Does the Minister agree that the Government may well be able to allow local councils to prohibit the sale of one and two-roomed apartments in rural areas?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, all I can do is add to the original Answer which I gave. It is not the Government's job to say how people should raise finance for any particular acquisition, nor is it their job to tell people how to dispose of their property.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is not housing, other than sheltered housing built for the elderly, a special case? Does the Minister agree that it often costs more to build to mobility standards? Is it not true that those elderly tenants to whom the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred only occupy such bungalows precisely because the previous elderly tenants did not buy? Does the Minister further agree that therefore we should seek to protect such a precious asset within the local community?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we look very carefully after the circumstances which the noble Baroness has outlined. It is the job and the responsibility of the local authorities to respond to the needs and the sensitivities concerning the housing stock in their areas.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we certainly endorse that sentiment. But will the Minister permit local authorities to recycle the capital assets which follow from such sales in order to replace the lost housing.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is another matter altogether. I have said that it is the responsibility of the local authorities to act according to appropriate circumstances.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister defending a situation where families of tenants purchase public sector housing? Is it not illegal for families of tenants to purchase public sector housing? Is it not the case that the legislation lays down that only the tenant can purchase the house? How does the Minister come to the Dispatch Box to defend a situation which is technically illegal?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not come to the Dispatch Box to defend situations which are technically
234
illegal. The noble Lord knows full well the legality surrounding these circumstances. But I say once again that it is up to the local authorities to make their decisions as they think appropriate.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his attitude is very disappointing? The local authorities have to face a very large problem. If by a device these houses are purchased, does the Minister agree that that is not fulfilling the original purpose of the Act which the Government expressed so often and tediously in this House? Perhaps the legislation is quite different.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I regret it if the noble Lord finds my Answer disappointing. But it is my job to give responsible answers as the circumstances at the moment dictate.

State Hospitals (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lyell: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Huntly, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the National Health Service (Scotland) Act. 1978 and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 in relation to the provision, control and management of state hospitals in Scotland. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates This Day
2.55 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Jay of Paddington set down for this day shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of the Lord Williams of Elvel to 2½ hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, by way of support and in brief explanation, as colleagues will have seen on the Order Paper, there are about 60 noble Lords wishing to speak in the three items of business before us. The reason why the timing for these debates has been put down somewhat late is because of the anxiety to try to get the best balance of time between the two debates which lie within the gift of these Benches. As far as we are concerned, we are exercising our right under the changing rule which the Procedure Committee has taken into account; namely, the number of speakers and how best to use them between debates on a particular day. It is a vexed question and no doubt one which will continue to be referred to the Procedure Committee I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for tabling this Motion, which is in accordance, I believe, with the best wishes of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
2.57 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I hope that most of the report is self-explanatory. I should like to refer briefly to the two matters raised in the report where changes are proposed; namely items 4 and 5, concerned with balloted short debates and other time-limited debates.
Balloted short debates were introduced in your Lordships' House in 1972, and since 1982 time limits have also been applied by order of the House to many other debates. The success of time-limited debates has been shown by the fact that the procedures have been gradually extended, so that now there is freedom to apply time limits of any length.
Nevertheless, on a number of occasions a large number of noble Lords have put their names down to speak in balloted short debates, and as a consequence speeches have on occasion been limited to five minutes or even less. As a result there have been calls for reviews of the procedure, and these have frequently taken place.
In 1987 the group on the working of the House considered various changes which would have provided more time for speakers in popular debates, but rejected them. The group commented that,
"all these expedients might encourage motions covering broad subject matter ill suited to Short Debates".
Since then the Procedure Committee has returned to this matter on several occasions, and has always taken the same view as the group on the working of the House: namely, that the subject matter of short debates should be tailored to the time allotted, rather than the other way round.
In item 4 in this report the committee has adhered to that approach, and has recommended only one change—that there should be an indication on the list of speakers in the Government Whip's Office of the time available for each speaker, so that noble Lords considering adding their names to an already long list will be made aware of the consequent limit on speaking time which will apply both to themselves and to all other Back-Bench speakers.
Item 5 of the report is concerned with the application of time limits to debates by order of the House. The committee suggests that it would be for the convenience of the House that on Wednesdays when there are two debates, both debates should always be time-limited and that the sum of the two time limits should not exceed six hours. This guidance should be helpful both to Lords speaking in the debates and to those taking part in any following business.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 29).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
ORDERED TO REPORT:
1. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
The Committee has been informed by the Leader of the House that he has consulted the other party leaders, and the Convenor of
236
the Cross-bench Peers, and has reached agreement on the setting up of a group of five members to consider "the practices and procedures of the House in so far as they affect the sittings of the House". It is hoped that the group will report in time for its findings to be considered by the Committee before the summer recess.
2. DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL
The Committee has given preliminary consideration to those provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, now in Standing Committee in the House of Commons, which give ministers power by order, made by statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution procedure, to amend or repeal primary legislation which imposes a burden. The bill provides for a forty-day period, supplementary to the normal affirmative resolution procedure, during which the House would have an opportunity to scrutinise a proposal made under the power.
The Committee has appointed a sub-committee to take evidence and report on the procedures the House should adopt for making use of the additional opportunity for scrutiny in the event of the relevant provisions being enacted.
3. HYBRID INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE
The Committee has considered whether any changes are desirable in the procedures of the House relating to hybrid instruments. This procedure, which exists only in this House and not in the House of Commons, was introduced in 1924. In 1973 the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation concluded that it had "for nearly 50 years provided valuable safeguards for private interests affected by delegated legislation, and should be retained" (First Report, 1972–73, paragraph 55).
The Committee notes that the setting up of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has ensured that careful scrutiny is given to any provision in a bill which disapplies hybrid instrument procedure. The Committee reaffirms the value of this procedure and recommends no change.
4. SHORT DEBATES
The Committee last reported in March 1993 (Third Report, 1992–93) on the difficulties which arise when there are a large number of speakers in a balloted short debate, limited to 2½ hours. Since then, notwithstanding the Committee's recommendation that the subject matter of short debates "should be limited in scope, and should not seek to raise fundamental or wide-ranging issues which cannot be properly explored in the time allotted", there has been one short debate where speaking time was limited to 4 minutes, and another where it was limited to 5 minutes.
The Committee does not recommend any change in the rules governing short debates, but recommends that the list of speakers kept in the Government Whip's Office should indicate the time available to each speaker, so that Lords considering adding their names to an already long list will be made aware of the consequent limit on speaking time which will apply to them and other speakers.
5. TIME-LIMITED DEBATES
The Committee considers that it would be helpful for guidance to be given on the time limits to be applied by order of the House on Wednesdays when there are two debates (other than balloted short debates). The Committee accordingly recommends:

(1) that on Wednesdays when there are two debates, both debates should always be time-limited; and

(2) that the sum of the two time limits should not exceed six hours.

As the actual time limits applying to each debate arc not usually known until shortly before the debates take place, this guidance should be helpful in giving greater certainty both to those speaking in the debates and to those taking part in any following business, such as a private member's bill or an unstarred question.
6. TIME ALLOWED FOR DISCUSSION OF STATEMENTS
Since the House's agreement to the First Report from the Committee, 1989–90, on 12 February 1990, there has been a maximum time of 20 minutes for discussion of statements, beginning when the minister has replied to the Opposition spokesmen.
The Committee has considered whether any change in the arrangements is desirable, in the light of the fact that, on occasion, not all back-benchers who wished to speak have been able to do so because others have filled all of the 20-minute period. This situation arose on 13 December 1993, when the Leader of the House agreed that the matter should be considered by the appropriate committee (Official Report, col. 143).

237
The Committee does not consider that any change in the arrangements is desirable. The problem could largely be avoided if all Lords (including ministers and front-bench spokesmen) were to keep their interventions brief.
7. REVIEW OF SESSION 1992–93
Pursuant to a recommendation of the Group on the Working of the House, the Committee agreed in 1988 "to give annual consideration, at the beginning of each session, to the proceedings of the House in the previous session and, where appropriate, to make a report on procedural difficulties which may have arisen" (First Report, 1987–88). The Committee has accordingly reviewed the proceedings of the House in Session 1992–93.
In general, the Committee has reported on difficulties as they have arisen. This review does, however, provide an appropriate opportunity for the Committee to refer briefly to three bills which were in different ways exceptional.
European Communities (Amendment) Bill
The proceedings on this Bill were exceptional in so far as a bill which was itself quite narrow in purpose raised highly significant and controversial issues. While some of the amendments which were tabled were of doubtful relevance to the subject-matter of the Bill, the Committee considers that the circumstances are unlikely to recur in the near future and that it is unnecessary to change the rules of the House in relation to the relevance of amendments.
Railways Bill
The controversy over provisions of this bill led to the Government being defeated on 3 November 1993 on consideration of the Commons amendments and reasons in reply to the Lords amendments. In consequence the House was adjourned during pleasure for discussions through the usual channels on the timetable for further stages. The Leader of the House then moved that the House should adjourn again until 11 p.m. in order to enable any further Commons message to be considered the same day. This motion was agreed to on division after considerable debate, but in the event no Commons message had been received by 11 p.m. and the House adjourned until the following day.
The Committee doubts whether these proceedings, and the failure of the usual channels to reach agreement, could have been avoided by means of any change in the House's practice or procedure, and therefore recommends none.
Education Bill
This bill was debated for seven days in committee, for three days on report and for one day at third reading. Proceedings continued until after midnight on nine of these eleven days, until after 2 a.m. on seven days, and until after 3 a.m. on five days.
The Committee suggests that the question how to avoid a repetition of such proceedings might usefully be considered by the Leader's group on sittings of the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as regards paragraph 4 of the report on balloted debates, and as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said, it is ordained that the allotted time of two-and-a-half hours must stand and that the speaking time for each noble Lord must be tailored to two-and-a-half hours irrespective of the number of speakers in a debate.
This rigid application of an inflexible rule from which there is no derogation possible prohibits any voluntary transfer between two debates, as your Lordships will appreciate is possible for all other time-limited debates as proposed in paragraph 5 of the report.
There is no wish to alter the 12 o'clock rule by which that is the time at which the list of speakers is closed. However, if two noble Lords can make a voluntary accommodation, say, after Question Time or before three o'clock, to transfer time between their debates when there are to be many more speakers in one debate than in the other, surely that should not be prohibited. Indeed, such an arrangement was made between the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and myself on 15th December. The noble Lord very generously offered
238
speakers in my debate 10 minutes instead of seven and asked me whether that would be all right. I asked him if was satisfied that noble Lords wishing to speak in his debate would be satisfied as well, and he said that he was. I put that to the usual channels. At first they made no objection because it would not affect the business of the House; it was a matter between noble Lords and all were content. But the arrangement was struck down by this inflexible rule.
I gave notice to the Leader of the House, the Chairman of Committees and the Government Chief Whip that I intended to raise the matter on the Floor of the House because to me it seems a ridiculous and pointless restriction. It is an inflexibility which destroys the essence of debate. As speakers tend to gallop for the record against the time limit of four or five minutes there is no inclination on the part of any noble Lord to give way. As the Select Committee on Procedure is to reconvene on 23rd May I have raised the matter now so that, whether or not your Lordships think that there is any sense in what I am saying, your Lordships can at least consider it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to support the views that have just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. When one compares paragraphs 4 and 5, there appears to be an undue amount of inflexibility about paragraph 4. Paragraph 5 implies that if on the day of a debate rather more noble Lords wish to speak than had been anticipated (which can always happen however limited the subject might be because a subject might be topical but also limited) there is flexibility to adjust time limits within a period of six hours. I fail to see why there could not at least be flexibility up to three hours in the case of short debates. I think that it is wrong that a noble Lord who may want to participate in a debate might be deterred by being told, "If you participate you will be able to speak for only three minutes and you will limit other speeches to three minutes". I do not think that that is the attitude that we should adopt in this House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will pay great attention to the two speeches that have just been made which indicate considerable defects in the working of the system of short debates.
I should like to raise two other points. First, I find paragraph 4 of the report by the Select Committee on Procedure very unsatisfactory. It refers quite properly to the desire to limit the subject matter of such debates to matters which are relatively unimportant and relatively uncomplicated and which can thus be discussed properly within two-and-a-half or three hours. However, no proposal for enforcing that has been put forward. I suggest that your Lordships might consider the proposition that the Leader of the House should be expected to notice what subjects are being chosen for the short debates; that where a major subject is proposed, which plainly cannot be properly discussed in that short period and in four-minute speeches, he should be able to rule it out of order and suggest either that

239
another less wide-ranging subject be chosen or that the mover of that particular debate should be passed over in favour of another.
The only other point that I do not follow relates to the last part of paragraph 4 and the suggestion that was made that some advance notice of the time that is likely to be allowed to speakers should be given when noble Lords put down their names to speak in such debates. That does not seem feasible because, as I understand it, names can be put down until midday on the day of the debate. As I understand it, it is not uncommon for quite a lot of names to be put down on the day of the debate or the previous evening. If one is sticking to the three-hour time limit, that will affect the time available to all speakers.
These are the conclusive points against such debates. If they are on major subjects of major importance and if, as a result of the number of speakers, speeches are confined to five or six minutes, that means, first, that the subject is not properly discussed and, secondly and perhaps evenly more importantly, that there is not a real debate. Those of your Lordships who have participated in such debates know that with only five or six minutes you cannot give way to an intervention or deal with an interruption. You have to read —I am afraid that "read" is generally the word—your speech quickly to get it into the few minutes that are allowed. In other words, such debates are not "debates" as most of your Lordships would understand that word, but tend to become essay-reading societies.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I wonder whether the Chairman of Committees can help me, and perhaps the House, in regard to paragraph 5. It is understood that this is an Opposition day. The Opposition have decided to have two debates and are therefore governed by this rule. However, supposing that today was a Liberal Democrat day and that that party had placed one Motion on the Order Paper and that some noble Lord—for mischief, shall we say—intended to seek another debate, would paragraph 5 then apply?
On reading the provisions, it seems that one could circumvent a major debate merely by putting down on the Order Paper another subject for debate. There may be some provision of which I am not aware that could prevent that, but I have always understood that the Order Paper is always open for Motions to be tabled. It is only by convention and good manners that we make arrangements for the convenience of the House. It seems to me that unless we tie this up fairly tightly in standing orders we might find ourselves in some difficulty.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, questions have been raised and criticisms have been offered in connection with short debates. I should like to add my support to the proposition that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and to his plea for greater flexibility.
The problem arose in a debate which I sponsored on the subject of forestry. It was a short, time-limited debate, but 25 noble Lords had put down their names to speak. Many had travelled from the far corners of this country to speak on that day, but on arrival they
240
discovered that they had only five minutes in which to contribute, having come from Ross and Cromarty, Inverness and other distant places. However, the preceding short debate on the same day was under-subscribed. The speakers in that debate did not take all the time that was allotted to them. I sought on that day to get some flexibility whereby a noble Lord who has initiated a debate that is under-subscribed could cut the time that is available for that debate. However, I was advised that we were limited to two-and-a-half hours for our debate on forestry and that no flexibility was possible.
I suggest that the Select Committee on Procedure should look again at this question. Under the new arrangements which provide three hours, noble Lords might be allowed six minutes instead of five, but I suggest that the committee responds to the request that there should be greater flexibility.
I have only one other point to make. It relates to the paragraph on Statements. I note that the committee has not been moved by the suggestion that more time should be allotted to Back-Benchers wishing to ask questions on government Statements. Whenever we have a Statement in the House, it is generally on a matter of national importance. There is a great deal of experience and knowledge of and concern for such matters, but under the present arrangements all the Back-Benchers in the House are allowed only 20 minutes to intervene on questions of national importance which are the subject of the government's Statement. I suggest that Back-Benchers may have something to contribute on those matters, and may wish to express their concern. I hope that the committee will look again at the possibility of Back-Benchers having an extended opportunity to comment upon government Statements.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Lord Chairman of Committees said that when one asks about a debate one is able to be told roughly the time allotted. I did just that yesterday about this afternoon's first debate. At that time I thought that the debate would be a two-and-a-half hour debate. There were already a great many speakers, and so I did not put down my name. When I asked how many Conservatives were speaking, I was told that there were 16 names down of which only three were Conservatives. For a debate in the House to be a good one we must have speakers from all parts of the House. I wonder what procedure could be introduced, perhaps through the usual channels, because it seems to me to be inappropriate to end up with a one-sided debate, whichever side that happens to be. That is another point into which I hope the noble Lord will look.
I like time-limited debates, because if I put down my name I sit through the whole debate. That is the tradition of the House. But the longer the debate the fewer people one sees in the Chamber for the whole debate. That is a great argument for retaining the shorter debates.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly on one point; that is, the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I hope that the Leader of the House will resist any suggestion—I am sure that he will—that he should be able to—
Noble Lords: Lord Boyd-Carpenter!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I apologise to both noble Lords. I meant the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Perhaps I should start again. I want merely to raise the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I hope that the Leader of the House will resist the noble Lord's suggestion that he should have some veto over what subjects are discussed in your Lordships' House. We are a self-regulating House. Although the usual channels may use their good offices to persuade people not to put down particular subjects because they are too large to be debated in a short debate, any sense that the Leader of the House should have the power to veto should be resisted. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will wish to resist that suggestion.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I should like to express my view that the procedure committee is right about balloted debates. I do not believe that we should make any changes. I was privileged to sit on the committee that first recommended that they should be introduced. They represented an enormous step forward for Back-Benchers who before that were able only to ask questions, either Starred or Unstarred. The short debates have been a tremendous success, especially for those who sit mostly on the Back-Benches. I believe that one essence of that success is the simplicity of the rules. We all know that there are two-and-a-half hours for each debate: we know when they start; we know when they end; we can plan our day. There is a great deal of merit in not tinkering with the rules.
I realise that some of the shorter time limits may be rather upsetting. I believe that they are more upsetting to the speakers than they are to the listeners. When I sat on the Woolsack and listened to the short debates I always found it stimulating when the debate was moving along at a fairly smart pace. One could look forward to a change of face, a change of voice and a change of opinion. I think that we should leave well alone.
The real trouble, as has already been said, is that the subjects are sometimes far too wide for a short debate. I am sure that that could be pointed out to the mover of the debate, if not by the usual channels perhaps by the Clerks They might suggest that although a debate on forestry is a good one, it is not suitable for a short debate and that the wording could be tightened to draw attention to one particular aspect of forestry which might be better suited to a debate of two-and-a-half hours. As regards the debates on days allotted to parties, the suggestion seems sensible. Those debates are different from the balloted debates.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, before my noble friend the Lord Chairman responds to the points raised, as a number have been directed at me perhaps I could say just a word or two about balloted debates and time-limited debates. The procedure committee has given consideration to those matters on a number of occasions, and the fact that on this occasion it has not recommended a change does not mean that they have not been given serious consideration. It has recommended a small change; that is to say, the third report of the Procedure Committee of the 1992–93 Session indicated
242
that the Clerks now scrutinise the subjects for debate to advise noble Lords as to whether they think they are suitable for a short debate.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested that that procedure should, in a sense, be strengthened by the Leader of the House ruling that a subject was too substantial for a two-and-a-half hour debate. I view that with some considerable trepidation. The proposition that a subject is too important to be debated in two-and-a-half hours puts the whole issue of Questions and Answers in the House into some perspective. Of course, if that is what the House wanted I have no doubt that the Leader of the House would have to get on and would have to try and do it, but I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and I shall not be recommending to the House that it go down that road.
However there is a central point which your Lordships should bear in mind, and that is on the nature of balloted short debates. I stand, of course, to be corrected by those of your Lordships' House with greater experience than I have, but my understanding of the purpose of the ballot is that it provides a chance for Back-Benchers to place before your Lordships issues which they deem to be worthy of debate. In that sense, the balloted debate is an important safeguard for the rights of individual Members of your Lordships' House.
By contrast, other Wednesday debates are, as your Lordships know, usually put forward after discussion within individual parties and noble Lords on the Cross-Benches. While I understand fully why my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway feels that there should be some flexibility in the two-and-a-half hour allocation —although he was unable to be present at the meeting of the Procedure Committee that discussed that matter, my noble friend the Chief Whip ensured that his views were fully understood by the committee—there is a danger that individual Peers might, on some occasions, be pressurised into agreeing to a shorter time limit for their debates than they would otherwise hope to have. It might happen, for instance, that a debate raised a number of extremely important matters and a number of Peers had indicated that they wanted to speak in it. In those circumstances, a Peer sponsoring a debate of a rather more individual character might feel pressurised into restricting his debate. I can imagine other circumstances in which the same result might occur.
It seems to me, therefore, that it is the rather special nature of balloted debates, safeguarding the rights of individual Peers, that indicates that they should have different treatment from that afforded to debates on a Wednesday, which are normally time-limited. That is one of the reasons why I support the report.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one issue before the Chairman of Committees replies. At first blush I had some sympathy with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. However, the difficulty is that if the allocation of two two-and-a-half hours is to be altered by agreement between the sponsors of the debates it is too late to do so after 12 o'clock on the day. I speak for myself in saying that when the matter came before the Procedure

243
Committee I was struck by the fact that in trying to cure the fault raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which is a decent, fair and legitimate point, one would create a greater difficulty. If one moves away from the limit of 12 o'clock on the day of the debate one would have to make it the day before. The upset caused to the House in noble Lords being unable to put their names on the list after 12 o'clock on the day before the debate would be greater than the difficulties which occasionally arise in respect of two two-and-a-half hour debates.
On the whole, noble Lords participating in the two two-and-a-half hour debates make arrangements and organise their diaries around them. If one were speaking in the second debate, arrived on time and discovered that, by agreement over the heads of noble Lords who were mere participants and not sponsors, the first debate had been extended to four hours and the second debate cut to only one some vexation of spirit would be occasioned.
The problem is difficult and I do not deny that. However, I believe that on balance it is better to leave the situation as it is with noble Lords having until 12 o'clock on the day of the debate to add their names to the list rather than to move in the opposite direction.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. I am perhaps even more grateful to my predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who lived through this intractable problem for a great many years.
Before dealing with the subject of the balloted debates, perhaps I may deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, about the time allotted to government Statements. The matter was considered at the latest meeting of the procedure committee. It was recognised that, as has happened in respect of Starred Questions, if one allocates extra time that will be taken up regardless of whether the time is needed. It is a value judgment about what is important. The noble Lord the Leader of the House is unwilling to undertake the task of making a decision as to what is important. I do not believe that any noble Lord will wish to undertake it and to make a value judgment. It is not for him nor for anyone else; it is for the House as a whole to decide such matters. I do not believe that an extension by 10 minutes, which perhaps is what the noble Lord has in mind, will resolve the problem. There will be occasions when the House feels frustrated that it has had insufficient time but I believe that it is better to leave the position as it is. We have not frequently felt that there is pressure to extend a debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was worried about the list which is now in use in the Government Whip's Office and asked whether it would of help to speakers. I do not know whether he has seen the way in which the list is now set out. It merely indicates to a noble Lord who puts his name down at, say, number 10 on the list that he will have nine minutes in which to speak, as will all others. When one reaches number 15 the time allocated will be six minutes and at number 20
244
it will be four minutes. It is supposed to be a guide to your Lordships to indicate that they will be depriving not only themselves of an opportunity to speak at length but others whose names are already on the list. It will not solve the problem but it might be a small help. The suggestion came from noble Lords on the Cross Benches and it was thought by the committee to be worthy. It was decided to give the idea a trial in order to see whether it helped.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was worried about the party days. I do not know why he chose the Liberal Democrats to be given the benefit of the day, suggesting that someone might intervene with another Motion which would upset that great party. Perhaps he was making a party political point, but I do not think so. The Order Paper is open, but not indefinitely. The Order Paper is closed at a certain stage and I do not believe that the noble Lord's worry is founded. It is observed by all quarters of the House that on a party day it is for that party to occupy that day in the manner that it chooses, either with one full debate or with two debates, which can now be divided up between any timescale within six hours. That is working well.
What continues to give cause for concern is the matter of the two-and-a-half hour balloted debates. The Procedure Committee has gone over this ground innumerable times. It has come to the conclusion that there is no way in which it can fairly make a variation on the fixed nature of those two debates. It brings into question someone exercising a judgment as to what is important and I do not believe that anyone wishes to undertake that decision. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was able to negotiate with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. His debate had more speakers and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was more than willing to devote time out of his debate. It was a negotiation of complexity which, in the event, would not have made a great deal of difference. Although the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that it would have made a difference of some minutes, the statistics of the debate indicate that only 14 minutes could have been stolen from the second debate and added to his debate. In the light of the number of speakers in that debate there would have been less than one minute extra for each speaker.
I understand the frustrations but the problem is almost insoluble—in fact, I believe that it is insoluble. I strongly commend to the House the recommendations of the noble Lords the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition; that we continue to regard it as the right course of action for noble Lords not to put down subjects for the balloted debates which cannot properly be dealt with within two-and-a-half hours. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Care
3.28 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington rose to call attention to the state of care in the community, and to the case for a national evaluation of organisation and services one

245
year after the coming into force of the relevant provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in introducing the Motion standing in my name, I am grateful that in a previous discussion on procedure your Lordships appeared to agree that substantial subjects should not be excluded from short debates. The subject of community care is substantial and complex but my purpose in bringing forward this debate is simple. The community care provision of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 were implemented in April 1993, and one year later it is appropriate to review what is happening. During this past year your Lordships have shown concern about the implementation of what was a very controversial piece of legislation by raising many specific and related issues through Questions and Unstarred Questions. But since my noble friend Lord Carter introduced. a debate in 1992, today is the first time that your Lordships have had the opportunity generally to discuss the broad and complex subject of care in the community.
I am pleased that we shall have contributions from noble Lords who speak with authority about different groups of people who need care and, most importantly, that their remarks will be based on experience in different parts of the country. I hope that we shall be able to persuade the Minister that a national evaluation will be useful in enabling local health and social service authorities to organise funding and services more effectively in the future.
I believe that we start from the agreed position that we all wish community care to succeed. My noble friends on these Benches supported the general thrust of the community care provisions in the National Health Service and Community Care Act. However, they consistently introduced amendments designed to improve it. Those amendments, had they been accepted, could have solved some of the difficulties seen in the first year of implementation.
There is no dispute about the broad principle of community care: looking after the elderly and physically and mentally disabled as far as possible in their own homes outside traditional institutions; and providing seamless care between hospital and home. In the last debate on this issue, my noble friend Lord Carter emphasised that the perspective of each user of the service must be paramount. He said that community care was something of a misnomer and that we should be thinking about individual care and examining individuals' needs and planning the services required to meet them.
That was the theory behind the 1990 Act. This afternoon we should focus on the extent to which, in practice, those individual needs are being well served by the new arrangements. As I said, it is such a vast subject that it is easy to be defeated by generalities and it is difficult to be sure that examples of personal experiences are anything more than specific anecdotes. But within the past month, the Ritchie Report on the tragic case of Christopher Clunis has highlighted some
246
general anxieties about community care policy in an authoritative and disturbing way. It is worth examining and drawing lessons from that report.
Noble Lords will remember that Christopher Clunis, a man suffering from schizophrenia, killed. Jonathan Zito. At that time, Christopher Clunis was supposedly being cared for in the community after discharge from hospital. I am aware that that terrible event took place a few months before the new financial systems were introduced but we must remember that the mental health provision has been seen by the Government for many years as a model for extending community care. The Ritchie Report confirms what many people have long suspected; namely, that mental health is not a good example to follow.
The report described the community provision for Christopher Clunis as virtually non-existent and as a catalogue of failure and missed opportunity. The report said:
"It has been noticeable how little routine attention appears to have been paid, by anybody, to the quality or outcome measurement of community management of mentally ill people".
It concluded:
"It is essential that the Department of Health sets up proper procedures for effective monitoring of psychiatric services in the community".
The report concluded also that Clunis himself sought help but did not know how to ask for it. He remembered,
"lack of explanation as to what he was suffering from; frustration that he was not being involved in decisions that were being made for him; [and) an absence of planned help towards settling in a home of his own".
Lack of information, lack of co-ordination, lack of consultation and lack of monitoring were all problems underlined by the inquiry into the Christopher Clunis case. They are all problems, I fear, which emerge from the first year reports of carers and users straggling with other aspects of community care.
Since the Motion that we are debating was tabled, I have been contacted by many statutory and voluntary organisations, informal carer groups and users of community services. There are, of course, success stories. I have been told about imaginative care packages which would have been impossible to arrange before the Act came into force. But the variation in local standards, between the good, the bad and the indifferent, is causing great alarm. The overall impression is of anxiety that vulnerable people will be inadequately or inappropriately looked after.
Perhaps I may select a few illustrations. Help the Aged has published a detailed first impression of how older people are faring under the new system. No Time to Lose includes many examples of confusing leaflets about care plans which are particularly unsuitable for minority ethnic elders; long waits for assessments for care; increased charges for day care and respite services which "harshly penalise" many people; and restrictive criteria for other domiciliary services.
The Local Government Drugs Forum, and Turning Point, the largest voluntary agency dealing with drug and alcohol abuse, have both expressed concern that local assessment procedures are still not fast or flexible enough to deal with their clients who are often in crisis situations. The addiction organisations' own monitoring also shows considerable confusions about practical care

247
arrangements and funding opportunities. Significantly, a report by KPMG Peat Marwick, commissioned by the Department of Health, on implementing community care concluded:
"Our discussions with users and carers do not suggest that they are knowledgeable, well-informed and exercising greater choice in the community care process. Indeed we were struck by how little people knew about assessment, charging and care plans. Many did not know what to expect of access and assessment processes, service standards and specifications because often these did not exist. Generally people had too little information. No one told us they had too much".
That conclusion in an official report to the Department of Health seems to make the cogent and simple case for government intervention to get the system working properly. Evaluation followed by action must be what is needed.
One of the major problems identified by many working in the field is the lack of any national standards for community care. With the best will in the world, how can local authorities, voluntary agencies and individual carers identify how well or badly they are doing if there are no objective targets to work to? The BMA, together with the major voluntary organisations, has proposed a series of national standards which it feels would help achieve a uniform level of high quality care across the country. The proposed national standards include undertaking assessments within one week of referral; information about constraints on services (such as their financial costs to users) to be clearly presented and openly available; and carers to be involved in the planning and assessment process and to be offered a separate assessment in their own right. That last proposal is very important. The needs and rights of carers are too often overlooked. I know that other noble Lords will speak specifically about the role that carers play in making community care possible. I look forward to those contributions.
I wish only to say that the Labour Party has this month published its own commitment to carers document to ensure that carers are treated as equal partners in service provisions and not as cheap alternatives to statutory care. Under our system all carers will have the right, for example, to flexible, affordable respite care to suit their needs.
I think respite care is crucial to success. I was appalled when I saw a recent survey by the National Federation of Women's Institutes which showed that more than half of carers were never able to take even an occasional one week break. In addition to the commitment to carers document, my honourable friend in another place, Mr. David Hinchliffe, is introducing an amendment to the National Health Service and Community Care Act to include a statutory provision for separate assessment of carers' needs for services.
When the Minister replies I should be grateful if she could expand on the reasons for the Government's opposition to national standards for community care which she has indicated in answer to questions in your Lordships' House and also if she could tell your Lordships whether or not the Government will be able to support Mr. Hinchliffe's amendment.
248
As so often in social policy, major anxieties about community care are rooted in anxieties about levels and distribution of funding. Throughout all the debates in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Bill in 1990, noble Lords from all parts of the House warned that the new systems must be properly funded with new money and that to expect financially pressed local authorities to absorb additional responsibilities for care without substantial financial support was to invite disastrously inadequate services.
The implementation of the Act, as your Lordships will recall, was delayed for two years, until last April, precisely to allow funding and management arrangements to be appropriately agreed. And yet, because the Government used an extraordinary formula to calculate the first year's special transitional grant the majority of local authorities —68 out of a total of 108—lost substantially last year. Sheffield lost over £2 million, Leeds lost £1.3 million and the London boroughs lost nearly £25 million.
The Government have now conceded that the original distribution formula was wrong and have changed it. But many local authorities are still suffering from the first-year arrangements which weighted allocations towards rural areas rather than inner cities and thus left many of those most in need of community care worse off. That bungled start-up affected everyone (both those who lost and those who gained) and made consistent year on year local planning a total impossibility.
However, while the mistake about distribution has been acknowledged, the Government are still insisting that 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant for the next financial year—that is 1994–95—is spent in the independent sector. That requirement is shackling the development of genuine community care by restricting choices for individual users. It is difficult to see that perverse incentive as anything other than ideological.
Local authority associations, social service directors and voluntary organisations have all urged the Government to review the 85 per cent. requirement because those with experience know full well that the independent sector does not pretend to offer domiciliary care in the community. Private care providers have always concentrated on residential care. Recent inquiries across the country conducted by the Labour Party show that unnecessary, expensive institutions are still being used inappropriately because local authorities are not allowed to use their STG to extend and improve care for people at home. If, as the local authority associations have suggested, there was a 50–50 split of the grant between public and private sectors, that would enable more flexible care choices to be offered by all local providers.
We also need to monitor and review the growing practice of charging for basic care services, previously freely provided. In some parts of the country, parents of young people with learning disabilities are now being charged for day care. Other care users report charges for home helps and meals on wheels.
The Alzheimer's Disease Society has published chilling evidence about the impact of stringent means testing on carers of people with dementia. The society is deeply concerned about the financial hardship faced by

249
carers who have sometimes had to give up their occupational pensions to pay for a partner's private nursing home bed. It estimates that 70 per cent. of district health authorities are failing to provide appropriate continuing care beds in the National Health Service.
Once again, the picture is patchy and inconsistent. The overall impression is that whether or not someone receives appropriate community care depends more on where they live rather than on what they need. That cannot be the right approach. Care in the community should be organisation the basis of national standards and equitable funding. We cannot expect local health authorities and social service departments to organise a successful, seamless service unless they are given secure, sustained funding and clear guidance on good practice.
Mrs. Jayne Zito, whose husband was killed by the schizophrenic Christopher Clunis, has said that her husband's murderer had been reduced to a life of degradation and poverty. As your Lordships will know, since her husband's death, Mrs. Zito has campaigned very courageously for proper help and care for the mentally ill. None of us who want community care to succeed can afford more cases like that of Christopher Clunis. After one year, care in the community systems must he both evaluated and improved. I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, not for the first time—and, I expect, it will not be the last—I shall concentrate on one issue. It was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay who rightly said that it would be taken up by other speakers. I refer to the position of carers. However, perhaps I may say, first, how grateful we are to the noble Baroness for raising the subject. It is of very wide concern to a large number of people in all parts of the country. The question of carers, upon which I wish to focus, is absolutely fundamental to the whole issue as to whether or not community care will be a success.
I am sure that the Minister will agree with me when I say that the success of community care will depend on the extent to which the informal carers will be able to cope. Whatever else is provided, the fact is that in the vast majority of cases it is the relations—that is, families and close friends—who will carry the burden of dealing with people who need care in the community. Therefore, the emphasis has to be on how those carers can be enabled to make a success of the job. Whatever else is done, if the burden is too heavy and they break down under the strain, community care will not work. The only alternative then will be to put the whole process into reverse. It is as central as that: without proper attention to the carers, we can say goodbye to any effective scheme of community care.
One year after the legislation came into force—indeed, it is not quite a year yet—is, I suppose, rather early to be trying to form any real judgment on what has happened. However, there are indicators from the information that we have received as to where the strengths and weaknesses can be found, where it looks
250
as if the schemes are working satisfactorily and where it looks as if they, quite emphatically, are riot working satisfactorily.
So far as concerns carers, there are at least two areas of vital importance. First, in the home where they are looking after people and giving the care, carers should be able to have adequate, competent, reliable and affordable support and assistance. That is what they are not getting. Of course, there are very good examples of cases where such help is being received, but they are the exception and not the rule. Until this becomes the rule, we cannot be at all confident that the community care programme will work.
The reports that are received, especially by the Carers' National Association (of which I have the honour to be president), show that in many parts of the country the support coming into the borne reflects none of the virtues to which I referred. There are accounts where promised domiciliary care comes at the wrong time, does not come at all, or, indeed, comes at very erratic intervals. It does not take very much imagination to realise that, if you are looking after a very disabled person—for example, a person with Alzheimer's Disease—who is infirm and needs help with all his or her physical movements, it is not much good having someone to help with the nursing who arrives five hours late. Nor is it much good if you want the sort of help at domiciliary level that so many people really need, even if they are not dealing with acutely disabled people. I refer to help with the ordinary domestic chores. There used to be a home help service which provided people who were prepared to clean the floors and do the washing up. Of course, in theory, that help still exists. That is the kind of help that a great many carers want. They want relief from such responsibility so that they can concentrate on the needs of the person for whom they are caring.
One case came to the attention of the Carers' National Association of a man who was looking after his disabled wife. He wanted help with the housework—that is, the plain chores involved in keeping the house clean and tidy. He was told that he could not have that because it was not available, but he could have someone to get his wife out of bed in the morning and wash her. However, both he and his wife preferred that he should do that part of the work. They wanted to leave the house cleaning to someone else, but they were told that that service was not available. In other words, they could have help that they did not want but could not have the help that they needed. Such examples exasperate people beyond belief and are calculated to bring the whole scheme into disrepute.
We must look very carefully at the mundane tasks that need to be done. Here, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is very much concerned with the development of a scheme for the registration of people in the private sector who will help with such domiciliary care. I believe that to be most important. We shall not get the type of care that we need if we rely entirely upon the public sector. There is no reason why there should not be good private care but it must be good care. There must be a temptation for people in the private sector—or sometimes in the public sector for that matter—to

251
offer these services on a profit-making basis and to fail to give what is required. If we are to obtain the amount of care that is needed, it must be available in the private as well as the public sector but we need to be absolutely certain that the care is of a good standard and not of an exploitative kind. Carers and the people they are caring for are vulnerable and they are not in a position to carry on battles with the people who are helping them, because they need them too badly. Carers and their patients are weak negotiating partners and they need to be strengthened.
Secondly, the other kind of help which carers need above all else is respite care. Carers must be able to have a period of relaxation away from their heavy burden of caring. Proper respite care must be provided at a price that people can afford. It is no good telling the person who requires respite care—there have been cases of this—that he or she can have it the next week as by then it is too late for the carer to make sensible arrangements if he has to put the person for whom he is caring into care by the following week. By that stage alternative arrangements cannot be made satisfactorily.
In the moment that is left to me I must say that there are two major areas we need to look at. One is the carer's right to have an assessment properly and quickly carried out when he wants it, and for the carer's concerns to be taken on board in the making of that assessment. Secondly, the care provided should be needs based. It should be what is required on the basis of the assessment and not what is available because it suits the local authority to provide it. I am not suggesting that there should be unlimited resources but that the spending priorities should be based on what the carer and the patient need and not on what the local authority finds it convenient to provide.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the state of care in the community.
Working in a district health authority as I do which now concentrates entirely on all the ramifications of purchasing, or commissioning as we prefer to call it, I have been close to the changed approach to care in the community from the outset.
It was not a question of blowing a whistle on 1st April 1993, with all the new arrangements neatly in place and smoothly and effortlessly moving into different ways of providing care. A huge amount of work had to be done in the run-up to April last year. In fact, the implementation of the new arrangements had to be put back from an earlier date in order to allow the authorities, both local and health, more time to prepare. A glance at some of the literature that was produced for national consumption and guidance by the Department of Health, the Audit Commission, NAHAT and others, and material that will have been commissioned locally, gives an idea of the effort that was put into getting ready.
What has happened has been described as a community revolution, as local authority social services
252
departments have had to undergo the transformation from being suppliers of a range of services to adopting a lead agency role. This has involved arranging services tailored to the individual which will meet his needs, and then commissioning these services. Therefore, community care, as has already been said, has become focused on the service user, not on the service itself.
The four main groups of users are: elderly people, people with physical and sensory disabilities, people with learning disabilities and people with mental health problems. Obviously providing these services involves a multi-agency approach. Health authorities, of course, play an important part, both district and family; but also housing agencies and voluntary bodies, which both provide services and represent users and carers, play a part in the preparation of social services departments' community care plans.
Individual care plans are of course of key importance and need to pass through the process of assessment, to provision of services needed by the individual and to monitoring that these services are being provided and remain relevant. It is particularly important that the NHS and local authorities work together closely in order to develop complementary community health and social care that makes good use of joint resources in the best interests of the user and avoids gaps, duplication in services or bureaucracy.
That is a brief outline of some of the background and aspirations with which we launched ourselves into community care a year ago. Although it is still early days, the most vociferous prophets of doom have been confounded and a growing number of practical improvements are visible locally. In my district I have noticed better planning of hospital care for elderly people so that they and their relatives are more involved in examining options for after care. I have also noticed that more people are able to live at home with support. The local authority and health authority have been stimulated to promote investment in new nursing homes so that people can be cared for locally and not sent to homes a long way away; the role of the voluntary sector has been strengthened—for instance, home bathing services, jointly funded by the local authority and the health authority, are being delivered by Age Concern. There is consumer choice in that people with long-term physical disability now have complex care packages organised and financed by the health and local authorities so that they can live in a supported home environment rather than be admitted to an institution.
The more general benefits of the care in the community reforms which can be identified so far are: a clearer joint approach to the care of individual patients; a closer working relationship to planning third party provision; and a stronger realisation of the potential benefit of strengthening the voluntary sector locally. It is true that these arrangements need time for the new opportunities to be more thoroughly developed. Different parts of the country inherited differently developed services as well as varying degrees of co-operation between their health and local authorities and the voluntary sector. In my district we welcome greater local autonomy within the NHS and the opportunity to work with local authorities and our

253
voluntary sector colleagues more closely. What we do not look for are large amounts of central direction, unfocused wall-to-wall monitoring and elaborate time-consuming evaluations.
It is satisfactory to note that by and large this new approach to caring for people in the community has got off to a good start. It is apparent that there is a high degree of dedication and good will among the people across the sectors who are working in this field both as managers and as practitioners. I am hopeful that as time goes on and the new systems get established, the population will benefit increasingly. I would therefore like to commend to noble Lords the good progress that is being made. I am convinced that with continuing hard work and support these worthwhile reforms will move from strength to strength.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, on giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. I also thank the noble Baroness for her informative speech. It may interest your Lordships to know that on 30th March care in the community will be discussed on the radio on the "Jimmy Young Show" and therefore the whole country will have the opportunity to discuss the matter. The major concern of people all over the country is the possible loss and closure of hospitals. That is causing particular anxiety in London, where it appears that hospitals are under a terrible threat.
I also wish to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her endeavours to keep in touch with National Health Service staff associations. They appreciate that very much. There may well be further NHS reforms in the future. Reform is a frightening word, as whenever the Government talk about reforming the NHS we know that that will not do the NHS much good. Nevertheless I should be grateful if the Minister and her right honourable friend in another place will continue to keep NHS staff associations informed of developments.
I hope the Minister will examine the claims of the Audit Commission that NHS funds have been wasted by doctors who have apparently prescribed wrong drugs. It is claimed that many people are in hospital because general practitioners have given them the wrong drugs. I admit that these are serious charges, but they can be read in responsible newspapers and in the magazines of responsible associations, for example the BMA and others. Therefore, I believe that the Government should have a look at that issue. In Britain, through the NHS, fewer drugs are required for our population than for any other nation in Europe. That is because of the excellence of general practitioners and the drugs they prescribe.
Where there is a dispute between the British Medical Association and the other associations, which happens from time to time. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to see what can be done to help to heal the breaches.
Will the department examine the disturbing experience of nurses in Cornwall, for example? This matter has been mentioned in the national press and makes disturbing reading. It is claimed that assessment
254
of patient needs is undertaken by untrained staff with no qualifications. That is another aspect which I am sure the Government will consider very seriously.
I should like to address briefly the issue of care in the community in relation to nursing home funding, which is a vital issue affecting thousands of families. I have to pay nearly £500 a week for my 98 year-old mother to stay in a nursing home in South Wales. I have received letters from many people. It seems that this is a very difficult situation. Before 1st April 1993 patients were accepted into private nursing homes with their fees paid by the DSS under the terms of protected rights until they died. After 1st April 1993 the funding was taken over by local councils. In each case funding is less than the full fees charged by the nursing homes. Will the DSS look at its funding policy? Its funding is far below council funding and is causing great anguish to many people?
Perhaps I may give the House an example. Hammersmith pays more than Ealing towards the cost of patients in its hospitals and homes. That seems to take advantage of what are called protected rights. Many people are totally unprotected against the imbalance in funding, and that can result in discrimination. They are the poor relations in nursing homes. Many nursing homes do their level best to keep very old and frail people with them, but sometimes they cannot, even with the best will in the world. They have to take cognizance of the fact that the relatives are so poor that they cannot afford to keep an ancient grandmother or a father or mother in a home.
Many of those people played a dignified role in the last two wars. I know that it will touch the hearts of noble Lords on all sides of the House that people whose sons fought in the First World War and whose grandsons fought in the Second World War know that they are now becoming a nuisance because relatives cannot afford to keep them where they are. People who have property sometimes sell their property in order to be able to pay the fees in these special hospitals. It appears that once capital is reduced to £3,000 the funding falls back on the DSS and the council.
The situation is not the same in every case. That causes irritation. Somebody living in one town does not have to pay a thing, whereas somebody else living somewhere else has to pay the full amount. I ask the Government sincerely to examine the issue. It causes great distress. I hope that the Government will acknowledge that we do not want that to happen to our people. But it has happened. It is no good trying to find out whose fault it is. I want the Government, together with the Opposition parties, to see what cart be done to put the matter right.
I want to talk briefly about the role of health visitors. I sincerely hope that the Government will help them. Health visitors play a vital role, particularly when dealing with young children, some of whom can hardly walk, and their parents cannot look after them. Health visitors are the sort of young men and—mainly—young women who bring the National Health Service into the homes of people who need it badly.
All parties in this House should co-operate to save our great National Health Service. We all know that it has worked miracles up and down the country,

255
particularly for the not so well off. It has meant that members of our medical professions know that they have a job that is worth while. When the health service was introduced doctors were afraid that they would all be civil servants. That is no longer the case. The medical profession and the nursing profession value this great National Health Service. I believe that all parties agree.
In conclusion, I hope that all parties in this House will join together to save our great National Health Service, which is the envy of the world and an example to all mankind.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, like other noble Lords I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for raising this subject of community care. I cannot imagine that there is anyone in this House who does not believe that where it is possible and appropriate to look after people in their own homes, that has to be a much better alternative than their being in long-term institutions.
I shall not keep your Lordships very long today because the noble Baroness, Lady Eccles, expressed much of what I wished to say, and many of her experiences in her area are mirrored by much of what we are trying to do in my part of the world, which is Barnet.
I should like to mention two issues which I believe reflect very positively on what we are trying to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said that she would like national evaluation of both the organisation and services since the National Health Service and Community Care Act came into force. I believe that the change in organisation is one of our best successes.
It should not be forgotten that one of the main criticisms in the Griffiths Report was that no one had the sole and lead responsibility. All too often individuals dropped through the net because some people thought that they were the responsibility of the social services, others of the local health authority and others of the family health services authority. It has now been firmly put in place that it is the responsibility of the social services to take the lead and to act jointly with the other authorities. That is a very important point to remember. As a chairman of a family health services authority I try to do my best to support the GPs in my area. I am very well aware that people drop through the net and when something goes wrong it will be the GP who has to deal with the problem, perhaps as an emergency. Therefore, I am very glad that that organisational change has been made.
That organisational change has resulted in considerable successes, with district health authorities and FHSAs working together. In our case we now work together unofficially as a health agency. Of course everything will not be a success. Of course many issues that will be raised today will need to be examined very carefully, and I am sure that the Minister will respond to them.
The House may like to know that in Barnet between April 1993 and November 1993—the first eight months after the Act came into force—we carried out 4,699 assessments. That may not sound very much, but it
256
represents one-and-a-half per cent. of the population of Barnet. Previously there had been no assessments at all. The mere fact that we have to put the patients first, think of their needs and discuss them with the patients and the carers, and do the best that we can in finding the most appropriate way of looking after those people, can only be an advantage. If one considers the short period of time in which we have made this enormous change, we should be grateful that the Government had the courage to look at what was wrong and to seek to put it right.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, although I cannot share her optimism. However, I am delighted to hear that she herself has had such pleasant and constructive experiences.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jay. She made an excellent speech and set the tone for a first-class debate on an issue of outstanding importance. I am glad that the debate has remained on that high level. I am glad too that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the domiciliary care problem. The noble Baroness has made a major contribution to that aspect. I am only too pleased to support the noble Baroness's efforts and those in another place on that important issue.
Members of this House have been inundated with briefs from the voluntary organisations expressing deep concern about the state of community care. All those briefs have reflected the suffering of people who are or should be the recipients of community care. That suffering is in part the result of the Government's failure to organise the system and to provide adequate funding. Those briefs were not organised; they were a spontaneous outpouring by the organisations because of their deep anxiety about what is happening to community care in Britain.
Community care has been criticised by the individuals concerned as well as by the organisations. The provisions are young, just a year old; we cannot expect perfection or miracles. The Minister will have a strong point in saying that. However, even after having listened to the last speech, there are few indications that community care is progressing in the right direction. There are widespread expressions of anxiety.
The British Medical Association has been referred to. It said that its survey a few months ago portrayed a disturbing picture of failures on important aspects of community care. The BMA is no wild Left-wing organisation of irresponsible militants. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, may question that statement; but the BMA is a very responsible organisation. It does not throw words around irresponsibly, like confetti. When the BMA talks of a disturbing picture of failures on important issues the Minister should sit up and take notice. The BMA is not seeking to make party political capital, as one or two Members on this side of the Chamber might be tempted to do—although the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and I have scrupulously avoided those temptations. However, the BMA cannot be accused of making party political capital. Its criticism is important because it reflects the views of an important section of the medical profession

257
One of the BMA's most important findings was that the majority of doctors reported that, far from the promised improvements, there was either no change in the services or an actual deterioration in community care. That was stated by doctors working at the coalface, if I may use a cliché. Those important charges ought to be considered by the Government in the debate. Many of us have high regard for the Minister. Perhaps when she replies she will explain whether she agrees with the BMA. If she does not, will she tell us where it has gone wrong and from where it has obtained those facts? We would appreciate the Minister's views on that important subject.
The BMA urges national standards, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in her brilliant speech. I agree with that. But if the Government agree and do not provide the money to enable those standards to be met, talk of national standards by Ministers simply becomes a public relations exercise. I am sure that the Minister wishes to avoid that. Perhaps she could let us know when the funds will be made available, how much will be made available and how big the increase will be after the debate. I would welcome those facts from the Minister. The noble Baroness does not look too happy at present. Perhaps her figures do not match my expectations. However, I am sure that she will promise the House many millions of pounds of extra cash for those standards; and we look forward very much to her speech.
The consortium, Challenge, representing eight disability organisations states that community care has proved to be finance led rather than the needs led service so fondly proclaimed by the Minister of State. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke well of carers. I know people who for years have spent every hour of every day caring. If the service is finance led, it means that when those carers ask for just a little respite care, they receive the reply that there are no funds available. We do not say to people in physical agony, "There are no funds for an operation". So why should we be saying to those with emotional distress and in psychological agony that we cannot afford this or that? Such people should be placed high in the queue.
I have another 45 pages of notes to read. But I had better stop because the clock indicates that I have spoken for seven minutes. I think that someone has been maliciously whizzing the figures around behind the scenes. I conclude by saying that this important subject needs urgent attention from the Government. The Government have tried, but they have not succeeded to date. Apart from taking on board the legitimate criticisms of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and colleagues on both sides of the House, the best thing the Government can do is to give a significant injection of funds so that proper standards will be provided after the national evaluation.
4.19 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I join with other Members of this House in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for introducing the debate and for the manner in which she did so. I welcome the opportunity to take a cool look at community care one
258
year on. As noble Lords have already heard, it is early days and any major reorganisation takes years to become rooted in the community. However, because it is impossible to pilot such major policy changes before legislation is in place, the lessons learned early on are vitally important. I note that monitoring has already begun to take place in the Department of Health Report, First Impressions, between April and September 1993. In that report there are already indications of areas where issues need to be addressed and changes made. However, the changes have been so basic that it is vital to assess the quality of the service being given to all our citizens.
The General Synod of the Church of England in a debate in February 1992 welcomed the Government's initiative to extend community care provision and believes that the principles which underlie the legislation were right. The General Synod always asks the Government for further initiatives and funding, but it had the grace to go on to say that it recognised the challenge to the Churches and voluntary groups alike to provide an effective partnership with statutory bodies.
The Churches—and I include all of them—have people, plant and networks to offer. Among the activities which will be found in most parishes and most areas are luncheon clubs for the disabled and the mentally ill; tea dances, which provide exercise and friendship (they take me back a long way); drop-in centres; people who regularly visit the shut in; the provision of transport for the many who find it difficult to move from their own homes; and perhaps more important than anything else we have already heard, the support of the carers, the provision of that evening off, that time away.
Because we believe that our contribution is important, during the autumn of last year the Board for Social Responsibility of the General Synod did a survey of the Church of England's involvement in community care. Twenty-six dioceses reported on a number of questions and two major issues emerged which I should like to share with the House.
The first concerns funding. There are still, many believe, major funding issues to be resolved. What can seem a good plan at a regional level can feel very different indeed at a local level, and, after all, that is what community care is about. Community care is not necessarily cheaper than institutional care. The risk is that—and it was underlined by many and has already been underlined in this debate—in the absence of adequate resources, social workers or care case managers will define the needs of the person they are assessing in the light of the resources available. That I believe is the wrong way round. There is still much to be done to achieve comprehensive services across the country.
The second issue concerns those groups with special needs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, pointed out, we have already had the case of Christopher Clunis and there is a particular worry among many of us about care of the young mentally ill. The question is: who takes care of them? In my city, the Bristol Cyrenians published their annual report concerning homelessness among the people there. In last year's returns, 40 per

259
cent. were suffering from significant mental illness. Over a third of those were under the age of 25. The special needs of the young, the homeless and the mentally ill still need to be addressed.
The Churches are among those groups which have an interest in what the slippery words "care" and "community" mean in practice. The experience of many seems to be that "community" has become, and easily becomes, family; and a privatised family at that, with carers locked into a role with minimal support and often little choice. If community care is to be what it claims to be, and to ensure that that happens, we need to remember that community is larger than family.
We will go on asking the fundamental questions about values and responsibility and go on insisting that all our citizens matter. The welfare state, of which I am a child, may have had some weaknesses but one of its strong areas was the theme of interdependence. That was a practical working out of the moral contract between the generations: the notion that each of us is responsible for people at vulnerable stages of their lives and can in turn expect to receive help when we ourselves become vulnerable.
We support good management. We know that resources are limited and we want value for money. But as a Church, in partnership with the statutory bodies, we wish to be evaluated as well as those who are involved in the main provision of services. We wish to be involved in any national evaluation. There is a crucial link between the individual and the wider community. We need to be vigilant that this new world, this new way of looking at things and this new language, do not lead to inadequate care, anxiety about the future and bleak isolation in the present.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I am proud to take part in the debate and grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for making it possible. I believe it is time, after nearly a year, that we should ask certain questions of Her Majesty's Government. In the Minister's defence, I recognise that it will be extremely difficult to give as comprehensive an answer as we should like about a service which, not only in the first year, but, I hope, in the years to come, will gradually move and develop.
The concept of community care was one that I, like many other noble Lords, warmly welcomed, mainly for the reason advanced by my noble friend Lady Miller. It is that, with few exceptions, most people who have been ill or who are ill would like to remain at home or return home as soon as they possibly can. When they are at home, they look naturally for the opportunity to lead as full a life as possible.
I have reason to be grateful to hospitals but I have no wish whatever to spend one day more in them than is absolutely necessary. However, it is clear that the transfer and expansion of care outside must, by definition, make new demands on the receiving community. My own belief is that the combined cost of hospital and community care could and should be less than the cost of the more prolonged hospital care which was normal in past years.
260
If that is so, I should like to see the Government seize the opportunity which their own initiative has opened by going further and giving individuals the opportunity, with adequate finance where necessary, to manage their own care rather than having it arranged for them. In discharging those obligations to provide care, it would greatly please me to see authorities more willing to make use of volunteers. I believe that, properly and sympathetically organised, volunteers could add significantly, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to the service which authorities provide.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, I was concerned by reports from the BMA of doctors' anxiety about increased workloads unaccompanied, so they claim, by any comparable improvement in the service. I hope that when my noble friend replies she will be able convincingly to remove that anxiety. I hope that she can also remove an anxiety in my own mind which has been put there by a number of conversations with GPs. They complain that they are often not informed of their patients' discharge from hospital, nor are they informed of the details of the treatment that the patients received there.
The question of carers has naturally been covered. Among the thousands involved in the care of those who need it, the husbands, wives or relations who give hours of service with no discernible recompense are the most deserving of further reward. The invalid care allowance is small, and attention has rightly been drawn to that. I have heard homage paid on a number of occasions to the army of devoted carers. I wish we could do more to translate that homage into some form of reward, particularly in the shape of more regular relief from constant vigil. I rejoice that opportunities are growing. But I am afraid that for the absolute essential of respite care they are growing more slowly than most of us would like. That point was underlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Seear, and by others.
I am glad to see mobility, and the means to restore and increase it, claiming more attention from the community, which is wise enough to recognise that mobility is the source of much of the joy of living. I still long for the news which I believe my noble friend is just as anxious to give; namely that, before long, the Government will acknowledge the claim of a few thousand very severely disabled men and women whose lives would be utterly transformed by an improvement in their short-range mobility. That point was suggested by my noble friend Lord McColl not long ago.
Finally, I should like to emphasise the importance of the contribution which I believe communities can make through day centres. One such centre now forms part of an important foundation about which my noble friend Lord Hamilton may speak later with greater authority than I. But my own experience of it marks it out as an important builder of confidence, a restorer of natural social relationships and a gateway to the fuller life which I believe should be the ultimate objective of community care in all its many forms. I hope that when my noble friend replies she will be able to give us some conviction that we are gradually drawing nearer to that objective.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, like others I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for introducing this subject. The House has responded to an excellent speech with an excellent debate. We are discussing not simply care in the community, but the nature of our society. Only a society that responds to the demands of caring for the less advantaged in our community can call itself a decent, Christian and civilised society. I therefore hope that, as a result of the debate, we shall sharpen the sensitivity of people in our community to their responsibilities.
I should like to give two quotations. The first is from Professor Anthony Clare, of St. Patrick's Hospital, Dublin, who speaks frequently on radio and television. The quotation is two years' old, but the circumstances have not changed substantially. He said:
"The health service spends no more than the price of a cup of tea a day on community care".
A cup of tea a day, my Lords.
There have been various contributions this afternoon pointing to the fact that the services are under-funded. The suggestion that a cup of tea per day is the appropriate allocation of resources to caring in the community is hardly supportable. Those of us involved in this area, apart from receiving the excellent briefs of various organisations, also have experience of letters from carers and sufferers. We could spend a long time quoting them. I shall simply quote one which came to my notice quite recently. I should say that I am president of Scottish Action on Dementia, which is combined with the Alzheimer's society in Scotland. Therefore I see a good deal of the correspondence that comes into the office in this connection. The quotation is on the experience of living with dementia:
"Now I have got to wash him, I've got to dress him, undress him, help him sit in a chair. Going to the bus he gets mixed up—you've got to help him—you say to him to sit in and he lies down and people look at you and they think … he is drunk … but it doesn't matter what people think, you know. I know what's wrong with him and I have to cope with it".
I could quote many letters that are similarly depressing about the problem of caring for people suffering from dementia.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others rightly drew attention to our responsibilities to the carers. My experience is largely confined to Scotland and Scottish affairs. It is estimated that if the state had to pay for the responsibilities that carers in Scotland discharge it would cost £1.2 billion a year. Those people, many of whom have given up careers to care for aged parents, save the state £1.2 billion a year in Scotland alone. I feel therefore that we should revalue the service which carers provide. I hope that in the reply today a word of encouragement is said about support for carers. Many are now suffering financial hardship as well as having no social life. The hidden costs of caring in a family are estimated to be an additional £46 per week. Items such as incontinence pads, extra fuel, washing, breakages and special equipment cost money. In addition to making a contribution to caring in the community, carers suffer very great disadvantages economically and certainly in
262
their social life. I hope that we may once more acknowledge the state's responsibilities so far as carers are concerned.
I wish to follow up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, about the importance of the voluntary sector. We must not under-estimate the fact that while we look to the state for support—and it is a state responsibility—there are resources among our people, who, thank God, are prepared to give services in this case of need.
Although, as I said, I am president of Scottish Action on Dementia, which is associated with the Alzheimer's society, I have no great experience in this field of caring. Indeed, my main purpose is to raise money for those worthy organisations. My friends now move to the other side of the street when they see me coming. They know that I have my begging bowl out to assist those organisations.
I should like to mention one other organisation in Scotland. It is the research centre set up at Stirling University. The dementia services development centre was established there to improve and expand services for people with dementia and their carers. It is not a research centre looking at cures for Alzheimer's disease and dementia. It is a service that tries to measure and advise on the implications of community care. I suggest that those voluntarily funded organisations should receive greater support from the Government in dealing with the complex problems which they face.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for introducing the debate today. I fully support her request for a national evaluation organisation to evaluate the services one year after the coming into force of the relevant provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act.
Can my noble friend say whether any positive research is being done to measure the outcome of the Act during the past year? Is life better for the patients? What is being achieved? What are the views and experiences of families and carers? How many hospitals and homes are needed? Have we been too hasty in closing our mental hospitals? What is the relationship between health and social services? Above all, are the patients happier? Are they better served and are they leading a full life?
I wish to mention one other point that has riot so far been mentioned. It concerns the view of the communities in our country. I fear that there is often a feeling of "not in my back yard". That point has not been addressed. I know it is difficult but if community care is to be a positive aspect in our society then we must help the community to accept and realise the help that can be given and the responsibilities that go with it.
How can the services be better run? I speak particularly of those hospitals for the mentally ill, as well as for the disabled. Can my noble friend, when she replies, say whether or not there is a directive advising doctors, health visitors and social workers to draw up a specific plan laid out in consultation with the family, the carers and, if possible, also the patient? If such a plan is worked out, can it be stated how it should be carried out

263
in the future? As we heard, so often mental patients leave hospital without any specific plan or report, and often with nowhere to live. A plan should be formulated for them and the doctor, the social worker, the health visitor, the carer and the family should sign it so that everything is fully understood.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, well knows, a great many of the problems with mental patients arise from the fact that after discharge they do not take their medication. If the patient continued taking the medication there would not be a problem. How can that situation be overcome? I agree with other noble Lords that there should be centres which patients are encouraged and helped to attend. At that time it would be possible to check their medication.
The training of social workers is a topic that also needs to be addressed. Nurses undergo a four-year training period—as my noble friend Lady Cox will verify—and doctors undergo a five-year training period; but social workers are trained for only two years. They work as a team with colleagues and I suggest that they should be given further training in co-operating with their partners in the work that they must carry out.
I believe also that the patients are not considered and consulted as to what they want. Some patients will say that they do not wish to leave the hospital. If that is so, must we make them leave? That point should be taken into consideration. If it is felt that a patient should leave the hospital but the patient does not want to leave, surely there should be time for consultation and help given to the patient to accept the change. It is my experience that some schizophrenics do not want to leave the hospitals for fear of what might happen. Should we not listen to them and respond to their wants rather than to what we think they should have?
When there is co-operation between all the services, the carers and the family; when they are all working together in a community which has understanding, kindliness and thoughtfulness and its members are not apprehensive of what they are facing; then, and only then, will the community care programme be the success that we wish it to be.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, first, I join with other Members of your Lordships' House in expressing my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Jay for having tabled a debate on this extremely important subject. My contribution will probably be a little different to those of other noble Lords. Secondly, I offer my apologies, in that I shall have to leave shortly for an important meeting. However, I hope to be back in time for the winding-up speeches.
We should perhaps look back and see what took place some years ago. Community care is not new. It was in being and working successfully during the 1960s. Like many other Members of your Lordships' House, I was a member of a local authority when they provided separate social services. The welfare service looked after elderly people; the local health service looked after
264
midwifery, chiropody and so forth. There was a separate department for children, with specialists dealing with their problems.
But somebody had the bright idea that all that had to be altered. It was based on a report by Lord Seebohm—who unfortunately is no longer with us. He had a tremendous ability and brought a great deal of talent to bear on issues such as this. But—and this is not the first time I have said this in this Chamber—we got it wrong. If we had not, I do not believe that we would see the clear examples of child abuse that we see today. I do not say that it would have been eradicated but I am sure that, with a section of people specially trained in looking after children, much of the neglect or mishandling of the situation by social workers would have been prevented. In the same way, older people would not be left alone as much as they are when they are discharged from hospital.
I believe I made the point three or four years ago in your Lordships' House when I said it was time to switch back to the situation that existed before. Of course, I am glad that the Government intend to do that. We can make all the pious statements we like in your Lordships' House in our demands for resources, but I hope that we are talking about a generalised system that will be as much to the benefit of people in Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Wigan as it is of those who live in Wandsworth and Westminster. I have discovered a strange thing. By accident, no doubt—I do not think the Government would do it deliberately—Wandsworth and Westminster received far more money per capita of their population than any of the big northern cities that have a much greater need. I found this morning that Wandsworth has just announced its council tax for the year. One noble Baroness—a Member of your Lordships' House—told me that her council tax in Wandsworth this year will be £6 a month. Looking at the equation, the people of Wandsworth are bound to get a good service. They are paying nothing now, and if they have to pay a little extra they will get a better service still. However, the only way the major cities of the north can redress their gross underfunding in the first 12 months is once again by charging a much higher council tax than Wandsworth and Westminster.
I have been involved in local government and national government and this is the first time I have seen a government so blatantly gerrymander public financial support to areas that just happen to vote for them. I never knew a Conservative government in the old days, under Mr. Heath and his predecessors, to go in for that kind of practice. They should not think that they will get away with it and that it is not noticed. I know that what I have said will be recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham. I used to have to go and see him about funding when he was Secretary of State. The government of which he was a member did not gerrymander finances for their so-called flagship councils. People in Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and other areas are entitled to the same level of care as the people who live in Wandsworth and Westminster. Those areas should be receiving more funding from the Government than Wandsworth and Westminster.

265
I spent 17 years on Manchester City Council. Manchester has one of the most rapidly ageing populations in the country. Manchester decanted 250,000 people. They were the younger people who wanted to branch out from the city and now they live well outside the borders of Manchester. They are all over the place. Manchester's population is falling. The same is true of Liverpool. Manchester is top-heavy with elderly people who require care but the burden will fall more heavily on the authority unless the Government look at the problem and deal with it. Unless the Government help the authority to do the job it will have to set a ridiculously high council tax to do what is being done for peppercorn council taxes in Tory flagship areas. I think it is as well to bring that feature out.
The right reverend Prelate who spoke earlier talked about homelessness in Bristol. He said that a high percentage of the people involved are suffering from some form of handicap or mental instability. That point has been raised before in your Lordships' House by other noble Lords, including myself. We have always been told from the Dispatch Box that there is no evidence of that. I have to say before I sit down that there is concrete evidence from various societies, such as the Cyrenians, which are dealing with this problem at the sharp end. Even if homelessness is falling it does not mean to say that the number of handicapped people living rough is falling. In fact, in my opinion, those people are bound to become a bigger percentage of those needing special care. I do not expect the Minister to reply to that point today but I believe that the Government must understand that an increasing number of people are sleeping rough in what has been a rather long and adverse winter. They should have some form of special care.
My experience of community care is that if you have someone in the family who is taken ill you become the nurse yourself. You are the person who is the community care. Never mind that someone will knock on your door and look after that person. It does not work like that. I hope that the Minister will take this on board. Unless the Government give local authorities adequate funds, those local authorities will be left as whipping boys and the Government will say, "It is not the Government's fault, it is the local authorities' fault". I hope that they will not get away with passing the buck this time. On that basis I trust that the Minister will take on board my point about equalisation of resources.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for initiating the debate today, which seems to follow on from the debate we had on 11th October 1993 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I said much of what I have to say on this subject then (at cols. 71 to 75 of the Official Report) and will not weary your Lordships again with it now. But I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness because this debate gives me the opportunity to repeat some questions and ideas which I put to my noble friend on 11th October and to which I regret to say I have not yet had an answer. In the meantime I have done a little research and can now put some interesting
266
figures on the suggestions I put to my noble friend five months ago, which I trust will help to commend them to my noble friend and her department.
I should declare two interests, as I always do when your Lordships debate matters concerning community care and the mentally handicapped. I am the father of a mentally handicapped 13 year-old child, and I am a patron of Rescare, the national society for mentally handicapped people in residential care. These two interests have led me to the belief that our community care policy is too firmly committed—often through what I am sure is a flawed ideology—to moving people out of residential accommodation into a community which does not really exist and which too often does not care.
I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me. I applaud those cases where community care is working as it was intended to work, where people who were kept inappropriately in residential mental hospitals are now living fuller and happier lives in the community, supported by appropriate social care packages. But for far too many of our most vulnerable people the good intentions of our community care policy have merely paved the way to a very private hell which they alone must tread. And, my Lords, I am convinced of another thing—that simply throwing masses more money at the problem will not do much to help, or certainly not enough to justify the huge sums involved in these days, when it is beginning to look as though our economy may not be able to continue to generate the level of benefit from our welfare state to which we have all become accustomed. So may I suggest again to my noble friend that the Government seriously consider promoting sheltered and village communities for the mentally handicapped, instead of treating them with disdain and in effect looking on them as though they were unwelcome?
I accuse the Government of this attitude because in 1992 they deliberately left sheltered communities off the list of provision which local authorities are encouraged to support and because they have continued their policy of closing residential institutions, some of which could easily and cheaply be transformed into village communities.
One of the questions I put to my noble friend last time was whether she agreed that the decision to leave the communities we favour off the list of local authority provision was taken on entirely inadequate advice and whether it was not taken instead on the back of a survey organised by her department which one can only describe, with the greatest respect, as bogus. So I wonder whether I could again ask my noble friend to reconsider her department's position on this matter. In doing so could I ask her not to reply by saying that local authorities are free to support placements in village communities if they want to, because she will know that that is not the same as active government support.
But why should the Government support these communities? For two very basic and very good reasons, I submit. The first is because many, if not most, people who have a mentally handicapped member of their family appear to want these communities as a genuine option for their relatives. The national survey

267
being conducted by Rescare continues to confirm that some 65 per cent. of people like myself prefer them and know that their relations will be much happier in the sheltered and complete environment which these communities offer than they will under the cruel vagaries of our community care policies.
And the second reason, my Lords, is that our communities are very much cheaper than the official community care option. In fact, if the Rescue survey is accurate—and I have no reason to believe that it is not—we could be looking at savings of hundreds of millions of pounds if we followed the families' wishes and accommodated some 65 per cent. of our mentally handicapped people in the communities they prefer, instead of in specially purchased houses in the so-called community outside.
I say this because, although no one seems to be able to make exact cost comparisons, we at Rescare believe that the communities we support can offer full residential, educational and occupational facilities for the mentally handicapped at some 40 per cent. of the cost of similar facilities under the community care programme. I put this statistic to my noble friend in a Written Question and she did not deny it when she answered on 10th January of this year.
Looking at capital costs, we believe that it costs about £30,000 per person less to move someone from a bed in hospital to one of our communities' purpose-built units than it does to move the same person into an ordinary house under the community care policy and to give that person the care which they deserve and which we expect them to have.
The numbers of people upon whom these percentages and savings must sooner or later be calculated are large and growing. I understand that there are about 130,000 severely mentally handicapped adults in the United Kingdom today. Most still live with their families, but they are beginning to live longer than they did (a new phenomenon) and a much greater proportion than hitherto of the highly dependent are beginning to outlive their parents. There is the baby bulge problem there, too. I fear that our planners have not really started thinking about the greatly increased need which is on the way and, with the greatest respect, I suggest that they start to do so urgently. Rescare would be more than happy to co-operate.
In conclusion, I believe that there are sufficient worries about the way our community care policy is actually working out in practice to justify its national evaluation as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I hope any survey will not merely conclude that more money is the answer. I hope that it will look at some of the deeper issues which lie beneath the surface of the problems we are discussing, which I have not had time to go into today, such as the way in which social workers and others are trained to deal with the very difficult situations that they will have to face. But, above all, I hope it will take a fair and dispassionate look at the contribution which sheltered and village communities might make to the sad and difficult problems we are discussing today.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, this debate has been preceded by a very interesting discussion on the value of three-hour debates themselves. My noble friend Lady Jay has promoted a debate which underlines everything said about the value of such debates. I agree very much with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, earlier today on the possibility of having proper debates in two-and-a-half or three hours. I feel strongly about that. This is a place of debate. It is of great regret to me not to be able to pick up points raised in the Chamber and to expand on them, deal with them or deny them. That is the purpose of debate. I hope that the business managers will take note of the deficiencies of the two-and-a-half or three hour debate, as well as the good reasons for promoting them.
In preparation for this debate I made inquiries at Dudley Road Hospital, Birmingham, with which I am well acquainted, and with the Birmingham Social Services Department. I shall state my conclusion at the beginning of my remarks since I may not have time to give it at the end. Those bodies confirm my own knowledge and observations; namely, the fear that once again we are engaged in a Treasury-led exercise which is dealing with a subject of great importance, not from the point of view of assessing what are the standards of care which we must insist upon and then addressing the question as to how we can, as economically as possible, provide for those standards, but the other way round. It looks to see how much money they can save and the amount of finance which is available and then try to adjust everything to that point of view.
A senior medical man at Dudley Road Hospital summed up for me the problem which he faces in this large inner city hospital, of which I had the privilege of being chairman for about 15 years. He said, "Please give this message to the Government: do not pull the rug from under the hospital care service until an adequate domiciliary service is in place and is properly funded".
As I have said, in a debate like this one can only speak in headlines, which I shall do, resting content in the knowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, of all Ministers, will pay attention to what we say and give every consideration to the points, even if she is unable to reply to each of them today. In a limited debate that is all we can expect.
One of the issues which has come to my notice is the civil liberties of people in hospital whom the services are trying to get out of hospital. I endorse the 85 per cent. figure which my noble friend gave. It is a ludicrous proposal for a city like Birmingham, with a million people, to say that 85 per cent. of its budget in this area has to be spent in the private sector. It is nonsense. There is no private sector provision in Birmingham which can possibly deal with the needs of a million people. If that restriction is applied, the Government are automatically saying, "We shall restrict the amount of care available to people in need".
I have been told of hospital patients anxious to leave hospital who have been offered two or three alternatives of private accommodation which either they cannot afford or they do not like. But they have been forced out

269
into residential accommodation, where they do not wish to go. That is a very important civil liberty point. It does not matter how old, frail or infirm patients are; they have the right to decide where they want to live if they are to be turned out of hospital. Incidentally, I am told time and time again that we are turning a great many people out of hospital far too soon with the inevitable result that they are returning to hospital, often in a more difficult situation than was originally the case. I hope that notice will be taken of that issue.
The quick turnover is being aggravated by the inability of many general practitioners to get their patients into hospital in the normal way, particularly because of the reduction in the number of beds. So time and again I have been given evidence to show that doctors are having to resort to emergency procedures to get their patients into hospital, and that is totally unsatisfactory.
It may help the House to understand the position in a city like Birmingham when I say that the number of whole-time nurses in the health service has remained static in Birmingham at about 450 from 1986 to 1993 as a result of all the changes. That represents a very serious reduction in the quality of service.
Perhaps I may make another quick point to the Minister, although it it does not refer to her department. There is no national housing strategy for providing for elderly people who have to be moved out of hospital and into institutions but who want to go into their own homes. Such a strategy needs to become an important and fundamental provision. The Department of the Environment should provide such a housing strategy both to local authorities and housing associations. I very much hope that that point will be taken on board.
I take the point about the increased burdens of home care. Again, I understand from what I am told by social service departments that many of their customers or patients, especially working-class people, are being denied proper home care arrangements because the home help service is being run down. Nothing gives people more pride than to see that their home is clean and tidy. However, that now goes by the board, much to the distress of many people.
The issue of mental health beds has been raised. The figures are appalling, but I do not have the time to give them all. It is clear, however, that when we have decanted large numbers of people out of the mental hospitals, we have not made adequate community provision for them or provided adequate funds for the local authorities. There is a large unmet need. One of the questions that I have been asked to put to the Minister is: will the Government consider measuring the unmet need in our society? Unless we can measure it and unless it can be monitored constantly, it is impossible to provide for that need and we are therefore talking from a position of ignorance.
I hope that some of the points that I have made—I could have made many more—will demonstrate how successful the debate has been in allowing us all to raise such matters. Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that I hope that it will not be another year before we return to them. We have to have a policy of constant
270
vigilance on behalf of the millions of elderly and frail people in our population than for whom we bear no greater responsibility.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, perhaps I may add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, for initiating this debate. I venture to speak as chairman of Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for Disabled People. I am conscious that I speak following, and in the presence of, my noble friend Lord Holderness, who is the foundation's president.
The foundation is for those with physical disabilities, not mental ones. I can understand the special difficulties of returning the latter to the community—my noble friend Lord Pearson referred to that group—but I do not accept that premise for physically disabled people. The purpose of the foundation is to equip those with physical disabilities with the skills that they require to lead as independent a life as is within their capability. In that object, the concept of care in the community was not new to us and we do not argue with its indisputable merit.
Disabled people want to be regarded as equal to their able-bodied peers. However, many are unlikely to achieve that ambition without assistance. The basic requirements are simple. They are the ability to look after themselves physically and to be able to cook and to shop. To do that, they must also have mobility, a case that was eloquently put by my noble friend Lord Holderness, who is somebody who knows. Finally, they must, wherever possible, find employment and, with it, financial independence as well.
The practical effect of putting into practice the commendable concept of breaking down the doors of the confining institutions, without having first equipped their inmates with those skills, threatens to drop a large number of people into an abyss. They will subside into their families under the patronage of state benefits and, because the majority have neither the inclination nor the self-confidence to complain, there they will remain, unnoticed. The foundation is providing a range of services, but its main ethos is to prevent that happening.
Perhaps I may give two examples. We had a teenage girl come to us at the foundation who had been born with no arms and reduced and deformed legs. Her family were unable to do anything for her. After two years with us, she went on to achieve a first-class honours degree in art at Sussex University. She is employed, owns her own house with a mortgage and not only drives but has passed the test of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. Again, a young man had viral encephalitis and could neither walk nor speak. After three years at the foundation, he could both walk and speak and is now in further education in Blackpool. I could mention many other instances of rehabilitation that we have achieved, some of which are more remarkable than others, but time does not allow it. But I believe that few, if any, would have acquired the skills and, above all, the confidence to attain independence without help.
There are four points which I believe emerge from this. First, it is not enough to will the desirable end of

271
releasing people from the institutional imprisonment of disability, which I understand is the driving force behind care in the community, without thinking about the means to achieve that end satisfactorily. Secondly, I believe that much of what is required is already in place in the independent charitable sector. The foundation is only one provider among many. Thirdly, money provided by government to employ those facilities is money well spent. That is so because it both relieves families and carers from what are sometimes intolerable strains and because it is a good investment if it turns those who would otherwise spend their lives as clients of the welfare state into employed taxpayers.
Fourthly, I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that I believe the independent charitable sector to be ahead of the game in certain aspects of national evaluation, at least in the field of physical disability in which I work. If we are to be effective, it is essential that people with disabilities should know where to find the services that are available to them. Queen Elizabeth's Foundation has, in my view, devised the best available system for making accessible the information that is required.
Last year, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, kindly consented to launch a directory of opportunities for school-leavers with disabilities. It is a compilation of all the courses in the country that are available to them, codified by area.
The foundation has also produced a computerised program which is designed to be accessible from terminals placed in public libraries, hospitals and any other place that is readily accessible to the public. On that program are listed all the facilities that are available for disabled people nationally. Since it is designed to be used on a county basis, it also has an empty filing system for inserting those that are known locally. It is an extravagance to collect the same information more than once. If it would be any help to my noble friend the Minister, I am happy to offer her access to that program—for our usual fee.
In summary, I think the reason that we feel somewhat disconcerted by the concept of care in the community is that the cart seems to have got itself in front of the horse. The concept is there, but where are the practical means of executing it? I feel sure that, at least in my own field, the means to make it work are there. But the policy should be clear. Before people are returned to the community, they should first be assessed and, where possible, be prepared to look after themselves.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for giving us this timely opportunity to discuss care in the community. I must declare three interests which will influence my contribution. I am a non-executive director of the West Lambeth Community Care (NHS) Trust, a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing and a patron of the charity RESCARE, which is committed to the provision of good residential care for the mentally handicapped.
As a member of West Lambeth Community Care
272
NHS Trust, I wish to commend many excellent initiatives that have been achieved within community care not just in Lambeth but in many other places. I, like many of your Lordships, have been moved and deeply encouraged to see how some developments in care in the community have brought a new quality of life, new dignity and new independence to many people who were previously in residential institutions, including many frail elderly people, many mentally handicapped people and many of those suffering from mental illness. It is good to have the opportunity this afternoon to pay tribute to those in the health services and social services who have contributed to those achievements. But there are also many problems. It is because of those that I support the Motion for a national evaluation.
Time permits me to give only a few examples of the problems. First, as a patron of RESCARE, like my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I share the deep anxieties of many families with mentally handicapped relatives. I use the term "mentally handicapped" because they prefer that term to the current politically correct terminology, and I respect their wishes. There is widespread, acute concern over the lack of adequate residential accommodation in the community for mentally handicapped people discharged from long-stay institutions. Of course many have settled happily into local authority-provided care, and we welcome and appreciate that, but many others are very unhappy, lonely and neglected. Life for a mentally handicapped and/or multiply handicapped person in a small house on a busy high street can be much more institutionalised and confining than in a larger community with a sheltered environment, diverse recreational and occupational facilities and company among people with similar life opportunities. Moreover, many parents of mentally handicapped children who are caring for their relative at home are themselves growing older and are deeply worried about what will happen to their child when they die. Those families are shouldering a colossal burden now—a point made by many other contributors to the debate —but too many of them are receiving no adequate reassurance from their local social services about what will happen to their loved ones when they can no longer care for them themselves.
RESCARE believes, on the basis of experience in this country and elsewhere, that the village community concept is one which should be supported by the Government as one option of care. As my noble friend has said, a majority of those families want that form of care for their relative. But the Government have dropped village communities from their list of recommended options. I, too, should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government will reconsider their position in order to meet their own commitments to the principles of diversity, choice and accountability, as well as cost-effectiveness and, more important in my book, care effectiveness.
Widespread problems are caused also by a shortage of appropriate care in the community for many patients discharged from mental hospitals. That is a point already touched upon by other noble Lords. In particular, the paucity of secure, sheltered and

273
supportive environments for people with conditions such as schizophrenia may render them a danger to themselves and/or others.
There appears to be a difficulty in practice arising from the wording of the Mental Health Act for patients appealing against sections requiring compulsory detention in a mental hospital. As the wording stands, patients can be refused an appeal only if all of three specified criteria are met: that they are perceived to be a danger to themselves or others; and that the hospital is providing effective treatment; and there is no alternative accommodation outside the hospital. That formulation means that in some cases there may be a patient who is regarded as a danger to self and/or others but who can win an appeal for immediate discharge if the hospital cannot prove that it is providing any effective therapy. That may be difficult sometimes with some psychiatric conditions.
The result of that wording is that some patients may be in a position to win an immediate appeal against continuing detention under a section order, even when the medical staff responsible believe that they may be a danger to themselves or to others. That makes it even more imperative to have an adequate range of care provisions in the community, including those which provide a relatively secure and supportive environment for such people. Without that provision, there is a risk that the kind of tragedy which occurred with Christopher Clunis may recur. Perhaps I may therefore ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government could give especially urgent consideration to the recommendations in the Report of the Inquiry into the Care and Treatment of Christopher Clunis, in particular those contained in paragraph 51.0.9 which concern adequate provision of medium secure units, for supportive environments, and for haven-type accommodation in the community for such people.
Finally, perhaps I may highlight one of the concerns expressed by the RCN over shortfalls in qualified nurses working in the community, providing support for vulnerable groups such as the frail elderly and the mentally ill. When the numbers of people coming into the community needing care are increasing because of demographic change and current policies, it is worrying that cuts are proposed in the number of nurses to be trained: an RCN report on nursing students shows a decline from 87,500 in 1983 to 56,870 now, but the Government have recommended a further 20 per cent. cut in 1994–95 which will result in a predicted student nurse population of only 40,000. That will mean a 54 per cent. reduction by 1997 compared with 1993. If that trend continues, the disparity between the need for qualified nursing care and the availability of qualified staff will become acute.
I therefore support strongly the Motion for a national evaluation. Where policies are working well and good practice is established, it is important to recognise and promote them, but where there are problems, it is urgent that they are identified and addressed as soon as possible because in health and social care problems mean suffering; and in the case of community care, that suffering is often experienced by some of the most vulnerable members of our society: the elderly, the
274
mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, those least able to articulate their needs or to assert themselves. I believe that an evaluation should commend itself to a government who are committed to the concepts of quality care, freedom of choice and principles of accountability; and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a reassuring response to concerns over current problems and a sympathetic response to the suggestion for a national evaluation.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for having introduced the debate. An evaluation of community services after one year is highly desirable. I know that my noble friend Lady Seear said that it was perhaps a short time since the National Health Service and Community Care Act was first introduced, but I believe that it is desperately important that that evaluation takes place now, because we are, after all, setting out the new plans for the forthcoming year. One cannot make meaningful plans unless one has the evaluation of what has happened previously.
I remember clearly the Second Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Act, when we all welcomed the principle that, if possible, people should be able to remain in the community and stay in their own homes, because we felt that that would make for a better life for such people. It is right, therefore, that after a year we should ask 'whether that Act has worked. We should also ask whether we have achieved a balance between the closure of hospital beds and the provision of care in the community, and whether the provisions of the Act have been implemented across the country.
It was inevitable from the beginning that most of the caring in the community would have to be undertaken by family members, most of whom would be happy to undertake that care on the understanding that the services and support they need would be available within the community.
The aim of the Act was that the support should be provided and that the existing services should be generally improved. In examining what has happened we must keep in mind the fact that the Institute of Actuaries has estimated that the family carers save the country £30 billion per year. In our view about whether we have sufficient resources to help the carers we must never forget the enormous sums of money which they save the community, often by making heavy sacrifices.
The most important point is that carers should be involved in the planning and assessment process of the patient. Furthermore, they should be offered a separate assessment of their own. It is also important that they should have the right to choose not to be carers, and therefore alternative care provision must be in place. We are not all naturally good carers; I do not know that I would be a good carer. That right should exist and it should not be taken for granted that, just because one is a member of the family, one must be a carer.
Has that happened? The Royal College of Nursing, whose representative has just spoken to your Lordships, estimates that one in four older people most at risk are

275
not receiving any statutory services. A recent survey carried out by the National Federation of Women's Institutes revealed that 52 per cent. of full-time carers are never able to take an occasional week off. Support for the carers which is separate from that available for the patient must be provided. Most importantly, a carer should be able to have at least two weeks off in a year so that he or she can be his or her own person. Carers should also have the statutory right to have one day off a week. That should be built into the assessment process in order that these breaks should always exist.
Reference was made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to carers who are looking after patients with Alzheimer's disease. A relative looking after such a patient cannot take any time off during the 24 hours of the day. Frequently the patient cannot be trusted even when he or she is supposed to be asleep in bed, and the pressure on carers is therefore enormous.
Rural carers have also been seriously neglected. As a result of isolation, they are of particular concern. Frequently they have less easy access to the support services which we expect our community carers to have available to them. Often it is not even possible for them to go out shopping for half a day. Rural carers more than any others are thrown back upon the companionship of their patient. It is not possible for them to have much communication with other people living in the community and therefore we must concentrate on ensuring that support services exist for them.
The lack of services give rise to certain problems because it helps to create a bed blockage in accident and emergency departments. Elderly patients waiting for assessment are blocking the beds. Nurses carry out assessment on the admission of a patient. When a hospital considers that the patient is ready to leave, a further assessment is undertaken by the social services. In making those assessments there is insufficient communication between the hospital and the social services and a great deal of effort and time is wasted.
Much has also been said about the reduction in the number of psychiatric beds. Has the number been reduced to such an extent that we are endangering the patients and society? Examples such as the Clunis murder of Mr. Zito have been given. The problem is particularly acute in London. I understand that the average bed occupancy in four London hospitals ranges from 100 per cent. to 130 per cent.
Do we have enough community psychiatric nurses? The number may sound large but it is estimated that there are as many as 4,000 seriously mentally ill patients in the community. Those patients are seriously mentally ill. However, there are only 5,000 community psychiatric nurses in the whole country. They must concentrate on the most seriously mentally ill patients and will not be able to give support and preventive support to the many others in need of community nursing. At present only one in five of those who suffer from schizophrenia has access to a community psychiatric nurse.
We cannot close our eyes to those shortages. Our consciences should tell us that we must solve the problem as regards referral beds for psychiatrically ill
276
patients. A young man set fire to his room in the hostel where he was living. He went to the hospital requesting admission. Although it was agreed that he was a sectionable case, there was no available bed in that hospital and none in the nearest medium-secure centre. A further 11 hospitals were contacted to no avail. In the end he had to spend a fortnight in Wormwood Scrubs before a bed was found for him. That is certainly not acceptable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Eccles, and the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe and Lord Holderness, referred to the input which volunteers can make in helping community services. I agree that as volunteers we can do an enormous amount. I am chairman of the National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends. It has recently changed its constitution in order to call itself Hospital and Community Friends. Most of the patients whom it used to look after in hospitals are out in the community. I wish to voice a worry because our members believe that volunteers are not as happily welcomed by the social services as they were by the hospital authorities. I wish that the Department of Health would give guidance to the social services departments stating that volunteers are enormously useful and helpful. Also, I should like guidance to be given on the legal position of volunteers who visit patients alone in their homes. There could be problems as regards insurance. I should like the department to resolve those problems. All volunteers want to help and want to try to do their best to make the community care legislation work.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend's Motion and her introductory speech have stimulated a very well informed and—I hope the noble Baroness agrees—useful debate.
In considering the state of community care, I thought that it would be useful to look at one of the foundation stones of the community care part of the 1990 legislation; namely, the report by Sir Roy Griffiths entitled Community Care: Agenda for Action. That is an excellent report. The case is so well argued that the Government had to follow its basic recommendations which gave local authorities and their social services departments in particular the lead role in the provision of community care, despite the Government's systematic attempt during the past few years to diminish the power of local authorities.
However, the Government have attempted to continue the process of diminishing the local authorities' role by requiring 85 per cent. of the (eventually) ring-fenced additional grant transferred from the Department of Social Security to be spent in the private sector. That is a far higher percentage than was recommended by Sir Roy. He said:
"Proposals should encourage a proportionate increase in private and voluntary services".
I emphasise that he included voluntary services. He did not prescribe any percentage, but in my view the 85 per cent. is vastly greater than what he had in mind. In fact, voluntary services, particularly those in the field of drug and alcohol rehabilitation, have had to be funded largely

277
from the remaining 15 per cent. to be spent in the public sector. That has meant that those services have had to contract in many areas, although local ingenuity is finding ways round that in some cases.
There is little doubt that everyone, at all levels of society and on all sides of your Lordships' House, wants community care to work. The basic structure of the Act is a good basis from which to work, although, as my noble friend argued, the 85 per cent. provision added by the Government on mainly doctrinaire grounds restricts severely what local authorities can do. However, as my noble friend pointed out, we are very short of reliable, countrywide information on how the legislation is working.
One survey which has been mentioned by noble Lords is that carried out by the British Medical Association last October. The association received replies from 553 doctors working in community care. That was six months after the Act came into force. That survey revealed that not all was well because 39.5 per cent. of the total said that services for patients had deteriorated, while only 15 per cent. said that they had improved. At least some said that they had improved. Rather significantly, of the 128 psychiatrists surveyed, 52 per cent. said that services were worse and only 11.2 per cent. said that they were better; 55.7 per cent. of the geriatricians surveyed said that the new system was delaying rather than improving the provision of care in the community and 71 per cent. said that bed blocking had increased. They said that an extra 24 days of hospital stay per patient had resulted because of delays in getting assessments and then, following the assessments, there were delays in implementing the recommendations made in those assessments.
Sir Roy Griffiths said that social services departments should develop and sustain informal and voluntary community care resources by supporting informal carers. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, referred eloquently to that. Of course, informal carers still care for by far the largest group of disabled people. Sir Roy recommended also that volunteers and voluntary organisations were deserving of support.
An important part of the support which carers need, as many noble Lords have pointed out, is respite care to allow a break from the long periods of continuous responsibility which they have. The evidence that there is not enough respite: care has been given by a number of noble Lords. It is the British Medical Association's policy that more respite care should be provided. It is not only the Labour Party that thinks that. I do not believe that that necessarily means that the British Medical Association is very far to the Left, as was perhaps suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. The Women's Institute survey has been referred to by a number of noble Lords.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord did not get me wrong. I was joking in my suggestion. The BMA is a responsible organisation.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I rather hoped that the noble Lord would realise that I was joking too.
278
I am not saying that the new system is all bad; quite the contrary. Apart from the diversion of funds to the private sector, there is a real attempt in the country to make community care work. In some parts of the country matters are improving. One of those appears to be the district of Bassetlaw in Nottingham, which was the subject of a British Medical Journal article this week. Some rural or semi-rural local authorities may find the transition easier than inner city areas. That is not only because of the favourable share of the transitional financial cake, which my noble friend mentioned, that they are receiving compared with the cities. It is also because inner city areas are much more difficult to deal with.
In many cities, despite the greater concentration of people, there is a lack of sense of community because of a shifting population, poor housing conditions and high unemployment. Although the standard spending assessments, which will more and more take over the funding of community care, are weighted towards deprivation, they are not sufficiently weighted in that direction. As other noble Lords, and in particular my noble friend Lord Howell, have pointed out, inner cities are doing badly. It is in those areas that social services departments have the most difficulty in maintaining good community care.
It is in those areas that one of the worst effects of the private sector requirement is evident. Nearly all the money has to go on residential care because that is where the private provision is. That leaves social services short of money to provide imaginative schemes for keeping people in their own homes. Even before last April, local authorities were having to decant elderly, infirm people into homes which were well outside the districts where their younger relatives or former neighbours lived. That made it difficult for those people to visit. That is largely because the private sector homes cannot afford to operate in the inner cities where housing costs are higher and staff are more expensive and difficult to retain. I believe that that process will only become worse under the present requirements. The Government could help to retain a stronger sense of community in the inner cities if they were to relax the 85 per cent. rule for those local authorities which have very few residential homes in the centre of their area.
Many noble Lords mentioned the Report of the Inquiry into the Care and Treatment of Christopher Clunis. It is a very important report and gives a chilling account of what is wrong with the operation of the present system of community care for the mentally ill. The fact that the events described took place before April 1993, when the community care Act came into force, does not diminish the importance of its conclusions and recommendations. Indeed, they are just as applicable today. However, it is a sad reflection that it takes the murder by one patient and the mauling by a lion of another to sting a government into action.
As I said, the report is chilling; it details many missed opportunities when the course of events could have been changed. Nevertheless, it is also very humane and fair to everyone involved. In particular, it praises Mrs. Jayne Zito, the widow of the victim, Jonathan Zito. Its recommendations are clear. Moreover, in her

279
response to the report, as well as promising the well-publicised £10 million for London's mental health services, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley also agreed to one of its principal recommendations, which states:
"A new power of supervised discharge will underpin the care programme for the most vulnerable people … patients who do not comply with their programme of care may be recalled compulsorily to the hospital".
The Ritchie Report gives some useful advice on the detailed operation of such a power. I would welcome a brief description from the Minister on how that power will operate without discouraging those patients who are seeking to become independent and whose health is actually improving. At page 123 the Clunis report says:
"It has been difficult to understand the objectives of services other than to achieve ever more rapid turnover of inpatients. Judging from the example of Christopher Clunis … responsibility, once a patient has left hospital, has usually been vague or misunderstood, leading staff to work in the dark. Communication has often been duplicated or not done at all".
I return now to the theme of the debate. The report recommends that the Department of Health should set up proper procedures for effective monitoring of psychiatric services in the community. It is our contention on these Benches that the monitoring of community care as a whole needs to be strengthened. For example, there should be reports on a regular basis which should not be restricted to mundane statistics; they should honestly describe shortcomings and the reasons for them, including underfunding where applicable, and should be published in an easily accessible form. They may answer some of the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
We should not forget the enormous amount of good work—informal, voluntary and professional—which is taking place. That also should be reported; good practice in one place can be adapted and taken up elsewhere. (I see that I have exceeded my allotted time, but there is still at least half an hour to go before the debate is due to finish.)
It is the job of government to make the task of those working in the community more satisfying and effective, rather than, as Sir Roy Griffiths put it, having to grapple with problems at local level which make them feel that the Israelites faced with the requirement to make bricks without straw had a comparatively routine and possible task.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like, first, to add my thanks to those expressed by all speakers in today's debate to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for giving the House the opportunity to debate community care almost a year after the full implementation of the new arrangements. Her insight and perception were, as always, evident, as were those of other noble Lords who took part in today's wide-ranging and interesting discussions.
We know only too well from our own experience that most of our great social institutions—the police, the National Health Service and education—look to and thrive upon the active involvement of the public. We support the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of
280
Bristol. But, by and large, we are not a society that is content to shuffle off our responsibilities onto agencies of the state: we recognise the imperative of caring for our neighbour and we know that many people seek to put that principle into practice.
That is why so many people in this country are prepared to devote long hours each day to care for a dependent friend or relative. That is why many, willingly, bring comfort and support to friends and neighbours who are not linked by family bonds. Of course, a great many people prefer it that way, as was so clearly elucidated by my noble friend Lord Holderness. I suspect that there are very few people in your Lordships' House—and we know that there are only a minority in the country—who would not rather live out their lives to a ripe old age in their own homes and die in their own beds.
However, we also recognise that many elderly and disabled people live alone and often with a sense of trepidation. They are fearful to have an unlocked door or an open window. They worry that neighbours may turn violent through drink or drugs or because they are common criminals. They dread isolation and a future in which they are both unloved and unneeded. In such cases, we seek to ensure that those who are in a position to help, mainly the local authorities, are able to respond quickly and with compassion. Where the problems are most acute, such as in relation to people who suffer from a severe mental illness, that response must be thorough, sensitive and effective.
There is no argument that the principle of the community care Act is right. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, we all want it to succeed. Moreover, as my noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, such a tremendous shift in policy cannot be achieved at lightning speed, without any problems and to the same high standard everywhere. The reforms give the lead role to social services departments and in doing so make the assessment of an individual person's needs the pivot, the fount from which all else flows.
That is a marked change and requires social services staff, community nurses, GPs and many others to work differently. Organisations providing care in the community, whether residential or home-based, independent, private or voluntary, have also had to adapt to new ways of working, particularly working in close partnership. Money has been transferred from social security to enable that to happen. New procedures have had to be designed, assessment arrangements put into place and financial and information systems installed.
It is a massive agenda and one which will take years before all the benefits are realised. At its outset, we said that community care was a programme for a decade not a quick overnight fix. I shall try to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Ashley—not an easy challenge—on the question of resources. Many speakers today expressed their concern on that front, especially the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Give and Lord Howell. However, we have put huge resources into that area. For this year and the next three, the special transitional grant is

281
ring-fenced: £565 million this year. We will make available a total of £1.2 billion next year and £1.8 billion in 1995–6, amounting to over £2.2 billion in 1996–7.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is always eloquent in putting the case for supporting carers. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords will be pleased to learn that we have been able to allocate £20 million next year and £30 million the year after to give a boost to day and respite services. And of course the mainstream personal social services element of the standard spending assessment for local government totals over £3.3 billion, with a near doubling of SSA, plus STG from £3.6 billion in 1990–91 to £6.4 billion in 1994–95.
It is simply not true to say that authorities lost from this year's distribution of the special transitional grant. A thorough examination of the formula would reveal that all those authorities received far more than would have been spent by the social security system on their residents had the old system continued. Standard spending assessments for personal social services are based on a complex and carefully considered formula. One of the most important factors is the local population of elderly people who may be in need of services.
Furthermore, the changes we have made to the special transitional grant benefit many of the authorities to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, referred. Manchester will receive an increase of 41 per cent. next year, while Wigan will receive an increase of 54 per cent. and Leeds 51 per cent. We can fairly claim that as regards community care we have put our money where our policy is. But, of course, there will never be unlimited resources. However, the strength of our reforms is that, above all, decisions on how to allocate resources are now made on the basis of people's assessed needs.
Both health and local authorities have made a sound and promising start. My noble friend Lady Eccles, drawing on her experience as the chairman of a commissioning agency, pointed out to us the enormous initial effort that has been invested in getting this system working. The framework is now in place and the system is beginning to work. The Audit Commission, whose initiative in the mid-1980s was vital in focusing attention on this policy, commented recently in its report Taking Care that,
"So far, implementation has proceeded smoothly—a major achievement for all concerned, given the many forecasts of disaster".
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, will, I am sure, be pleased to learn that we entirely agree with the main thrust of the Motion before us today. It incorporates a central feature of the Government's approach. We do need a proper programme of monitoring and evaluation. In the run-up to last April's start, a vast effort was put into ensuring that all authorities were in a position to handle these new responsibilities. The department published an array of guidance, supported authorities through conferences and visits and, of course, established the community care support force. During this first year of implementation, the focus has been on ensuring that all
282
authorities have basic systems in place. Every social services and health authority has been visited at least twice.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol drew your Lordships' attention to the evaluation of the Social Services Inspectorate and to the NHS Management Executive's 14 special studies into specific areas of the reforms. The report of the first six of those studies, entitled First Impressions, has recently been published. This should help authorities to move further forward. Much of this monitoring has already produced tangible results. Some local authorities have recognised that their procedures are too complex and are revising and simplifying them.
We have not yet finalised our programme for next year but this will need to reflect both authorities' growing competence and how best to help them in the future. For example, there is already quite a lot of evidence that where local care managers have devolved budgets, they can purchase a range of imaginative services to suit individuals that would not have been possible under the old system. In one case a man aged 81 was discharged from hospital because his 70 year-old wife was adamant that she wanted him living at home. His house was adapted, district nurses called to wash and dress him and put him to bed and respite was made available. I think it could be argued that this could have happened before the 1st of April last year but the attitudes then were very different and probably he would have been discharged into a residential home.
In another case, an 89 year-old man with lung cancer lives with his son who works long hours. The man cannot prepare himself a midday meal and his son was unable to get home until early evening. But rather than have a meal delivered, the father expressed a preference for someone to come in and prepare a meal for him. This has now been arranged through a private home care agency at a cost which is actually less than the local authority's meals on wheels service. That is an important point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Rea, questioned whether we should continue with our policy of requiring 85 per cent. of the grant to be spent in the private and voluntary sectors. The purpose of this condition is to make sure that people get a choice. If the old system using the social security money had continued, all of the social security transfer money would have been spent in the independent sector on residential care. It is hardly unreasonable to expect authorities to spend 85 per cent. of that money in the independent sector now, and we hope that they will increasingly spend more on domiciliary services. That is in fact only 60 per cent. of this year's total grant.
We know that the progress we have made cannot happen without considerable effort and energy and we need to ensure that the reforms remain on track. That is why, as well as our monitoring programme—I am sure my noble friend Lady Faithfull will welcome what I am about to say—we have also commissioned independent research from, among others, the Universities of Kent and Leeds and from the National Institute for Social

283
Work. I was interested to learn of the research being undertaken by Stirling University, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, called for national standards, as did other Members of your Lordships' House. We are not talking here about national monitoring but national standard setting. The Government have issued a wide variety of policy and practice guidance and we have a programme of national inspection, but what we do not want to do is to take over the role and the responsibilities of local government. Community care is a service for local people delivered by local agencies. They know far better than us at the centre what is required locally and what the strengths and weaknesses are in the local community. We do not wish to impose on them rigid national standards which may or may not fit into their local circumstances.
We are concerned about the particular needs of special groups. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and my noble friend Lady Cox have drawn attention to the case of Christopher Clunis which has quite rightly received a lot of national attention. My noble friend Lady Faithfull, with her usual knack of getting straight to the heart of the matter, drew out some of the weaknesses which were highlighted in this tragic case.
As we know, Christopher Clunis killed Mr. Jonathan Zito and that case has been thoroughly examined by the independent inquiry chaired by Miss Jean Ritchie QC. Miss Ritchie's report emphatically endorsed the Government's policy of care in the community but chronicled a series of failures where agencies were not adequately working together. Vital facts about Mr. Clunis were not made known to relevant people. Though all involved were trying to help, time and again no one took responsibility for ensuring that a very vulnerable patient received the treatment he needed. I am sure my noble friend Lady Faithfull will recognise the same elements which used to be so apparent in child protection services. What happened in the Clunis case is the antithesis of what the care programme approach is all about and we are committed to helping local agencies overcome the problems which lay at the heart of these failures. My noble friend Lady Cox will be pleased to learn that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has accepted all the recommendations of the Ritchie Report.
In addition, last August my right honourable friend announced a 10-point plan to reinforce community care for severely mentally ill people. This includes seeking new powers for supervised discharge—as has already been mentioned in the debate—and the introduction of supervision registers and also some revised guidance and training for key workers on the whole question of discharge. We have consulted widely about draft guidance on the discharge of mentally disordered people and their continuing care in the community. We shall also be publishing further guidance, focusing on inter-agency working, which will take account of Miss Ritchie's recommendations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised the issue of bed blocking. We agree with her that we need effective
284
hospital discharge. That is vital. Before last April we were regularly told that the so-called bed blocking would increase dramatically and that hospitals would grind to a halt. But our monitoring shows that that has not happened. Indeed, it seems that the new focus on assessment is improving collaboration between hospitals and social services, strengthened by the joint discharge agreements that we have required.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, who raised this subject, that those in nursing homes before 1st April 1993 have preserved rights to income support. Those income support rates will rise from April 1994 by considerably more than income support rates in general.
The noble Lord also raised the question of untrained staff doing assessments. We have made it very clear to local authorities that the full range of professional skills must be drawn upon in carrying out these assessments, although of course social services have the lead responsibility.
The noble Lords, Lord Molloy, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lord Holderness mentioned the BMA survey of community care. We fully recognise that GPs have an important role in community care, although not the central one. They are very often the first point of contact for people who may be in need of help and support. Our own monitoring has confirmed to an extent some of the BMA's findings. There is a need for social services to work more closely with GPs and, indeed, for GPs to reciprocate. We are currently carrying out a special study which will identify good practice that can be used to make improvements in that relationship.
At the same time, I would say that the BMA's own survey contains reasons for optimism. For example, 60 per cent. of those who responded felt that the quality of services for their patients had either stayed the same or improved since 1st April. That, after all, is not a bad result only six months into a major set of well-publicised reforms, particularly from a study in which only one in four of the doctors surveyed chose to respond.
My noble friend Lord Holderness mentioned the question of disabled people and their training and responsibility for their care arrangements. We are sympathetic to the objectives of those who argue that local authorities should be able to make cash payments in lieu of services. However, such a system would inevitably add considerably to local authorities' responsibilities. We do not think it right to consider a shift to direct payments until we have had a good chance to examine how well authorities are coping with their new responsibilities for community care. Unless we look at the wider picture we risk prejudicing the general services which authorities must deliver. I can, however, assure your Lordships' House that we will be keeping this under close and constant review as we gather more evidence about local authorities' performance.
My indefatigable noble friends Lord Pearson and Lady Cox raised again the issue of village communities. I know that my noble friends will be dissatisfied with the answer that I am about to give. They asked me not to reply by saying that village communities are one of the

285
range of services that authorities may purchase. However, that is the simple answer. We do not propose to tell authorities how they should meet individual needs, but we want them to explore the widest possible range of residential and other care.
My noble friend Lord Holderness and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised the question of the use of volunteers, and my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell the independent charitable sector, highlighting the remarkable work of the Queen Elizabeth Foundation for Disabled People. It is an organisation I am well aware of and one which I admire. The Government are committed to the involvement of volunteers in both health and social services. As my noble friends said, they can often perform very valuable tasks. I agree with him that independent organisations are often ahead of the game.
The Department of Health has recently increased its funding of its key Opportunities for Volunteering scheme to nearly £8 million a year. That will support over 500 local projects. With regard to the legal status of volunteers visiting people in their homes, which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, mentioned, I shall have to come back to her on that.
In conclusion, community care is exactly what it says: every person in the community contributing their talents to the benefit of their families, friends and neighbours. It is inherently good. So do not let us join in the national spurt of denigrating what is best. We shall need a great effort, particularly in inner cities, to strengthen communities. The need is to encourage: to encourage social workers working in the toughest and at times the most depressing conditions; to support nurses and doctors; pray, and fund the Church initiative; co-operate with the police; cherish employers, support clubs, voluntary organisations and activities that help to build a community; and, above all, sustain the users of our services and care for, and listen to, their views and wishes. The more people who are involved the better will be the monitoring, the greater the success. The state provides professional support but the community also has a part to play, for essentially it is a people's project.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may say that I was very grateful for her saying, as I am sure we all agree, that local authorities should consider the widest possible range of facilities available. If that is so, why can she not agree with the request from my noble friend Lady Cox, from me and from others that village communities should simply be given a level playing field with those other facilities? Why should they be discriminated against? That is the question we are asking. We are not asking for preference; we are just asking for the equal treatment which many people want.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not believe that it is a case of our discriminating against them. We say that it is one of the options that is available, but it is up to local authorities to evaluate the contribution that they feel that village communities can make and then to purchase those services.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her helpful and detailed reply to our debate this afternoon. I was particularly pleased to hear her say that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State has accepted all the recommendations of the Ritchie Report on the Christopher Clunis case. I am sure that that will be of great interest to many people working in this field.
I was less happy with her reply in respect of the adoption of national standards for community care, but grateful for those noble Lords who supported that idea.
In general I should like to express my great thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. They have contributed to a very authoritative and well-informed discussion, as is always the case in your Lordships' House on these issues. I was particularly pleased by the support all round the House for the idea of a proper national evaluation of community care. If it was not against the conventions of your Lordships' House I almost feel that I could test the opinion of the House on that subject, but as it is I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

British Railways (No. 2) Order Confirmation Bill
6.17 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

British Railways (No. 3) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Defence
6.18 p.m.
Lord Williamsof Elvel rose to call attention to the case for a full defence review; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I shall seek to achieve three things. First, I shall try to be as precise as possible about what I mean when I speak of a full defence review and what form it might take. Secondly, I hope to indicate at least some of the major questions that such a review will have to address. Thirdly, I hope to demonstrate that it is now time—and indeed that the time has long passed—for the Government to embark on such a review.
My party has said time and time again that we cannot go on slicing up our Armed Forces without a fundamental review of our defence commitments. Recent events in Bosnia are enough to show that those

287
commitments, particularly in UN peacekeeping, have changed radically since the last review. We shall continue to hammer that theme until the Government pay attention. The debate this evening is part of that process.
Since the Second World War there have been four full defence reviews. Each has had somewhat different characteristics. The Sandys review of 1957 was carried out in the aftermath of the Suez debacle when it was clear that our Armed Forces had become unwieldy and much of their equipment obsolete. The conclusion was that British military power could and should be sustained by a new emphasis on nuclear delivery systems, missiles and air transport. In other words, conventional forces were to be run down—for instance, conscription was to end—and an independent nuclear system was to form the centrepiece of strategy. It is noteworthy that the service chiefs were excluded from participating in the review and that no thought was given to reducing the considerable array of commitments that had built up since the war.
In the event, it became impossible to reduce defence expenditure as much as had been hoped. Furthermore, we became dependent on the United States for nuclear delivery technology to a much greater extent than hitherto. The financial implications of that did much to prompt the next review, launched by my noble friend Lord Healey in 1965. A number of changes were made, the most important being the withdrawal from a defence role east of Suez.
The next review was ordered in 1974 by my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley. There was a clear difference of approach. Instead of working from the base of financial pressure, the chiefs of staff were actively involved in very detailed consideration of Britain's defence commitments. These were ranked in order of relative importance and only after that the resources that could be devoted to them calculated. As a result, three overarching commitments were deemed central both to national security and to the credibility of NATO: the British contribution to NATO's central front in Germany; anti-submarine forces in the eastern Atlantic; and defence of the UK mainland. Apart from a small force in Cyprus, it was decided that all extra-European commitments for troops permanently on the ground, or ships permanently on station, could be virtually relinquished.
The last review in the post-war series was commissioned by Sir John Nott in 1981. Again, commitments were scrutinised carefully, as in the Mason review. But the analysis took a strange twist. It was the Continental emphasis that emerged as the greatest winner. The conclusions of previous reviews that we still had to have some capability to defend our interests outside the NATO area were not followed through. In that respect, the Nott review was a logical conclusion of the Sandys review of nearly a quarter of a century earlier. The nuclear deterrent would be upgraded; BAOR would be progressively re-equipped; and the navy would shed its remaining out-of-area capability and concentrate on anti-submarine operations in the eastern Atlantic.
288
The measures proposed were, to say the least, as noble Lords know, very controversial. And, of course, the whole issue was thrown into reverse by the Falklands episode, which showed up the basic fallacy of the Sandys-Nott Eurocentric strategy—that it was geared to deterring the greatest but most unlikely threat to the United Kingdom while paying too little attention to the much more probable threats to British interests outside Europe. As a matter of cold, hard fact, I believe that if General Galtieri had waited until 1984 to invade the Falklands, he would in all probability still be there.
Not unnaturally, the Nott review was treated extremely harshly by its critics. Perhaps it was that criticism, as much as a realisation that a defence review could be an inflexible process if handled badly, that deterred the Government from calling their next effort a defence review. The next effort was, of course, the now famous exercise entitled Options for Change, launched by Mr. Tom King in the autumn of 1989. As we know, there were accusations of failure to consult the service chiefs and of an over-powerful Treasury role. But the real problem with Options for Change was that the Treasury was at its most aggressive just at the time when the strategic assumptions about the cold war that had been inherited were themselves becoming outmoded. Furthermore, there was no in-depth analysis of foreign policy issues to accompany the defence exercise. The collapse of the Soviet Union and consequent Russian withdrawal from Eastern Europe were not originally part of the Options scene. Indeed, they were used as the justification for further defence cuts in 1993; and those in turn, as is natural, gave rise to further criticisms of undue Treasury influence.
The result is that defence policy has now fallen into a vacuum—a sort of foreign policy black hole. We have to start looking at how successive announcements of force reductions have been regarded simply as the Treasury method of slicing salami. There has been no attempt to justify them against a carefully explained set of rational criteria. Until that is done, no amount of detailed costings—and there were detailed costings in the recent Defence Estimates White Paper—will be adequate. Our defence policy will still not make overall sense.
The format of a review such as we suggest should broadly follow the Mason review of the 1970s. It should start with a wide-ranging assessment of British foreign policy and security interests. It should then analyse how Britain's Armed Forces could or should sustain them. Finally, there would be a comparison of that result with the resources that are available now and in the future; and it goes without saying that at that stage the Treasury would have a major input to make.
The questions that such a review will have to address are not too difficult to define. There is perhaps first and foremost the question of Russia. What threat can she realistically pose to British security? And is she liable in the future to pose a threat to the general stability of Europe, particularly in the east? That might easily be the case, for instance, if Russia is sensitive to the interests of Russian citizens outside the borders of the Russian Federation, as the recently announced new military doctrine clearly states. Out of that would come the

289
question of what is to be the future extent and role of NAT() and the CSCE, and, within that, what is to be the role of the British nuclear deterrent, both strategic and (that curious expression) sub-strategic.
Following on from those questions would come the related matter of the future security of Western Europe and indeed of Britain herself. Has the European Union a role to play? Is the WEU to be the second pillar of NATO, or will it provide the framework for a future European defence force? Since both the Gulf War and, much more significantly, the break-up of Yugoslavia, have shown that serious military action by the west Europeans requires American participation and thus NATO involvement, is there any point in trying to go beyond the Rapid Reaction Corps? So far as Britain herself is concerned, should we not be looking at the effectiveness of the army in discharging its task of aiding the civil power in Northern Ireland?
Another, and possibly novel, matter for review would be Britain's interest in security in other parts of the world, and in particular our support for the United Nations. At present, and presumably continuing well into the future, there is a host of problems in which the United Nations, if properly organised and equipped, is or should be playing a role. It is not only the former Yugoslavia. Somalia, Angola, the southern Sudan and Cambodia are all on the agenda. Tomorrow's agenda may well include Palestine and South Africa. As a permanent member of the Security Council, we have a particular responsibility to the United Nations. Given our large historical and commercial interests in South Africa. for example, it is difficult to see how we could refuse participation in a United Nations transitional force in the republic, if it is asked for. Given the proximity to Israel of British bases in Cyprus, the same is true of the Levant. Does that then mean that the UN and other peacekeeping forces should be a defence priority? If it does, how might that affect the future structure of our Armed Forces?
Your Lordships will realise that I am putting all the matters that I suggest for discussion in the form of questions. It can only be thus because it would be manifestly absurd for me to try to give any answers. That is precisely what the defence review would be designed to do. Furthermore, I have not even mentioned such vitally important matters as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a comprehensive test ban treaty, particularly after President Clinton's decision yesterday to extend the moratorium on US nuclear testing, the Partnership for Peace agenda in Eastern Europe and the future of the UK's defence industries. All those are matters which need to be reviewed and studied.
What I hope I have done this evening briefly is to explain to your Lordships why we believe that a full defence review is now timely and necessary. Up to now the Government have taken a different view. Mr. Rifkind has said that a new defence review would not provide any information not currently available and would anyway be futile since defence is always under review. There are mini-reviews of particular support services from time to time, but the failure to bring everything together in a coherent manner is, I believe,
290
leading to a lack of co-ordination between foreign policy-making and our force structures. If this goes on, we will soon—if we are not already there—find ourselves in the position graphically described by the same Mr. Rifkind at last autumn's Conservative Party Conference when he said:
"There is a limit to how far we can cut our forces and maintain the same commitments and capacity to defend ourselves and our vital interests … We must avoid creating a hollow force—an armed force that looks formidable but is in fact a paper tiger".
We believe that we are close to that limit, and that sums up neatly the case for a full defence review. I beg to move my Motion for Papers.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the Government have embarked on two defence reviews. There is the defence costs study which is an attempt to save some £2.3 billion in three years by rationalising the support services. On these Benches we support the principle of rationalisation. To take one small example, we have never understood why each of the three services requires its own medical and dental services. But we say strongly that the point of the review must be to free resources for the front line, not simply to reduce the PBR. The Government have made it quite plain that they take a different view and that the point is to save money for the Treasury.
The second defence review upon which the Government have embarked was described by the noble Viscount in a letter to me, for which I am grateful, as a,
"major independent review, not of conditions and allowances only but of the whole area of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service".
Again, on these Benches we do not oppose that in principle. There are anomalies which have built up over the years; for example, in Bosnia where, unlike other UN peacekeeping forces, the British forces are financially handicapped by losing the cost of living allowance which they get in Germany. That anomaly ought to be ironed out straight away.
For this kind of review it is essential that there should be sufficient military input into the review at the top level. The disaster of doing otherwise was well shown by the Sheehy Report into the police. We must have a military man at the top of the review as well. However, that is not the view of the Government. The noble Viscount wrote to me about,
"a review team comprising an independent chairman and some three or four independent members".
They would be helped by "external consultancy assistance". In other words, the review will be conducted by people with little or no experience of the essential requirements of a military force: loyalty, courage, endurance, initiative, discipline. You do not get those things by pressing keys on a computer and coming up with some utopian management structure. There is need for a military input at the top; otherwise, like Sheehy, we shall have serious errors of judgment and needless resentment from the Armed Forces.
The Government are not conducting the type of review described so thoughtfully by the noble Lord, Lord Williams —namely, fitting future resources to future commitments. They are reducing our resources and failing to reduce commitments accordingly. Thus,

291
they are creating serious overstretch in the services, as we all know. My noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter will deal with the need to share commitments with our allies and for closer defence collaboration with the European Union, especially with procurement.
I wish to deal simply with the one major commitment that we cannot share with our allies. I refer, of course, to the Falkland Islands. At present the cost is formidable and the future cost will be still more formidable. According to the Defence White Paper, we have permanently stationed there an infantry group, an engineering field squadron, a squadron of the RAF regiment with supporting services; submarines, frigates, Chinooks, Sea Kings, Tornados and Hercules. The direct cost of protection is bad enough, but much heavier is the cost of the reinforcement capability which the White Paper says is necessary. The future cost will be still more.
Happily, relations with the Argentine have greatly improved. The Argentine Government, democratically elected, have repeatedly condemned the invasion and insist that no such criminal action will ever be taken again. Yet the question remains: will the centuries-old conflict over sovereignty ever go away? Unfortunately, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it will. Even today, in comparatively calm conditions, a democratically elected Argentine president feels obliged to declare that the islands will be Argentinian by the end of the century.
I remember the ferocity with which, 30 years ago, speaking by invitation to the Argentine Parliament, I was assailed with shouts of: "Give us back the Malvinas". However irrational it may be, for the Argentinians the claim is a deep-rooted issue of national pride and it will not go away. I said that the claim was irrational, but we have to remember that while the world community supported us against the Argentine aggression, it opposes us on our legal claim to sovereignty and urges us to negotiate.
The Government not only refuse to negotiate, they now seriously offend the Argentinians by excluding them from the early stages of oil exploration—a prospect with enormous possibilities that could transform the whole area and which, of course, raises acutely the question of sovereignty and ownership. The Argentine Foreign Minister said last year:
"We have made it clear that in the absence of an understanding, we will not accept oil exploration and exploitation activities in the disputed area".
In the meantime, for reasons that are not clear, the Argentine Government have ordered 36 Skyhawks from the United States. Have the Government worked out the future cost of maintaining a credible deterrent? They refuse negotiation, simply pledging themselves to enforcing without time limit the wishes of the islanders. "Without time limit"—that is the point.
Fourteen years ago the then Conservative Government proposed that sovereignty should be transferred to the Argentine in 25 years. That might have led to a settlement. However, the Government changed their mind and, in effect, gave the islanders a veto on transference; and war followed. Today they
292
reaffirm that the wishes of the islanders must be paramount. That means that their wishes could for an indefinite period of time override basic national interests of this country. I believe that that goes too far. We have strong obligations to the islanders and we have fulfilled them at enormous cost. But they have obligations to us, too, in return. Thus, a defence review which seriously tried to match future resources with future commitment would say that Britain must start creating conditions now for a slow and honourable withdrawal from our Falklands commitment.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I apologise for any discourtesy in not being able to remain throughout this debate. For weeks now it has been arranged for me to address honourable Members from another place on the subject of our Reserve Forces. I felt that my duty lay equally there. So I ask the indulgence of the House if I break away during the debate, aiming to return before the end.
If there was ever doubt of the need to formulate a coherent vision of the role that this country means to play in today's uncertain and unstable world, it has surely been dispelled by the uncertainty that we witnessed as the Government slowly made up their mind whether or not to send troops to Bosnia to reinforce the remarkable success achieved by a British general. Eventually, of course, the pressures of what was happening on the ground left the Government no option but to send a substantial contribution in the shape of 900 men. That, of course, I warmly welcome. But it might have been easier if there had been a clearer understanding of where the former Yugoslavia fitted into our strategic perspective, and where this country's interests really lay.
In any national defence policy there have to be three elements: the financial and economic element; inevitably, a political element; and, of course, very much a strategic element linked to our foreign policy. The trouble is that at present we conduct our defence business with only two of those elements firmly in place. There is plenty of the financial element. Although Minsters made some effort to insist that Options for Change was not Treasury led but was a rational, reasonable response to a changing world, no one can make the same claim for the latest exercise of finding over £1.5 billion over the next three years. That is entirely Treasury led, and is arbitrary and draconian in its content.
There is also a large political element, which bows to various pressures at home and abroad. That is understandable. The decision to undertake entirely unexpected military action in the Falklands and the Gulf are examples.
The last element, that of strategic foreign policy, is now largely lacking. I know, and we have heard, that one has to be careful about the concept of a defence review if that means that what you are trying to do is to anticipate exactly whom, if anyone, you are going to confront and where and when, so that you can hold purpose-built forces for that exact contingency. That

293
would be very dangerous. You would certainly get it wrong—as happened, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, pointed out, in the Nott Review of 1981–82.
Nevertheless, before you start, as we are now doing, turning your Armed Forces inside out and adopting what are known as radical (sometimes even blatantly known as Treasury) solutions—which is usually a euphemism for cheaper solutions, with scant consideration as to whether they would work even in peace-time, let alone in conflict—you have to be clear about certain assumptions against which you can reasonably do the exercise. That requires considered answers to specific questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, very ably put a great many of those questions: that of commitment; the new prospect of Russia; the future of NATO; and the future of our nuclear weapons. I shall not go over them again. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. I would only say: do we, for instance, intend to remain a world power with a seat on the United Nations Security Council, and with the responsibilities that go with that position? There are plenty of people who would like to take our place on the council. Do we expect, or shall we have to be prepared, to operate in what I call Division One, and not in Division Three or Four—as we had to do with others when we took on a country like Iraq which had a great deal of modern eq lipment provided by the then Soviet Union? Are we prepared to make more use of our Reserve Forces, which would be a large social step and would require legislation? And must the Armed Forces still he able to react if political pressures become great, whether or not they had contingency plans or forces ready to do so? For the record, events in former Yugoslavia will be the fourth occasion in the past 15 years when, totally unexpectedly, we have had to deploy sizeable forces although we had no particular plans to do so.
Until those matters are established one way or another at the highest level, and priorities are sorted out, it is quite irresponsible merely to say that we are going to re-design our Armed Forces purely on the basis that the Treasury requires at any particular time x million or x billion pounds from defence. Unless we get a strategic pillar into the equation, we store up appalling problems for ourselves in the future. The people most concerned with such decisions are the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. There is no shortage of machinery to achieve the purpose. It is merely that the machinery is so seldom used.
There are a number of ways in which top officials from the FCO, the MoD and other interested departments can be got together to draft priorities for Ministers; or indeed, Ministers can get together. But, unless the overall problem is grasped at the top, the staff can write papers and advisers can advise till they are blue in the face, and nothing will happen—as I know from personal experience. When I was Chief of the Defence Staff eight years ago I led the Defence Staff in a number of strategic studies on all the various parts of the world, trying to establish what was important, what was of special interest and what was of less concern and of lower priority. All that would have been a great help
294
in establishing the sort of guidelines that have been mentioned this evening. Although those exercises were treated with polite interest, no Minister was prepared to sign up to them, so they never saw the light of day.
Of course there must be a Treasury input. Of course the Armed Forces need to be continually brought up to date and organised for the future and not the past. There is so much, in so many fields, which needs doing. But, with scant strategic direction and the MoD organised as it is with the operational, administrative and financial chains of responsibility separated from one another, I am not at all confident that the right things will be done. When virtually all the current studies—of which there are at least 35—are done against the background of compelling financial savings and very little else, they inevitably get done right across the board of account holders. That is no way to get the right answer, particularly with smaller Armed Forces.
In the sense that we must look at general guidelines and get a continually updated strategy and foreign policy content into our defence policy, a defence review is needed. Ideally we should not carry out any further exercises on the Armed Forces until it has been done. At least we must be ready to measure the outcome of any "front line first" studies against some form of defence review and modify those findings when that is shown to be necessary—even if it has been that the cart has been ahead of the horse.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I believe that the time is not ripe to talk ourselves into a defence review which may incur severe diplomatic penalties and even lose us our seat on the United Nations Security Council, while we are struggling through Options for Change to establish new force levels and structures, which I think are needed.
I turn to the Falklands and I hope that the parties opposite will agree that a review of the Falkland Islands would be entirely out of place while the Falkland Island Government intend, with our authorisation, to publish the required legislation and license exclusive acreage to oil companies for exploration later this year. If all goes well there will come a time when the Falkland Islands Government can assume a degree of financial responsibility for their own defence and other arrangements can then be made.
As the House is aware, I and some other Peers have just returned from spending nearly five days as guests of the Commander British Forces in the Falklands. I thank my noble friend for his assistance in bringing that visit about at such a critical time. We were able to see anti hear at first hand what our defence role there is all about. I say without reservation how much we are indebted to Major-General McKay-Dick, the Commander British Forces, his staff and all his servicemen and servicewomen, for the way in which they took part in our programme and demonstrated how they carry out their tasks so efficiently, expeditiously and cheerfully in such inhospitable latitudes. They are backed up by the South Atlantic air bridge, the logistic support from the UK and of course the Royal Engineers on site.

295
Tornados, Rapier missiles, radar and infantry are at immediate readiness with a frigate, submarine, offshore patrol vessel and forward repair ship on hand.
What was most impressive to me was to see the sense of purpose and high morale that exists within each service, jointly carrying out their tasks, knowing that they are well equipped, well accommodated, well supplied and, above all, well commanded. We can assure ourselves that we meet our "defence role one" commitments to the full in the Falkland Islands. What is vital at present is the air bridge and fishery protection. As we have a clear sovereign commitment to defence in the islands, we must ensure that the operation runs smoothly and that logistic support arrangements remain firmly in place.
But we must not forget the dependencies in the south —South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands below the 50 degree parallel, which are part of our occupancy and have to be visited. I sense that from Whitehall they are viewed through different telescopes according to whether one is standing on the bridge of the Foreign Office or the bridge of the Ministry of Defence. Clearly the policy towards those dependent outstations must be properly co-ordinated between departments and any third-party nation must not be left in any doubt whatever that the iron fist of defence lies beneath the velvet glove of diplomacy.
While I watched the Options for Change process proceed and have seen us winning the battle for better value for money, I listened constantly to the party opposite calling for a defence review, cuts and diversification. In fact, I believe that what they are really calling for is a wholesale shakedown of defence in which they would like to see our ultimate deterrent vanish—platform, missile and warhead —into a black hole, thereby destroying our capability to meet our obligations in any of the defence roles. I hope that never happens. I believe that Trident is here to stay.
I do not say that lightly but in the knowledge that our much valued technical capability, industrial resources and trained manpower all count heavily in fighting and holding our corner in defence. I believe that the Secretary of State is steering the best course at the moment and I hope he sticks to his guns.
6.53 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise with suitable diffidence after the speech of one famous field marshall and the son of another, even though the last speaker totally misunderstood the policies of the Labour Party. However, one cannot understand everything.
My first task is to offer strong support to my noble friend Lord Williams and the policy which he expounded so eloquently. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was in the form which once led me to say that he was certain to become a future Prime Minister. It has not happened yet, but life is long and he is in good shape tonight.
I find it easy and pleasant to support the policy of our party on defence. There were moments in the 1980s when I might have wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, had hold of the right end of the stick as
296
opposed to the wrong end which he held up tonight. But those days are past and I have absolute confidence in the policy as stated by my noble friend Lord Williams.
My second task is to plead strongly for what one may call continuity in defence and foreign policy. I agree with all those speakers who say that those two things must be taken together. When I listen to field marshalls and the sons of field marshalls my mind goes back to one specific field marshall with whom I collaborated in a humble way many years ago; namely, Field Marshall Viscount Montgomery. When I was Under-Secretary for War in 1946 Lord Montgomery took me in his car down to the staff college. I was the only person in civilian clothes and I was placed on the platform—a shrinking form—beside him while he harangued the staff officers. He finished his address by saying, "Never forget, gentlemen, that the politicians are our masters". He was looking at me and inciting loud laughter. Then he said, "It is up to us to lead them up the garden path"—and the air was filled with even louder laughter.
That is how Monty put it in the old days and no doubt there is much truth in it, as long as the service chiefs recognise that the politicians are their masters. They are the experts. We make a grave mistake if we do not pay careful attention to their advice. But in the end, as Lord Montgomery, said, politicians are the masters and we must consider all those matters in the widest context.
I believe that the foreign policy in this country pursued under all governments, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, seemed to think, arose out of the Council of Foreign Ministers in 1947. I sat beside the Foreign Secretary, again in a very humble way. But there I was for three weeks and there was Molotov, M. Bidault and General Marshall. I shall never forget the extreme reluctance with which Ernest Bevin accepted what can only be called the division of the world—the beginning of the Cold War following the total callousness of the Soviet position. Then followed the Atlantic Pact in which Britain played a notable part both in formation and operation, and that has been the basis of our foreign policy under all governments for half a century.
That is satisfactory as far as it goes. It worked on the whole quite well along with adherence to the principles of the United Nations. But as other speakers indicated, we reach a new position. Nobody knows what the countries that once made up the Soviet Union will do and nobody knows what will happen to all their nuclear weapons. However wise one is, no one knows. All that we can do is make arrangements to study those matters in the broadest context; not just pure defence, but defence coupled with foreign policy.
If I may be allowed to make a personal suggestion, we want such a defence to be not representative of the political parties in the sense that they would be committed to it, but that leading members of the political parties should serve on such a committee. I should like to see as the head of such a committee perhaps a distinguished Foreign Office figure; the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, Sir Nicholas Henderson, or someone like that. Whatever the details of it, I am sure

297
that we must have a review to consider the whole world picture in the widest context and to draw up plans accordingly.
7 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I also rise to my feet in this debate with some diffidence. My diffidence is due to the fact that my direct military knowledge is restricted to my school corps. 1 happen to think that it was probably quite a good training, however, since one of my contemporaries, Sir Charles Guthrie, has just become head of the Army.
I have just had the privilege, in company with my noble friends Lord Ironside, Lord Waverley and Lord Lyell, of visiting the Falkland Islands. I echo the thanks of my noble friend Lord Ironside to my noble friend the Minister and to General Mackay-Dick and his staff for the way we were looked after in the islands. I was immensely impressed with what I saw; with the people and their resolve; with the spirit and dedication of the officers and men of the three services; with the range and quality of the military hardware; and with the standard to which the equipment and facilities are maintained. It seems to me that the garrison is a minimum credible but effective deterrent to aggression and that Argentina would be most unwise to attempt any further military adventures.
I personally do not believe that Argentina will try again to take the Falklands by military means. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, only last week President Menem again pledged to "regain" the sovereignty of the Malvinas—by peaceful means, admittedly—by the year 2000. He is assuredly not going to do this by winning himself an invitation from the islanders, even if Mr. di Tella continues to send them tapes of penguins for Christmas every year. He is not going to do it by threatening oil companies that take up licences in the forthcoming licensing round. Perhaps he is going to persuade the sheep to revolt, or perhaps even the penguins.
There is every chance—I have seen the seismic and the interpretation work that has been done—that there will be a major oil province in the Falklands. Some of the basins extend through on to the Argentine side and have already been tested. I think it extremely likely that we will see a major oil province there. I have heard the islanders say that they would like to see the revenues from that oil going in considerable measure to repay this country for its defence efforts to date. I should like to think that that means both capital and running costs over time.
I did spot one thing in the Falklands which worried me a little in the context of this overall debate. I saw a senior naval officer wearing army boots and, indeed, an army uniform. Now, lest you think this is a flippant remark, I should immediately admit that the Falklands garrison is a joint services operation and, indeed, a very fine example of all three services working together in, I believe, near perfect harmony. My only nagging fear about a naval officer in boots is that there may be a secret Whitehall plot for a new all-purpose and much slimmed down unified "defence force". If the joint services concept works in the South Atlantic, it may not
298
be long before someone suggests that it is just what we need back home. I sincerely hope otherwise and that the excellent Falklands garrison has set no unfortunate long-term precedent.
I for one believe that there are no grounds for any further contraction in our armed services beyond Options for Change, and possibly not even that far. The world may seem a rather less dangerous place than it did 10 years ago but, as Yugoslavia has demonstrated, the countries of the former eastern bloc are far from stable, possess immense weaponry and, to our merely temporary benefit, do not seem to know whom to point it at. Today's climate may permit a reduction in British readiness but hardly justifies any reduced overall capacity and no reduction in vigilance.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, my noble friend's magisterial introduction to this debate reminded me, oddly enough, that during the war I was instructed that one must first receive and understand an appreciation of the general scene. Only after that, I was told, was it possible to think about a suitable strategy. As for tactics, not at all, until the appreciation was accepted and the strategy agreed. Not that I ever rose to a height at which that knowledge was of the slightest use to me but it was comforting to know that in all the chaos someone was trying to think reasonably and rationally.
It used to be the role of the War Cabinet to do the general appreciation, which it discussed with the chiefs of staff in formulating strategy. Today, the driving force too often seems to be public opinion conditioned by a press which regards the arousal of indignation as the surest way to increased circulation. There is also the input from various of our Members who may have paid a visit to various places and come back very impressed with what they have seen. That is a valuable input. However, on the question of the Falklands, I take the Mayhew view rather than the Ironside one.
Politicians and parties nowadays seem to be influenced by these uninformed surges of public opinion in formulating policy. There seems to be little attempt to relate current policy to the tenets and the different philosophies which are the source and justification of party politics. We are slipping into the American scene, where parties have no opposing and distinguishing characteristics and so, of course, there is in practice no real choice; merely a selection of personalities on one side or the other. There is no real democracy. It is no good talking about going back to basics if no one knows what they were, or even are, any more.
Much follows from this but this evening. in my few minutes, I want to demonstrate the need to survey the general scene before formulating particular policies. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that my illustration is that of nuclear weapons. It is widely agreed outside government circles—and perhaps, who knows, inside them as well—that strategic intercontinental missiles, born out of the struggle between the Soviet Union and the West, are no longer relevant today. Yet, far from studying how to handle the new situation, the government top brass are hell bent on increasing our useless strategic capability. Instead of adapting our

299
weaponry to the new scene, we are allowing the weapons themselves to command strategy with the result that we are facing backwards to yesterday's old and gone threat instead of evolving a new strategy designed to try to tackle today's real threat, which is that of nuclear proliferation. This is one case which quite clearly supports my noble friend in his plea for a defence review. I put forward the case as an example —I am sure there are many others—of why we need to have a look at the whole scene; not a smaller examination of particular aspects of it but a look at the whole scene.
The non-proliferation treaty of 1968 sought to freeze the situation as it was with the five then known nuclear states —the United States of America, the USSR, the United Kingdom, France and China. The treaty has not been a success, for Israel, India and Pakistan either have or are highly prepared to have, nuclear weapons and none of them is a party to the treaty.
Furthermore, states which are party to the treaty have been developing their civil nuclear capacity in a military direction. They include Iraq and not only with Soviet help, but also with clandestine help from ourselves. When I say "ourselves" I mean our Government or some members of it. I am not quite sure, but no doubt we shall know more about all that very soon. Other countries in this category are Iran and North Korea.
The breakup of the Soviet Union has replaced a known, measurable and negotiable threat with a number of possible disaster sources; uncertain, dispersed and uncontrolled, as John Simpson pointed out recently in the January issue of International Affairs. What will be the value of our policy of deterrence by ICBMs if any of this nuclear weaponry gets into fanatical or gangster hands? The Government are saying that they want to see the non-proliferation treaty extended indefinitely when it comes up for renewal next year. That is fine, but what about making it work? There is no purpose in the extinction of the ineffective before one has made it effective.
At present the NFT is neither comprehensive nor watertight, as the House of Commons research paper Redefining British Foreign & Defence Policy makes clear. I warmly commend that document to Members. I would have liked to say something about it but I have reached the end of my time. In my view, that document forms a possible basis for a defence review of the kind that I have been speaking about. I had hoped to say something about Admiral Lord Mountbatten tonight, but that will have to wait for another time.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long. It is many years since I flew in a Lancaster and it is 50 years since I was on the staff in King Charles Street. Therefore, I shall not pretend to be technical. I appreciated the masterly review which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, produced. There is no doubt that anyone looking at the scene today will realise that it is a highly dangerous one. As many speakers have said, the dangers of an all-out
300
war which would destroy the world have receded, but there are many more dangers of a smaller variety all over the world.
A review is absolutely essential when we look at the way in which we have handled the first of these dangers and troubles which broke out in the former Yugoslavia. That has been an object lesson on how not to proceed. Eventually, after two years, it was mainly the Americans who forced us and Europe to take the kind of steps which now show some sign of producing peace, but admittedly a most unjust peace. Nevertheless, it is a step forward.
The suggestions and warnings made by the parliamentarians in the WEU and in the Council of Europe were about what should be done and that was two years ago. Our Government did nothing about that. They continued to say that they were only interested in humanitarian affairs and that our soldiers were doing a good job. The killing, of course, continued. The soldiers were doing a good job, but they were not doing their proper job. As soon as the Serbs appreciated that air power was to be used then we started to make progress.
Any review—and one is badly needed—must really concentrate on what we are going to do inside Europe. We are supposed to have a rapid reactionary force—I am sorry, a rapid reaction force; the other we have in our government. We have that force but apparently we can do nothing with it. France and Britain have put in troops, but there has been no coherence inside Europe as to what should be done. We had a situation where brutal methods of conquest were being used and we in Europe failed to stop it. We now appear to be able to stop it, but that gives a tremendous lesson as to how our thinking should be going forward.
It should be that we have a real and genuine command structure in Europe co-operating with NATO. We should be prepared to use it in the defence of peace. It should be a regional unit motivated or made legal by the United Nations. To do that it is quite obvious that we have not got enough well-trained, good units to send to places. The Government took a fortnight to make up their mind to respond to the urgent demand for troops from General Rose. It is quite obvious that any reduction in the good regiments of the army must at least be looked at, but that must be done in a European connection.
The other factor which the review has to look at is air power. There is no shadow of doubt that the main factor in the two examples which we have had of Iraq and the former Yugoslavia has been air power. We have to see that the RAF can play its part in western European forces. When air power was used to shoot down four of the six invading fighters, that had a salutary effect. That also depends on technical superiority. To my mind there is absolutely no doubt that we need a review carried out by competent professionals and with determination by the politicians to get together in Europe to produce something effective to keep the peace.
7.18 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I rise to share with you some observations derived from my trip last week to the Falkland Islands as a Member of the All-Party Defence Study Group, so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord lronside.
The main thrust of my contribution has been touched upon in differing ways, so I shall be brief. Many among us would agree that it is essential to recognise the importance of the military in shaping the moral fibre of the nation; a role increasing in significance at a time of declining attachments to traditional moral values.
Sir Arthur Bryant has reminded us, in an article published in the Sunday Times of 4th April 1948 that,
"the safety and honour of Britain depend not on her wealth and administration, but on the character of her people.
This in turn depends on the institutions which form character, in particular on the throe services … which create the … martial habits of discipline, courage, loyalty, pride and endurance".
While agreeing in principle on the need for defence cuts, the issue should be correctly and adequately addressed. As we have heard, the rationale for the cuts is flawed by being Treasury-driven and not foreign policy-led. The result is a seemingly disjointed approach which appears to threaten our long-term morale, effectiveness and security.
Belt-tightening initiatives in the defence field must surely be closely correlated with a well-designed foreign policy agenda. There would then be clear aims and objectives linked to defence spending; perhaps the clear identification of the nation's interests requiring protection: or our wish to bring stability to particular regions of the world; or even our need to secure first-class training grounds: in Belize, with its jungle training facilities, and in the Falkland Islands, which facilitate tri-service exercises in a friendly environment, where if low-flying recces are not carried out, the command receive telephone calls of complaint!
Benefits would also accrue from the privatisation of such services as air-bridges; for example, the route servicing the Ascension Island and Mount Pleasant base would release two Tristars, saving Her Majesty's Government many millions of pounds. Certain essential tasks, such as rapid airstrip repair as a result of enemy action, and refuelling duties could utilise, in part, Gurkhas at a 30 per cent. reduction in cost to the taxpayer.
I would, however, implore Her Majesty's Government to retain as many specialist functions as possible, in the knowledge that infantry can be trained comparatively quickly, even from scratch. This would retain our investment to date. Tight, timely accounting procedures would help to ensure that savings are more easily identifiable.
Where foreign policy considerations have an impact on the existence or continuation of a major garrison, I urge the Foreign Secretary to offer an unequivocal statement of support and commitment to the Falkland Islanders, unlike the coy utterances offered on behalf of Belize
I remind your Lordships that development of hydrocarbon resources around the Falkland Islands would he of enormous benefit to both the islands and the
302
United Kingdom. Exploration could offer opportunities to UK companies and employment to UK personnel, as well as enabling the islands to continue their development. The islands are currently entirely self-financing in the civil sector. The potential revenue from hydrocarbon exploitation could ensure their future economic independence and also enable them to contribute to the cost of their defence.
Should we lose our traditional links with that part of the South Atlantic because of ill-considered defence cuts, we would be hard pressed to justify the loss of life endured by so many families on behalf of the liberation of those inhospitable islands.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, it is now over four years since Options for Change announced the peace dividend and the cuts in our Armed Forces began. Four years on, Russia has re-created, in the CIS, a leaner, stronger union, with an army of over 2 million men, sophisticated weaponry replacing obsolete weapons, an air mobile force, a new quick intervention strategy, and 30 military bases in CIS countries. The army is conducting a series of local wars and repressive measures in Tadzhikstan, Abkhazia, Moldova and the Caucasus. There were 15,000 dead among the Ingush after the 1992 intervention by the Omon and border troops.
The Russian MoD now controls the Georgian MoD (and no doubt others) since Georgia was forced into the CIS. It is a sad irony that Russian "peacekeeping" within the CIS, like her intervention in Abkhazia, actually has UN blessing with UN observers there to prove it. Moreover, the world apparently regards Russia as a valid and impartial peace-maker in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Russia's new military doctrine allows her to strike first with nuclear weapons and makes her responsible for protecting Russians living not just in the "near abroad" but in "zones of former influence". Russia has had her debts recycled by the G7, is about to join the G7, has killed COCOM, has secured most favoured nation status in Europe, and is pressing to join GATT. She has concluded a series of military, political and econornic agreements: in the Far East, military agreements with China and India; sales of MiG aircraft to Malaysia; and renewed links with Vietnam and Laos.
In the Middle East, Russia now has military agreements in the Gulf and a revival of relations with Iraq. In Europe, the Visegrad countries have been told unequivocally that they may join the Partnership for Peace (which Russia wishes to join first) but that an application for NATO membership would be unacceptable to Russia. Meanwhile, a revival of some form of Comecon, on a more equal basis, would, said Mr. Kozyrev, be a sound idea. In Western Europe, the Russians have just concluded defence talks with Germany, building on an agreement last year, which will involve joint naval exercises and training. There are also to be join NATO-Russian naval exercises.
Russia's strategy for dealing with NATO—the one organisation in Europe with power to contain her and to deter any recurrence of Russian imperialism and any

303
campaign to regain her former sphere of influence (her present activity in the former Yugoslavia brings her right back into the Balkans)—is to destabilise it from within, a familiar communist tactic. She has skilfully used the Partnership for Peace to do this. What possible sense does it make for a NATO delegation to visit Kyrghystan, a Central Asian country, to consider a Kyrghyz application, or for Azerbaijan to apply? What must the Poles, the Hungarians and the Balts be thinking of this, and of the readiness of the European Community to consider Russia herself as such a partner while holding the Visegrad countries at arm's length in their application for membership?
My object in reminding the House that in the past four years Russia has become once more a power to be reckoned with, and that we could lose the peace, is to beg my noble friend the Minister to consider again whether, in our own long-term national interest, we can afford to relinquish an absolutely vital element in our power to influence events, to advance British interests and, in the long run, to influence and deter. Russia remains a threat if we do not maintain NATO's power to deter her, a peaceful but essential power.
There are powerful forces in Russia—whoever is in charge there—who would like to walk back into the Baltic states. If that were allowed, the next step would be the re-establishment of the former Soviet zone of influence in Eastern Europe and the Balkans and a special relationship with Germany. Meanwhile, the Americans may well see their interest, in the absence of a strong NATO, in withdrawal from Europe and a tacit understanding with Russia.
There is, of course, another and equally disturbing scenario —the possibility of a serious upheaval in Russia with consequences no one can foresee. The situation there remains very volatile. That too would produce most dangerous consequences. The far Right in Russia, supported by the still powerful KGB and by those elements of the armed forces still under MVD control, could well come to power. They would not relinquish it again.
I cannot urge too strongly that while both scenarios are possible, a powerful Russia under Yeltsin today or an unknown Russia after a coup or a collapse of order, a Russia that still possesses a strong army and a strong nuclear and chemical weapons capacity is a danger. We cannot afford to proceed further with the cuts and we should revise and review our commitment. We cannot even meet our present commitments without an absolutely unacceptable strain, and our voice in Europe, in NATO and in the Security Council will not be listened to. We need NATO, not to fight Russia, but to contain her and protect her neighbours. Deterrence kept the peace for over 40 years. We must therefore retain a credible defence capacity. It is extremely cheap at the price.
I should be the last to regret the establishment of a peaceful and prosperous Russia, content with the status quo in her potentially rich territories, but there is no evidence whatever that that is the aim of the present unstable but powerful establishment, nor that the ambitions, resentments and chauvinistic tendencies of
304
the party, the KGB and the military-industrial complex have yet been brought under control. We should not be too ready to believe the old communist lie that unless we are very kind to the doves, the hawks will take over. Russians, and not only Russians, respect strength and firmness. We are busy depriving ourselves and our allies of the power to say no when necessary. We must not do that.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I must first commend to the House my noble friend Lord Williams's call for a full defence review. It is a sobering experience to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, with her vast knowledge of the Russian situation and her appreciation of the many dangers existing. They are clearly a warning to us all not to come to any hasty conclusions. But that, if anything, strengthens my noble friend's plea for a full defence review. I ask myself which of the two options she has put before us is the more plausible: a powerful Russia under Yeltsin or a possibly anarchic Russia? Either of them would give rise to serious defence problems. Someone should be taking a view of how likely are those scenarios and other scenarios which might also develop. What will happen in China when Deng Xiaoping dies? Will there be uncertainty and disorder rather than continuing economic development?
It is therefore a good idea to ask ourselves, not every year but at least every 10 or 15 years, what are our interests. I believe that there are three inter-related sets of interests. First, of course, there is the problem of defence needs and the resources that we would like to have; our foreign policy interests; and, lastly but not least, the economic constraints that we face.
Perhaps I may start with the last because I have more knowledge of that area than any other. Under the various defence expenditure projections, we are set to spend 3.2 per cent. of our GDP by 1995–96. That much was clear in Defending our Future, which we debated last year. We have come down from 5 per cent. to 3.2 per cent. The whole history of postwar defence reviews has been one of a Treasury-led adjustment, something which we cannot easily escape. One of the things we should do is to ask, "Suppose we stick to between 3 per cent. and 3.5 per cent., and suppose we expect the economy to grow by between 2 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. how much can we spend in 1994 pounds sterling on defence?" We should then have a view over the next 15 years of what resources there will be to play with. There are always emergencies. There is always and always will be reconsideration. But some long-term view should be taken. Good as the most recent White Paper was, it did not take a sufficiently long-term view of the situation, and a defence review should do that.
The second question would relate to foreign policy. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, was correct to raise that question. Such a question has to be raised. Do we plan to be a major power, albeit a junior player, in the major league, or are we going to be a senior partner in a middle-range power league? Those are important questions.

305
How serious are we about the European commitment? I deplore the Government's to-ing and fro-ing with regard to the European commitment. They should make up their minds; 21 years after the signing of the Treaty of Rome we should be making up our minds as to what we are going to do about Europe. What we do will determine fundamentally how we shall deploy our defence resources. If foreign policy is a major pillar of the post-Maastricht arrangements, and if we take that seriously—we do not propose to secede from the European Union—we should ask ourselves how much the European dimension influences and affects, enhances or diminishes, the need for us to have our own defence resources.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, the experience of what has happened in Bosnia does not encourage us to have much faith in the efficacy of the European Union in making decisions. We should be strengthening the European Union's mechanisms for arriving at decisions, because such situations cannot be repeated again and again.
Lastly, we should have some view about defence needs and defence technologies. In Defending our Future some interesting distinctions were made between defence roles one, two and three. Role One had to do mainly with domestic considerations; the second had to do with the old cold war scenario, and Role Three related to the new emerging and unpredictable dangers that we face.
Subject to the sober warnings given by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, I believe that it is Role Three which will be the most frequent and most demanding, because, if there are to be unpredictable small wars—I do not say far away, but not necessarily in the classic cold war theatre—that will require a different kind of defence force from what we were used to at the height of the cold war. If that is so, how will we change direction from the classic confrontational nuclear war situation to one where we suddenly need 1,000 men here or 2,000 men there? They may need to be flown quickly to Afghanistan, China or somewhere else. A defence review should consider those three factors—defence technology and resources, economic resources and foreign policy—together. Only if we have such a defence review will we have an efficient and credible defence force.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for putting down this Motion which gives us the chance to put one or two questions to my noble friend the Minister. My interest was aroused when I wondered what the review might contain. I am astonished that there have been only four since the Second World War. My thoughts fall into four slots, most of which have been covered this evening. Perhaps I may go over some of those slots.
The first relates to NATO. My noble friend gave an excellent review of NATO, but I continue to look at what is the perceived existing threat which NATO could contain and how far the boundaries of NATO should be set. Should they perhaps include Poland, Belarus or other member states of what was the Soviet Union?
306
Secondly, what will that organisation become? It has evolved considerably in the 45 years since it was set up. What should its area of development be, particularly in relation to my noble friend's responsibilities? Is the existing balance of NATO correct? Is it flexible enough to cope with a possible conflict, whatever form it might take and wherever it might break out—in its existing area or the area which might develop?
My second slot when considering defence is of course Northern Ireland. Your Lordships may be aware that I returned with my noble friend Lord Ironside from what was called a tri-service operation. Northern Ireland is a successful tri-service operation. It is mainly an Army operation in support of the RUC, but of course there is enormous support for all the security forces from the RAF and there is an important role for the Royal Navy.
We hear a great deal about peace initiatives and other political developments, but I remember the motto of the Boy Scouts, "Be prepared". The British Army is prepared day by day to respond to new developments, and it is known for the enormous tact and discipline it uses in its operations. It has been doing that for over 25 years. Let us not forget that the number of fatalities in Northern Ireland amounts to a full House of Commons. At Question Time your Lordships have been told how many men and women of the RUC have died in action. Any consideration of defence should take account of the politics and the possibility of the fluctuation of numbers in Northern Ireland.
My third slot is Bosnia and the Balkans. General Sir Michael Rose has been quoted as saying that it would be helpful to have more British Army support. That is flattering, but is it possible? The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to the Falklands and perhaps some of our views on Bosnia and the Balkans are the same. Wherever one looks at multi-service operations, one returns to the word "overstretch". It relates not only to the Royal Navy but to the Army and the Royal Air Force. We have only to look at what the Royal Air Force is attempting to do over Bosnia and the Balkans, which is placing considerable demands upon it.
My noble friend Lord Ironside and other noble Lords gave details of our recent visit to the British forces in the Falkland Islands. The British defence forces in the Falklands have first-class equipment. There is a first-class commitment from the headquarters and the commanders through all levels. Above all, they have first-class personnel. All personnel, even those in what appear to be non-combat areas, are aware of the potential threat and are ready to react.
Everywhere I went I spoke to all ranks and was constantly asked in a friendly way about the uncertainty of the general role for the defence forces. I believe that is in my noble friend's mind and that he will consider it tonight. I say without hesitation that we are extremely lucky to have the finest men and women serving in our defence forces all around the world. They have been in Northern Ireland for more than 25 years. They are able to respond quickly and superbly in. Bosnia and, above all, as we have seen, in the Falkland Islands. The 2,300 men and women in the Falkland Islands have enormous ability. To see them puts a spring into my step and into

307
the steps of all noble Lords who have visited there. They have an enormous spring in their own steps. When I think of all our servicemen I am reminded of the great poem:
"Oh, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, go away';
But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play".
To all those who are represented by Tommy, whoever they are and wherever they serve, I wish to say that we in your Lordships' House thank them. I hope that as a result of Options for Change there will still be bands to play and not tinkling music.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, the most important lesson to be learnt in the past five years is that the Soviet Union as a military power collapsed without a shot being fired. It collapsed from within. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, pointed out so succinctly, the Russians have taken the lesson. We are seeing chapter 1.
On 23rd April 1985 we had a similar debate in this House. It was then apparent that Russia was heading for a Napoleonic solution; not for democracy. They did not want Stalinist tyranny, but certainly firm government. Throughout the Gorbachev and Yeltsin eras almost everything in the Soviet Union was criticised and discredited—the apparatchiks, the nomenklatura and the management. However, the army was not criticised. The army was a proud and self-confident spine in Russia. Apart from the Mafia, it is the only one which still exists. The army decided to stand back and to watch what was happening. Our foreign policy of trying to force democracy down Soviet throats in huge doses was misguided. In fact, if someone had wanted to set up an exercise to discredit democracy the events in Russia would have been ideal.
When Moses took the Jews out of Egypt and into the promised land after they had been in slavery for 300 years he decided to stop at the desert and to wait for 40 years; that is two generations. He did so because he considered that they were not fit to go into the promised land—it had to be the third generation. We should have known that what Moses could not do Gorbachev could not do. Free men are bred, not appointed.
The people who are learning the lesson are those in the Soviet high command. They are standing back and watching. Instead of democracy bringing freedom to Russia it has brought anarchy. If any proof is needed that democracy is not the best form, one has only to look at the markets where professors and highly placed people sell their goods in order to eat at night. The Soviet high command is waiting not to usurp power and not to carry out a coup but to be called in to restore order and, let us not forget it, dignity. The Russians never had economic wealth but they had pride and patriotism, which linger deeply in the system.
How Russia will go about that is simple. More than 100 years ago it was Bismarck's dream in an ideal world to have German science, organisation and technology, coupled with Russian resources, raw materials and labour, which was willing to work and easily managed.
308
That has been German policy for a long time. All we have to do is to remind ourselves that when Stalin in his purges had to remove his Minister who was handling the defence forces of Siberia, the man who was executed had a truly Russian name; it was Marshall Blucher.
The only hiccup was that Hitler tried to achieve that goal through rape. The present generation in Germany will do it through seduction. But the rebuilding of Russia is taking place right now. The only nation which can trade profitably and can get paid—and it is being paid because it is easy through barter—is Germany. Of the total help that has reached Russia in the past four years the Germans have given 40 per cent. more than everyone else combined. As regards anti-German feeling in Russia, you can forget it. Any Russian who can work in a German joint venture factory and be paid in soap, razor blades and the like is part of the aristocracy in Russia.
We are now seeing the Russian economy being rebuilt with the help of the Germans. America is looking benevolently on. It does not dislike the idea because it wants to see a strong continent from the Japanese and Asian borders right down to the Rhine. That is the real situation now. It affects us. We cannot see it very clearly as yet but the threat which faces us is not a military threat. The threat is posed because we have neglected our economy and we have not learnt the lesson which the Russian high command has learnt—that military power without a sound economic base is useless. I thank your Lordships.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I put down my name to speak in this debate but I am afraid that it did not find its way onto the list. I believe that the speakers to follow me have been informed of that fact.
A Treasury-dominated review of defence makes no sense—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish in any way to impugn the services that all noble Lords receive from the Chief Whip's Office. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the deadline for putting down his name to speak is 12 noon. There is no clear indication that the noble Lord did that before 12 noon. Having said that, we greatly look forward to what the noble Lord has to say.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, a Treasury-dominated review of defence makes no sense, as many noble Lords have pointed out. "Value for money" is all right when "money" is what you start with and "value" is what you want. It is when you start with value and try to spend less on it that things go wrong. Is the Treasury really asking that RAF aircrew should be deprived of RAF maintenance services? The trust that fighting people place on their maintenance people is something that accountants do not necessarily know about. The Minister must know that privatising maintenance of the equipment on which lives depend would show that the Government do not have a clue about how the forces tick.

309
Mr. Rifkind has in recent months made three speeches in which he has set out his views on the wider ranges of defence. In those speeches he unexpectedly drew attention to the paradoxical situation in which this country defends its own possession of nuclear weapons, and their war-preventing role in Europe, and at the same time harps on the need to prevent nuclear proliferation elsewhere. As he winningly put it:
"in terms of our security interests … nuclear weapons could be said to be simultaneously part of the solution and part of the problem".
Indeed. And I think we should all greatly welcome his remarks about "removing the motivation to proliferate". That is an argument that I have frequently advanced in this House.
We could have welcomed them even more if, in mentioning Iraq, he had not implied that it was Iraq which had introduced a:
"new and particularly dangerous destabilising factor [into an] already unstable region".
It was, on the contrary, Israel's nuclear weapon programme, and Israel's attack on a reactor in Iraq, that motivated the Iraqi nuclear weapon programme. And of course, other states in the region, which have signed the non-proliferation treaty have explicitly refused to sign the other conventions banning weapons of mass destruction because of Israel's nuclear weapons.
On that whole subject, I have received more than my share of the new-type parliamentary Answers. But in this case it has not been the British national interest or even the convenience of British Ministers that was served by economy with the truth: it was rather the convenience of successive United States Administrations, who have all been in such a twist over Israeli nuclear proliferation. Now if the Government do really hope to "achieve universal membership" of the NPT in 1995, Israel's nuclear weapons have to be addressed. Perhaps the Minister can at last tell us whether they are going to do that and, if so, how.
Anti-ballistic missile missiles are part of the nuclear equation. Mr. Rifkind has announced that he is conducting a
"two-year national programme of pre-feasibility studies".
Let us look around. Israel of course has a United States-funded ABM programme. The United States has been trying to perivade South Korea to buy patriot missiles. Those are the ones that did not down Iraqi Scuds during the second Gulf war. Clearly United States pressure is on.
What is wrong with ABMs is that the message to the other side is, "We can attack you, and you cannot retaliate because we are protected." This message is bad for mutual deterrence, bad for war-prevention, bad for arms control, and bad for stability in general. The question is not whether we can in money terms afford them; it is what message they send about our intentions.
Mr. Rifkind has also recognised that certain kinds of capability might have unpredictable and perhaps counter-productive consequences. Yes, I believe that this kind is among them. He has spoken wisely about resurgent nationalism, as we may be seeing it in Russia and elsewhere. His fear was the possibility of a general "renationalisation of defence": of a move away from a commitment to common security towards "purely
310
national policies". Have we not all priced ourselves out of "purely national defence policies"? For the moment the world is still subject to the discipline of plurality, but if we get too hooked in firm alliance structures, we may live to regret it.
I was encouraged by Mr. Rifkind's account of the now permanent British-French joint commission. How is that going?
I conclude by endorsing what my noble friend Lord Williams said. Getting the political possibilities straight is the essential preliminary to any defence review. Will the Minister relate Partnerships for Peace with its relationship with CSCE? It appears to me that that is the prime political necessity in the present political situation.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, there is really one general conclusion that can be drawn from the debate so far; that is, that the problem confronting any defence or foreign policy—as several noble Lords have said, the two cannot be separated—is the unpredictability of the world in which we live today. We have lived for more than 40 years in a world which was frightening but predictable. We now live in a world to which we are not at all accustomed. It is unpredictable, arid perhaps equally alarming for that very reason.
I say to those who have raised the nightmare of Russian/German collaboration that that is one of the most powerful reasons for the European Community. The idea was to amalgamate Germany within Western Europe so that such a venture could not possibly take place. It is the folly of Euro-sceptics not to recognise that. It is greatly to be deplored that in that area the Government have not made a stronger and more visible commitment. Even the most febrile Euro-sceptic must surely agree that our security and European security depend on European co-operation. That was recognised at Maastricht when it was agreed that the Community should develop a common security policy and that the instrument for that should he the WEU. Events in the former Yugoslavia over the past year indicate, as my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie said, how far we must go before that aim is fulfilled. They have demonstrated how weak the European Union is militarily without the backing of the United States and how inadequate is the decision-making process in the European Union in that area.
Its military weakness is insufficiently recognised. As I understand it, the European Union would be hard pressed to deploy three brigades, one of which would be French and one of which would be British. It is extraordinary that the United States, with a population of 250 million, has the military capacity to fight two regional wars simultaneously, whereas the European Union, with a substantially larger population, could not without outside help fight one.
According to the US Congressional Research Service, within the European Union only the British and the French are capable of independent contributions to peace-keeping, peace-making or, indeed, war-making operations. That is largely because most members of the EU depend upon conscript forces. Such forces cannot

311
easily be used outside their own territory; it is an extremely expensive way of producing an efficient army; and experience has shown that peace-keeping —and, still more, peace-making—needs highly trained and highly disciplined forces. Conscript armies, with one year's training, cannot possibly supply that. Hence, if we are to talk seriously about European co-operation in defence, it is desirable that conscription as a means of recruitment is abandoned, as is happening now in Belgium and Holland, and that professional armies should be used.
A second consideration essential to the creation and realisation of a European defence policy is the development of a common procurement policy. If we really want value for money in defence, such a policy is absolutely necessary. It is ludicrous, as I believe I am right in saying, that there should be five different battle tanks within Europe. That means five different sources of spares if action takes place. A common procurement policy would lead to larger orders and cheaper and more efficient weapons.
The European arms agency which was to be set up is still, I believe, under consideration. If such a sensible and rational procurement policy is put in practice, the agency would need a rapid and determined start within WEU, together with a remit to co-ordinate, monitor and promote armament co-operation, arrange joint purchasing and ensure that the whole matter is dealt with more efficiently.
Finally, it is essential that the decision-making process to which many speakers have referred should be improved. We must develop a system for reaching decisions better than that followed over the past few years in Yugoslavia. That decision-making process has followed the formula beloved by the British Government which is called "intergovernmental co-operation". As some of us predicted, it has been exposed as being no way to reach decisions. On the contrary, it is a means of procrastination, and in the end agreement is reached at the lowest common denominator. It was the formula which was practised in the League of Nations before the war.
Moreover, it was a consequence of watching the process lead to procrastination in decision-making and agreement being reached at the lowest common denominator that inspired Jean Monnet to create the idea of the European Community. Intergovernmental co-operation can work; but, in point of fact, it only works as it did in NATO where there is a dominating power. Where there is no dominating power, it always leads to indecision, procrastination and agreement at the lowest common denominator.
It is highly relevant that we now confront the matter which is crucial to a properly working and co-operative European security policy. There is not the slightest hope of our developing such a policy unless we do so. If we depend on European governmental co-operation to reach decisions, we can be quite sure that the same old muddle, procrastination and delay will occur which have been so deplorable in our response to the Yugoslavian crisis.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, we have had an excellent and timely debate in which all the contributions, even though some of them were not directly addressed to the need for a "defence review", have in fact helped to make out the case for it. I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for the scope of his contribution and his initiative in making the debate possible.
At the end of the day, we have to say that the case for a defence review is now irresistible. That fact was demonstrated in the debate, in particular, and most ably, by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who, I am pleased to say, has now returned to the sanctuary of this House from the other place in time to listen to the concluding speeches.
My noble friend drew our attention to the fact that we have had four defence reviews since the war—namely, in 1957, 1965, 1974 and 1981—with, roughly, gaps of about 10 years between each one. However, 13 years have passed since the last one. Not to have a defence review now after 13 years can, in my judgment, only be justified on the grounds of a peaceful, quiescent situation not calling for such an intellectual exercise. As every Member of your Lordships' House knows, nothing could be further from the truth than that as regards today.
As many speakers reminded us, we live in a time of great international turbulence. We are desperate to retain our position in Europe. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for concentrating on that aspect of the matter. I must point out to the Minister that it has been a long time since the Government cut such a disreputable figure in Europe as we are seeing at present. The Foreign Secretary, for whom we have the greatest respect, is forced to go to Europe for party political reasons, and for no other strategical or international reasons, to confront most of our partners in Europe. I also very much agree with the need for us to base our future defence strategy, especially as regards procurement, on a European-led situation.
As I said, we are desperate to retain our position in Europe —or, indeed, we ought to be—and our membership of NATO, which was mentioned during the course of the debate. We are also under pressure to sustain our position on the Security Council and our leadership within the United Nations. Those are major, strategical, political factors. They, alone, require permanent reassessment and relating to the role of our armed forces and to the quality of their equipment.
I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us that the Options for Change review was in fact a substitute for the kind of review that we are now requesting. However, most of us know that that is nonsense, as history subsequent to Options for Change has demonstrated. That may have been the Government's intention, but I believe that Options for Change has proved to be a disastrous exercise so far as concerns our strategic policies; not least because the extended political commitments which the Government have been obliged to accept to maintain all their political ambitions cannot

313
be adequately provided by the size and shape of the armed forces which Options for Change imposed upon us at the behest of 1:he Treasury.
To he fair to the Government—and looking at all those obligations through the other end of the telescope, so to speak—they genuinely wished to commit the country to play a fair part in the humanitarian relief of Bosnia, in the security of the Middle East and in the problems of Northern Ireland and elsewhere; but, taken together, they found that their willingness to undertake such obligations could not be matched by the size of the forces and the funds available to them.
The latest demands of General Rose, to whom we must all pay tribute today for his inspired leadership in Yugoslavia, especially as regards the servicemen serving under him, only illustrate that point, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, pointed out in his speech.
We must have a strategy in which we take on board all these various factors. We need to spend a moment considering the changes which have been imposed upon the forces even since Options for Change was promulgated. We can see at once of course that that was not a defence review, or, if it was, it certainly had many shortcomings. In April 1993 the navy faced a new round of defence cuts which reduced its personnel from 55,000 to 50,000. The army's strength was increased in February last year from 116,000 to 119,000. The RAF faced a reduction from 89,000 to 75,000. A further announcement was made that by 1995 the RAF will be reduced to 70,000. By the end of this year all these further changes will have occurred following on from Options for Change itself.
The changing political scene which we are now witnessing means that we not only need a defence review but one may be excused for thinking, given the state of the world today, that we need a continuing defence review permanently in place reporting to the nation and to Parliament from time to time.
We have had some discussion on the subject of Russia and the farmer Soviet Union. I am sure the House is most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Park.. and to my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Kagan for drawing our attention to the inherent dangers in the situation there. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, also referred to that matter. When the Government were considering whether to support, or not to support, President Gorbachev—I believe they made an enormous error in that regard which I ought to mention in this House and which brought into power President Yeltsin with all the possibilities of disaster which that holds out for us—they showed they did not understand the old Fabian precept of the evolution of gradualism. It was a terrible mistake to believe that that large totalitarian state could be changed so dramatically into a democratic and capitalist fortress. That was a nonsense and to the great credit of President Gorbachev he understood that one has to go slowly to make haste. He did not receive the support which I believe he was entitled to not only from this Government but also from the United States Government. We must now face up to the resulting situation and review our dispositions accordingly.
314
There are other considerations also, such as the situation in Northern Ireland, which has to be kept constantly under review. That is another matter of great concern, especially as the Government have entered into an arrangement with the Ulster Unionists which I believe will establish a large garrison in Northern Ireland for a long time. We need to consider the future of that situation. The quagmire of Bosnia has been mentioned by many noble Lords on all sides of the House. Also, I agreed entirely with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney—I believe this point was referred to by a noble Lord on the Liberal Benches —when he spoke about the difficulties posed by nuclear proliferation.
I cannot understand why the British Government continue to press the United States Government to maintain our testing rights in America. It is quite clear to anyone who has served on the North Atlantic Assembly, as I have, that the United States. Senate and Congress have no intention whatsoever of allowing President Clinton to continue these tests. I have recently been to Washington and I have discussed these matters. There is no evidence that President Clinton would even contemplate continuing the tests. The resolution of the North Atlantic Assembly to welcome a complete nuclear test ban throughout the world was moved by one of the leaders of our delegation, who, of course, sits on the Conservative Benches in another place. He was supported by all the other members of the delegation.
I believe it is necessary to say one or two words about procurement and to ask one or two questions which I believe need to be addressed. In a previous debate on defence in this House I raised the subject of helicopters. We have been repeatedly told that the EH 101 is the most cost effective support helicopter available to us. We accept that but we need to know when the Government will order these remarkable helicopters. We need to know that not only because of the helicopter's military significance but also because of possibilities for trade.
As regards the army, I could not agree more with the judgment of General Sir Martin Farndale when he talked recently about the dangers of the army being "double hatted". He says that the most serious development is the,
"absence of training above unit level. We no longer have an Army with true capability. This is not an army, it is a gendarmerie".
He concludes,
"The Options plan has been flawed from the start because it was created against financial targets and not operational requirements".
That point has been made over and over again in this House.
I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, who I am glad to see has returned to the Chamber. The noble Lord spoke of the Labour Party's policy in words that did not reflect his usual generous approach. I can only say that his statements—we strongly regret that he made those statements—show his ignorance not only of present Labour Party policy but also of the history of the Labour Party in respect of defence matters—for example, the legacy of Hugh Gaitskell. Some noble Lords on both sides of the House who are present today will remember that. I should remind the noble Lord,
Lord Ironside,that NATO was largely a creature of Earl Attlee and Ernest Bevin when, in co-operation with General Marshall after the war, they helped to create this security system which has stood the test of time. That ought to be a consideration in the mind of the noble Lord when he makes judgments about policy on these matters.
As I have said, there is an overwhelming case for a thoroughgoing defence review that is conducted with absolute integrity. It should begin by matching our international foreign policy interests to our defence capability. Thereafter it should determine how those matters can be best met by the Treasury. In conclusion, I must say that we all need to be honest about this matter —the Opposition no less than the Government. If we are to have a genuine defence review against a background of all the problems in the world that we have discussed today, we must face the fact that the results of that defence review will demonstrate to us all that the peace dividend is an illusion and to achieve it might be much more costly than some people think. We must admit the implications of such a defence review. I for one would be prepared to do so.
8.19 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, this has been a short but extremely interesting debate. I, for one, am as delighted as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, felt that defence was a sufficiently important subject for him to raise it in Opposition time, however briefly.
A number of your Lordships have used the opportunity to raise points of interest and importance in the context of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, as to whether we should institute a defence review. As all too often in your Lordships' House, time will prevent my answering all the points made. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me and will allow me to write to them instead.
Perhaps I may begin by addressing the questions that a number of noble Lords—and particularly noble friends—raised about the situation in the Falkland Islands. I was delighted to hear that your Lordships felt that the visit had been such a success. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that defence of British territory, which includes the Falkland Islands, is a first priority of Her Majesty's Government's defence policy. I hope that that reassures him. I wish to reassure too my noble friends Lord Ironside and Lord Torrington that military force levels are maintained and will continue to be maintained at a level necessary to safeguard the defence of the islands, including the other South Atlantic dependencies. Perhaps I may also reassure my noble friend Lord Torrington that we certainly have no intention of pursuing his outrageous suggestion and there is no possibility that we might be tempted to produce a unified defence force and amalgamate the three services.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, mentioned the question of oil. Rather than bore the House more than I usually do, I ask your Lordships to refer to the report of the
316
proceedings in this Chamber on 9th February when your Lordships debated the dependent territories and I was able to emphasise a number of matters in the context of the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised. I said, at col. 1600 of Hansard, that we understand the advantages of co-operation with the Argentines. I repeated our undertaking that the door to co-operation remains open and that we should like to think that that is a realistic and attractive possibility. So far as I know the situation has not changed since 9th February. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Argentine Government are extremely offended that the British Government refuse to co-operate in the matter of seismic exploration?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with his knowledge of these matters, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will also be aware that no oil has yet been discovered in the Falklands and that the arguments may yet be academic. Let us wait at least until we are talking about something other than a hypothetical situation.
Before I return to the main point at issue, I should also like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in relation to the review of the terms and conditions of service which has been announced, that there will be a very strong military input into that review, for all the reasons that he gave and with which I wholly agree.
Perhaps I may now turn to the nub of the question. As Professor Joad might have said, it all depends what one means by a defence review. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not think me impertinent if I say that I was enormously impressed by the clarity and economy of phrase with which he put his case. I hope that I shall be able to address what he said with the same seriousness.
The noble Lord said that Her Majesty's Government lacked a clear rationale for the size and structure of our Armed Forces. I wonder whether the noble Lord could have meant entirely what he seemed to imply or whether he has entirely appreciated what we have been doing in the UK defence effort since 1990. I know that the noble Lord is a fair man who studies his subject with care. He will therefore remember that in last year's White Paper, rather catchily entitled Defending Our Future, we showed that we have a sustainable set of commitments drawn up in line with our international obligations. Those commitments are supported by an effective force structure to enable us to meet them.
Indeed, that useful and important document goes further. It sets out the three roles we see for defence. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, whose speech was as interesting as his speeches in your Lordships' House always are, that he will see that the defence assets needed for Defence Role Three are virtually identical to the defence assets needed for Defence Role Two. I believe that that is clear from an examination of the celebrated Table 3 of the defence White Paper, which he and I have discussed previously in your Lordships' House.
The document then translates those roles into the list of tasks we have identified as being necessary to carry

317
them out. That is based on the sort of coherent approach and consistency which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, advocated as being a desirable basis for our overseas policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, shakes his head in his charming way, I recommend that noble Lords read the annual Foreign Office report in conjunction with the defence White Paper so that they can judge the justice of that assertion for themselves. That would include the dangers of proliferation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Howell, alluded. I am all too well aware of those dangers.
I understood the: noble Lord, Lord Williams, to suggest that we should change the basis of our approach to defence and security policies. I hope that the noble Lord will consider what has happened so far since the Berlin Wall came down. I have frequently attempted to set out in your Lordships' House since the last election the considerable progress that we and our allies have made in developing what is known in the trade as security architecture. That becomes increasingly important in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet empire. NATO has always taken first place in that context. Perhaps I can reassure my noble friend Lady Park that that will continue to be so. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, recognised the importance of that fact.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, implied that the WEU., the CSCE and the United Nations all have their roles to play. I wholly agree. It is important that we and our allies ensure that each organisation develops a role that complements the role of the others. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me that considerable progress has been made in that respect, particularly since the Rome Declaration. Indeed, I say to my noble friend Lord Lye11, who also referred to the matter, that in that way we can hope to erect a security system that is sufficiently strong and flexible to police the complicated and rapidly changing world in which we live.
At the same time, as my noble friend Lady Park never tires of pointing out, we would be extremely unwise to ignore the potential threat that Russia still represents. In that context I listened to what was, if I may say so, a most remarkable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kagan. The noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Williams, emphasised the importance of the future in Russia and what is happening there. Russia still has a massive nuclear and conventional capability—perhaps matched only by that of my noble friend herself. Russia's history over the past few months does not, to put it mildly, inspire complete confidence in her future stability. I am glad to say that that factor was recognised by a number of your Lordships. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that it is partly for that reason that we judge it wise to maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantee of our security. That is also why we have not reduced our Armed Forces to a lightly armed gendarmerie which would specialise in light peacekeeping operations only.
In the uncertain world to which so many noble Lords referred, to reduce cur existing war fighting capability
318
would be in the highest degree imprudent. I should be disappointed if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, disagreed with that, particularly in view of his own experience as a soldier. Of course, I should ernphasise in this context that I would be the last to argue that my rejection of the gendarmerie option implies that our military posture should remain the same as in the days of the cold war, for the world, as we have repeatedly said, has changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, does not feel, I am sure, in his constant demands for a review, that no change of posture is what is needed. If that is the case, I am sure that he already knows—he has politely listened to what I have had to say in your Lordships' House on many occasions, and, more importantly, he has read at least the last four defence White Papers—that our posture has indeed changed. Our forces are now more mobile, better protected and more flexible than ever before. I suggest that that reflects the unpredictability of our present geo-strategic circumstances in contrast with the more predictable and therefore less demanding static nature of the imperatives of the cold war. I am glad that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, hinted at least, despite the clearly critical tone that he adopted, that we are making something of a nod in that direction.
Incidentally, in the context of the arguments of those who favour a reduction in the capabilities of our forces to those of a gendarmerie there is perhaps something else worth remembering. I address the remark in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who has on previous occasions in your Lordships' House referred to the importance of lightly armed UN peacekeeping forces. Those who advocate such a course, as the noble Lord has done from time to time, do so in general because they suppose that the only tasks our own forces will undertake from now on will be UN peacekeeping duties. That, I suggest, is a dangerous, perhaps even courageous, assumption to make for reasons that I have already given. But even if the noble Lord were correct in that assumption—perhaps I am wrong in assuming that that is what he thinks—he may care to ponder one thing. Had our troops in Bosnia not been protected in their role as armoured infantry we certainly would have sustained many more casualties than we have to date in that unhappy theatre. Even peacekeeping operations are beginning to demand troops armed almost as though for a full-scale hot war because of the proliferation of dangers to which many noble Lords have drawn attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the United Nations, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I suggest to your Lordships, as did a number of noble Lords, that the United Kingdom has substantial responsibilities and interests beyond Europe. They reflect historical links and obligations, as noble Lords observed, and our position as a permanent member of the Security Council. The United Kingdom is a substantial power with a developed sense of international responsibility, which, we intend to fulfil.
The call by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for a defence review may refer to something a little narrower. If he will forgive me, I shall explain what I mean. I refer

319
to a review of the way my department manages defence. That means in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggested, the defence costs study which occupies so much of my time and my colleagues' time at present. I agree that all that goes with the defence costs study, and the study itself, was triggered by last year's PES settlement. However, I believe that it would be churlish not to acknowledge that as a result of that study my department has been provided with additional impetus to build on the reforms initiated during the past 15 years of my department's existence.
Noble Lords will be aware of the radical nature of the reforms and the beneficial effects they have already had in delivering value for money in defence. It is already clear that more is possible without reducing our overall defence capabilities. That is clear from some of the earlier results of studies undertaken. I believe that the present work will deliver a smaller and more effective centre, a more coherent relationship between support and front line, and a more satisfying career for servicemen and women, and civilians. Noble Lords may be interested to know that work on the study has now been in hand for over three months and some of our expectations will not disappoint.
In the context of that exercise, your Lordships will be aware that there are powerful advantages in the sheer pace of the operation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lyell that turbulence and uncertainty are bad for morale. It is important that we arrive at our conclusions speedily and equally quickly communicate them to Parliament and our own employees. As a number of noble Lords observed, they are the finest forces anywhere.
We hope and believe that we shall have made the bulk of our proposals public by July. Some announcements may be possible earlier; I hope that your Lordships will not hold me wholly to that. Meanwhile, there will inevitably be a good deal of speculation in the press, some better informed than others. None of that will prevent our continuing with business which, despite what anyone says, is still financed by the third biggest budget of any government department—over £22,000 million in prospect in 1996–97—with a procurement budget this year of over £8,000 million, which makes us British industry's biggest customer. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that air power is extremely important. That is why we are buying Eurofighter. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that it is a collaborative venture with three of our European partners. Perhaps I may also add that joint procurement often risks not being as cost effective as it might, and national pride can often get in the way of that objective being achieved. We must be practical in our approach as well as espousing some of the aspirations that he articulated.
What does the noble Lord, Lord Williams, really mean when he makes his clarion call for a defence review? It may be an unworldly thought—if so, I apologise to the noble Lord in advance—but I cannot help wondering whether he is not using that call at least in part as a figleaf to cover his party's own nakedness in defence policy, or at least its divisions. In that he does
320
at least, I understand, differ from the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who will remember that on 15th December last he called a demand for a defence review,
"a glorious escape route for Opposition spokesmen on defence".
I wholly agreed with the noble Lord when he said that. What a pity perhaps that he seems to have changed his mind at least a little this evening. The noble Lord may feel that his party indeed needs that particular "glorious escape route". I understand that the Liberal Democrats expressed somewhat different views in their European policy document Making Europe Workfor Us, published quite soon after the noble Lord used that phrase. There his party called for a defence review and tried to distance itself from its earlier demand in August 1990 for a 50 per cent. cut in defence spending by the end of the century—a distance which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, clearly sought to maintain today in remarking on the need for a strong European defence identity.
I understand, too, that the document called for a substantial reshaping of the United Kingdom's armed forces. I can easily see why the noble Lord feels that he needs a "glorious escape route", particularly since, as I have already made clear, the reshaping of our Armed Forces is already happening without the help of either the noble Lord or his colleagues.
Talking of "glorious escape routes", if I may borrow the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery—I can see why the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and his party need one. After all, we should not forget—it is perhaps a vulgarity which noble Lords will allow me for once—that the Labour Party among other things would end the UK's veto on foreign policy in Europe, would cut £7.5 billion from the defence budget—more than any one of our services spends in one year—and is committed by its conference to scrapping Trident. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Ironside recognised that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said in his little trip down memory lane, going back to 1948. Even the noble Lord's honourable friend the shadow Defence Secretary is clearly a little uncomfortable with the last commitment. Like the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, he has taken the glorious escape route and called for a defence review.
The truth of the matter is—and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, knows it—that a defence review of the kind he advocates is an irrelevance in a swiftly moving world. It takes months to photograph a situation and to devise a solution for the problems that the photograph reveals. By the time that solution is put into effect, the world will have moved on and those undertaking the review—and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, says "Hear, hear" and agrees with me rather than with his own Front Bench—will be shooting at where the bird was when the photograph was taken, rather than where it is now or might be tomorrow.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, came somewhere near to acknowledging the justice of my observation when he gave so many examples during his speech of what we have to keep constantly under review in that fast moving situation. How much better to introduce a system that is

321
inherently flexible enough to adapt to a changing world. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, emphasised what a changing world it is.
I am only sorry that what seems an obviously sensible approach to Her Majesty's Government does not commend itself to any of the Opposition parties with the occasional single shining exception of the Liberal Democrats' spokesman in your Lordships' House. I believe—if I may again risk being impertinent to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—that he has already changed parties once. Perhaps in his mode of 15th December, the time has come for him to change again and to join us on this side of the House, which is clearly where his convictions will eventually lead him.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to the noble Viscount: for his lengthy response, at least until the last five minutes. If he will forgive me, that was a rather childish knockabout. I shall just give him a small lecture on Labour Party policy and its constitution. The Labour Party will fight the next election on the basis of the manifesto which will be agreed, according to the constitution of the Labour Party. by what is known as a Clause 5 meeting. That will be the policy on which the Labour Party will fight the next election and the noble Viscount will have to wait and see what that policy is.
It is as though we are having a dialogue of the deaf. Despite his courtesy in the rest of his speech, I do not believe that the noble Viscount addressed the problems that I and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, were addressing. I can not do more than simply lay them on the table; I have done so and the noble and gallant Lord, with all his experience, supported me. That is all I can do; it is all I have sought to do this evening. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Parks Bill [H.L.]
8.43 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
It is my pleasant duty this evening to set before the House the provisions of my Bill to create new authorities to run each of the national parks in England and Wales. It is a measure that has been long awaited. Some noble Lords have been asking for it since 1951. In that regard, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Foot and Lord Sandford, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, all of whom are attending the debate this evening. We acknowledge the hard work that they have done for the national parks over the years. I am sure that they will all agree with me that the national park authorities have the vital task of running national parks and working closely with those who live and work in them. In practice, however, we now know that we have not given them the tools needed
322
to do the job as well as we would wish. My Bill now has the advantage of over 40 years of experience and aims to address that.
In preparation for the Bill I have been fortunate in having the assistance of three fellow vice-presidents of the Council for National Parks. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, joined me on a visit to the North York Moors, the Lake District and the Brecon Beacons. The noble Baroness, Lady White, also joined me in the Brecon Beacons and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, briefed me on the Peak District. I made a flying visit to the heart of that national park only yesterday.
Tribute too must be paid to the Association of County Councils. Its helpful guidance to me over the past six months has made it easier to bring the Bill before your Lordships. The association and its member authorities, along with the Association of District Councils and its member authorities, has played a key role in the history of the national parks and it is important to continue those close relations.
Creating new authorities to run the parks is a government manifesto commitment, made in response to the key recommendation of the National Parks Review Panel, chaired by Professor Ron Edwards. I shall refer to the work of this panel as the Edwards Report. Unfortunately, time has not yet been found for a Government Bill. That is why I have decided to carry this forward in a Private Member's Bill, which I see as a first-aid measure.
Before I tell noble Lords what my Bill does, I shall say what it does not do. It does not affect the statutory purposes of national parks—purposes which cover conservation and recreation—or the associated socioeconomic duty. It does not place a formal duty on Ministers or other government departments to further national park purposes, nor does it put into legislation the tests which development in national parks must pass. Here I refer to such controversial proposals as major roads or reservoirs.
It does not touch on rights of way legislation or set up new national parks. It does not in any way affect the status or administration of the New Forest. Changes in all these areas were recommended by the Edwards Report, but my Bill simply does not deal with them.
There are no national parks in Scotland. so the Bill does not touch on that important area either. It does not touch on the Broads, which has its own recent Act of Parliament. It affects only the original family of national parks.
There are seven in England: in the North, the Lake District, the Peak District, Northumberland, the Yorkshire Dales and the North York Moors, and Dartmoor and Exmoor in the South West. There are three in Wales: Snowdonia, the Brecon Beacons and the Pembrokeshire Coast. I draw attention to the importance of these three in the Principality, where they cover 20 per cent. of the land area.
As I said at the outset, my Bill has one simple purpose: to set up 10 new authorities to run each of the national parks. It is rather a long and technical Bill—

323
some 43 pages—but I make no apology for that. Indeed, I am most grateful to the parliamentary draftsmen for all the hard work that has gone into this till.
The Bill ties up the loose ends and puts the national parks on a firm footing for the future. It pulls together responsibilities relating to national parks dating from the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Countryside Act 1968, the Local Government Act 1972 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In addition, it touches on at least a further 40 Acts where the relationship with the new authorities needs to be set out. Understandably, a little recycled paper would be in order!
My Bill stems from the Edwards Report. The more I have consulted interested parties in preparation for it, the more impressed I have become at the sound judgment inherent in the report itself. Although no interest group got everything it wanted, most got something. Support for these recommendations has been most impressive.
The Edwards Report found that,
"the essence of the concept of National Parks lies in the striking quality and remoteness of much of this scenery, the harmony between man and nature it displays, and the opportunities it offers for suitable forms of recreation".
A quarter of a million people live in national parks. Creating new authorities which would enable the parks to work more effectively with local communities will be of major benefit. I also draw attention to the 100 million visits made to national parks every year. The parks are popular and legislation would result in better administration for them.
The cornerstone recommendation of the Edwards Report was that new authorities should run all the national parks. Those authorities are referred to as independent authorities, and I shall make it clear straight away that by "independent authorities" the report was not talking about quangos but about free-standing authorities within the framework of local government. That will become clear later when I come to the subject of their membership, their chairmen and the nature of the new authorities themselves.
At present we have 10 national parks designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Five in England and all three in Wales are run as committees of county councils. The other two—the Lake District and the Peak District—are run by boards.
My Bill will provide new authorities for all the national parks, building on what has worked best in the past and on what the parks will need in the future. To explain what I mean I can do no better than repeat the Government's own enthusiastic support for this key recommendation of the Edwards Report. They said that the advantages of such free-standing authorities include,
"a greater clarity of vision and self confidence, a higher profile, freedom to manage their own affairs as well as a more undivided commitment to National Park objectives".
There is a pressing reason which makes this measure timely and urgent. It is now not just a matter of being in the best interests of national parks. Other events have overtaken national parks legislation. The Local Government Commission is progressing more rapidly than anticipated with its review of local government in
324
England. That may result in inconsistent and inadequate arrangements for the parks unless their future is separately secured. We cannot risk leaving them in bureaucratic limbo. Thus, it is very important that my Bill should succeed.
The future of the parks needs to be secured regardless of what happens to the county councils that currently run eight of the 10 parks. If my Bill does not succeed, a caretaker would be left in charge of the national parks or they would be carved up among various new local authorities. That is not in their best interests. The new national park authorities set up by my Bill will be sufficiently robust to withstand changes in local authorities.
The situation in Wales is slightly different. Under the Local Government (Wales) Bill, the three parks in Wales which are at present run by county council committees would become boards. That is an insurance policy should my Bill fail. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord St. Davids for clarifying that on behalf of the Government in a previous debate on the Wales Bill. My noble friend said of my Bill:
"Were my noble friend's Bill to receive the approval of Parliament, the Government would not need to bring into effect or use the provisions of Clause 19 to create planning boards for national parks in Wales.
In the event of my noble friend's Bill not receiving parliamentary approval, however, the Government would certainly move to establish such boards".—[Official Report, 10/2/94; col. 1772.]
I am most grateful for the clarification that there is no conflict between that Bill and mine. I welcome the assurances from the Minister that the Welsh Office would also prefer that consistent arrangements be made for all the national parks in England and Wales.
Having established the background of the Bill and its status —as a Bill of general principles—I shall conduct your Lordships on a simple guide through its clauses and schedules. Clause 1 provides for the creation of the new authorities individually, or all at once, or in any combination. This timetable should be dictated by the best interests of the individual national parks. It should not wait until some convenient moment that suits the process of the local government review.
Schedule 1 relates to membership of the new bodies. The majority of the members will be appointed by local authorities. The Secretary of State will continue to appoint members with a special knowledge and expertise in the purposes for which the national parks were designated.
My Bill sticks to the successful formula which for more than 40 years has meant that there are twice as many local authority members as Secretary of State appointees, as recommended by the Edwards Report. This reflects a special mix of local and national interest as befits areas of such great importance to the nation. My Bill confirms the position of the national park authorities firmly within the local government sector. As I have said, they are not quangos.
The new bodies will comprise a majority of members appointed by local authorities plus members appointed by the Secretary of State. The local authority members will come from any principal council; that is, a county, a district or a unitary authority that has a part or the

325
whole of its area within the park. Local authority members will be, in every instance, elected members of their councils. Surprisingly, that is not always the practice at present. These changes will enhance local accountability for the parks. The chairman and deputy chairman of the authorities will be elected. They will be drawn from and elected by all the members of the authority.
There is an important change relating to the Secretary of State appointees. For the first time their allowances will be on a common basis with local authority members. That will allow a wider range of candidates, particularly young, working people, with relevant skills and interests to serve on the authorities. The countryside agencies will continue to advise the Secretary of State regarding these appointments.
I have talked about accountability, but accountability is meaningless without making clear what the functions of the new authorities will be. As I have said, my Bill does not propose any new national park purposes; it merely makes cross-references to the existing legislation on purposes arid associated duties.
The Government are already committed to introducing legislation to review the national park purposes and to clarify the parks' duties. Therefore I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a government assurance when he speaks that the Government will introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to revise the national park purposes and associated duties in accordance with the Edwards Report's recommendation.
When it comes to planning, national park authorities will continue to be local planning authorities, and responsible for minerals and waste, and for development control. Clause 4, however, changes the role of national park authorities as regards strategic planning. It presumes that all the new authorities will be structure plan authorities unless the Secretary of State determines otherwise. At present only the Lake District and the Peak District have this power. Under the Local Government (Wales) Bill the three parks in Wales are to become unitary plan authorities (strategic and local planning being rolled into one). My Bill provides for consistency with this.
In England all the parks will become structure plan authorities unless the Secretary of State determines otherwise. During my consultations I found that there is very widespread support for the structure plan option. However, the Bill gives the Secretary of State two other options using order-making powers. The reason for this discretion is that at present the outcome of the review of local government in England is unknown. He could decide to make the national park authority a unitary planning authority or he could decide that the strategic planning responsibility would best reside elsewhere. So the preference is indicated in the Bill for each national park authority to be the structure plan authority unless the outcome of the local government review suggests otherwise, as we know already is intended in Wales.
I hope that it will be the norm for each national park authority to exercise its strategic planning responsibility jointly with neighbouring local authorities. That will give the benefit of a park focus and co-ordination with
326
neighbouring authorities. There is a good example of that in the joint structure plan prepared by the Lake District and Cumbria County Council.
Of course the joint working will not always be possible as some national parks are covered by several local authorities. It is nevertheless desirable in most cases. My Bill is compatible with local government legislation which allows for strategic planning authorities to exercise their strategic planning powers jointly.
The Bill also tidies up existing provisions relating to responsibilities which have been delegated by local authorities to at least one national park authority. 'The most significant example is powers relating to local nature reserves, including the power to make by-laws. That will not take away powers either from local authorities or national bodies like English Nature. It refers only to the powers derived from the local authorities themselves.
We now come on to the financial arrangements, as set out in Clauses 8 to 10. In accordance with the Edwards Report, the Bill specifies that both local authorities and central government will continue to make a contribution to the funding of national park authorities. That reflects my earlier observations about the unique mix of local and national interest in the way national parks are run. The split will continue to be 75 per cent. of funding from central government and 25 per cent. from local authorities. So in the national parks £1 supplied locally will bring in £3 more from the Exchequer.
At present most of the parks are reliant on a gentlemen's agreement for the local authorities' contribution. The parks spend valuable time and resources negotiating that sum. The Bill proposes extending to all the parks a better system 'which is in operation in the Lake District and Peak District. Those two boards have always been able to make a levy on the local authorities for their contribution. That is more efficient and also means that the parks will be able to work with a greater degree of financial security.
The rest of the clauses-11 to 16—set out the mechanics for establishing the new authorities. Most of those relate to the rules and regulations which apply to the conduct of local authorities. As I said, the Bill is a statement of general principles. As with the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, the precise arrangements will be set in place on the order of the Secretary of State following a wide process of consultation.
In brief, my Bill will create new and effective authorities to run each of the 10 national parks of England and Wales. Those authorities will help to ensure that the parks are properly financed and that the local people who live in them will have an effective voice in their running. It is my hope that a major benefit of an improved administrative framework for each park will be that the authorities will be able to spend less time on bureaucracy and more time on working closely with all their partners. That will help to ensure that our national parks have both healthy environments and healthy economies. They should have more time to

327
devote to encouraging enterprise—for example, in farming and tourism—that is compatible with national park purposes.
The late Brian Redhead, when president of the Council for National Parks, said of the parks themselves,
"They are Not Ours but Ours to Look After".
Were he still there to interview me tomorrow morning on Radio 4, he would, I am sure, emphasise that very point. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Norrie.)
9.2 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and pay tribute to the quiet persistence with which he has pursued it over the past year, which culminated in its arrival before the House this evening. I commend also the hard work of the Council for National Parks which assisted many of us during the past few months with advice and information.
Although I cannot speak formally for my Labour colleagues, I know there is strong support on these Benches for the purposes of the Bill. Your Lordships will recall that it was a Labour Government that brought in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act in 1949 and our continuing support for the purpose of national parks is undiminished. The Bill is also supported by the Countryside Commission, the CPRE, the Association of County Councils, the National Farmers Union and the Ramblers' Association, to name but a few. I know that many other bodies give support; in fact, I have not heard anyone oppose it.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, worked tirelessly to bring the Bill forward and, as we heard, he worked closely with his fellow vice-presidents. As he said, I joined him on visits to the North Yorks Moors, the Lake District and the Brecon Beacons last year to see at first hand the existing different methods of organisation. The North Yorks Moors and the Brecon Beacons are county council committees at present, and the Lake District is a free-standing board which is the model on which the new authorities proposed by the Bill are based. The North Yorks Moors area is in the first tranche of local government reorganisation and the future administration of the national park is therefore in doubt. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is quite right to speak of the danger of leaving such an important area with a caretaker. The Bill will sort out the problem and I hope that it gains the support of your Lordships.
I now turn to membership of the proposed new authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, gave us the membership in detail and I simply want to emphasise some of the points that he made. It is a most important part of the Bill and I believe that it offers some vital improvements on the existing situation.
At present, under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, not less than one-third of the membership shall be appointed by the Secretary of State. That will not change. But there will still be a majority of local authority representatives on the new authorities and there are changes to enhance the
328
accountability of those members. The first is that all local authority members will have to be elected members of their appointing authorities. I believe that to be an extremely important change. It is not the case at present and will be welcomed by communities in the parks who have long desired a clearer link with those representing them. It accords with the recommendations of the National Parks Review Panel in which the Bill is firmly rooted—for which I have the greatest admiration —and within the spirit of increased local accountability.
The report of the panel recommended that,
"local responsiveness can best be enhanced by an increase in the proportion of district council members on national park authorities".
Schedule I of the Bill also addresses that point, though it is expressed in broad principles to cover all possible outcomes of local government review which are presently going forward and the outcome of which we are uncertain. Schedule I says that every council, be it county, district or unitary authority, which has the whole or part of its area in the park, will be represented on the national park authority. That means that if the district tier is retained a greater proportion of that tier will be represented on the authorities. But whatever changes are made in local government, we can expect a closer correlation between the national park authority and the areas within its boundary. It will be easier for local people to identify with those who represent them on the authority.
The National Farmers Union had strong views on that point and I believe the Bill meets its objections. The Association of County Councils supports the proposals but is anxious that local authority representation could be reduced by way of the orders constituting the individual authorities. I am not quite sure who is to be asked for reassurance in this case. I know that the Government support the Bill and give it their full approval, but it is introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I hope that at the end of the debate one or other of them will be able to reassure the Association of County Councils on that point.
Next I turn to the Secretary of State's appointees. Their presence recognises the national importance of the parks but they should represent areas of expertise and interest groups: local residents, farmers, business interests and so on. We should not be talking about—and I hope we are not talking about—men or women who come up from London to spend an afternoon deciding the fate of national parks. They should be, in the main, local people with something to offer. I say "in the main" because I believe there may well be some occasional exceptions to that rule. As the review panel said:
"They should be of the highest calibre",
with,
"interests and expertise in the full range of national park responsibilities".
I am glad that Secretary of State's appointees will be given allowances on the same basis as other authority members and paid for by the national park authority. We hope that these allowances, though they will necessarily be modest in terms of the national park budget, will enable a wider spectrum of ages and interests to offer their services. I strongly support the provision that the

329
chairman and deputy chairman will be elected by the national park authority members. That is a very important provision. This should help to create a positive and suppertive atmosphere and highlight the fact, which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned, that these authorities are not just another set of quangos.
Finally, there are many other desirable recommendations by the review panel which we hope to see implemented in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, listed some and there are many more. We know that the Government support the findings of the review panel and I hope that it will not be too long before they feel they can bring in the rest. This excellent Bill is a good step in the right direction and I wish it a safe and speedy passage.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I start by expressing to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, my personal thanks for his presentation of the Bill here tonight. To present a Private Member's Bill of this kind is an undertaking of considerable proportions and, as has been rightly said by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the noble Lord has been tireless in the process of consultation and seeking advice throughout the past several months.
It was said by James Boswell, after the publication of his great biography of Dr. Johnson and when that had received acclaim from one end of the country to the other, that he had "Johnsonised the land". In some kind of similar sense it can be said that during the past six months the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has done a similar service for the national parks. When he came down to Devon he was unfortunately greeted by a blizzard, but that was a useful reminder that the national parks can be pretty bleak and ferocious places. I cannot speak for the rest of England and Wales in this matter but I can assure the noble Lord that, since he has embarked upon this enterprise, the name of Norrie in my part of the world among all people interested in national parks and the countryside is now one to conjure with. In the counsels of the Dartmoor Preservation Association, which by common consent is the oldest preservation society devoted to the care of a national park and also the most illustrious of such societies, the name of Norrie is only mentioned in hushed tones of grateful admiration. I hope that all the noble Lord's efforts will be crowned with success.
The noble Lord has, unfortunately from my point of view, explained the terms of the Bill with such clarity and so comprehensively that I am wondering what is left for the other 24 of us to say. Our plight is rather like that of anyone who is called upon to speak in support of a resolution moved by Edmund Burke or, possibly, Demosthenes. My observations will be very few. I believe that there are three of them, or maybe four.
The first point is that, although the Bill has 41 pages, 16 clauses and five long schedules, it is essentially a Bill of great simplicity. I must confess in parenthesis that some of the schedules, and in particular Schedules 4 and 5, are completely incomprehensible to me because they consist of cross-references, repeals and the like. But I am of a trusting disposition and I am quite content to
330
believe that the draftsmen have got it right. I suggest to your Lordships that you should not worry yourselves over that matter.
The simplicity of the Bill is this: as has already been said in a different context, when the first 10 national parks were designated and set up under the 1949 Act, it was provided that eight of them should be managed by committees of the county councils for the areas in which the parks were contained. The other two—that is to say, the Peak and the Lake District, were to be run as autonomous authorities called "boards". They were to be run quite independently of the related county councils.
The powers and the duties which were given to these 10 authorities were virtually the same. I cannot now remember why it was that the eight committee authorities and the two independent authorities were treated in that different manner. I believe that I understood it once, but I have forgotten it in the mists of time. It does not really matter. What the Bill does in substance is to confer on the eight county council! committees, if I may call them that, the same sort of autonomous and independent status as has been enjoyed by the Peak and Lake District parks over the past 45 years. In modern parlance, that is what the Bill is about.
I read somewhere the other day that the reason for the change now is that it has recently been recommended by the Edwards review panel. That recommendation has been accepted by the Government as if it were a bright idea which has been recently thought up. That is not at all my recollection of the history of the matter. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, agrees that the question why there was differentiation between the eight park authorities and the other two has been an issue since 1951, when the parks were established.
We who have played some part in the activities of the different national parks and who have had the misfortune, if one may call it that, to be one of the members of the county council committee authorities, have laboured and struggled quite unnecessarily with the many anomalies that are inherent in that set up.
We have long looked with envy at the freedom enjoyed by the boards and authorities in the Peak and Lake Districts. Indeed, as I remember it, independent status for all the national park authorities has always been the declared policy of the Countryside Commission and of its predecessor, the National Parks Commission—I think that was its correct title. I suspect that the reason this has gone on for so long is that it is always much easier to make a mistake than it is to correct it, especially if you can correct it only by new primary legislation.
The Government have at long last seen fit to make this change, not, I fear, because of a change of heart or any special wish to enlarge the authority of the national park authorities, but rather because they have been faced with the mundane and very practical reason that their prospective reorganisation of local government will include the possible abolition of the country councils which have hitherto harboured under their wings the national park committees. The Government were bound to realise that, in their reorganisation of local

331
government, the county councils might disappear altogether. In that event, changing the status of the park authorities becomes inescapable.
The Government are not doing good by stealth. They are, I fear, doing good under the duress of reality. We are therefore left tonight in the interesting position that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is proposing this reform as a matter of high principle to the delight and acclaim of all who are concerned for the protection of the national parks. The Government, I fear, are acceding to the reform because they have to. They have, as it were, run up against reality.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships one illustration of the difficulties that have been encountered as a result of making the park authorities sub-committees of the county councils. I refer to something that happened some 30 years ago now when I was an appointed member of the Dartmoor national park committee. We were faced with an application from one of the water authorities which was seeking to build a dam across one of Dartmoor's loveliest valleys which would have obliterated one of Dartmoor's loveliest little rivers.
In those days, applications by water authorities for permission to build dams and reservoirs on Dartmoor were almost an annual event. The arguments over the applications that we received usually followed a similar line. The committee took the simple view that dams and reservoirs could not, on any showing, be said to be preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the park, which it was, of course, our bounden statutory duty to defend. We further said that, if there were a proven need for some additional source of supply, then the applicant should look elsewhere. The promoters usually argued that the need for a further supply was imperative and urgent to the point of desperation, that they had made every possible inquiry to see whether any other place could be found, and that their search had been wholly in vain: there was nowhere else, they said, to go, and there was nothing else that would do.
In every case except one, I am glad to say, we were successful in resisting those proposed developments, but in one case we failed. That produced a curious situation. The sponsors of the scheme eventually produced a Bill. If I remember rightly, that came for decision before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. On that occasion there was a new, unforeseen factor in the controversy. Our committee (the park authority) stood firm in opposition to that proposal, but the county council—which was our theoretical master, I suppose—was persuaded to support the Bill. The people who were most directly affected, or who might have been expected to be most directly affected, by the Bill, were, by an odd accident of history, the inhabitants of Okehampton. I have no doubt that they were reasonably alarmed by the promoters' assertions that without that new reservoir their water supply would be at grave risk. I suppose that they contemplated the possibility of dying of thirst. How far the apprehensions of the local community swayed the judgment of the county council to support the Bill, I do not know.
We were then faced with an almost unprecedented predicament. Did the county council's decision overrule
332
the committee's decision? If it did, were we on the committee to be denied the opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee and stating our case and our objections to the scheme? If it did not, were both the county council and the committee to be represented before the Select Committee in open opposition?
The dilemma was eventually solved by the chief executive of the county council, who was a man not only of great wisdom but of considerable fortitude. He decided and announced that since under the statute it was the committee and not the council which was charged with upholding the park and its preservation it would be intolerable that the committee should be denied the opportunity of arguing its case before the Select Committee. Equally, he said, it was unacceptable that the county council should be denied the opportunity of stating its case. I shall not trouble the House with the eventual outcome but say merely that that is an illustration of the kind of difficulties in which we were involved.
Someone once said that if any unbiased inquiry took a long look at the constitution of the United States of America it was bound to come irresistibly to the conclusion that it was absolutely unworkable. Our problems as regards the clash of interest between the county council and the park committee were not as serious as that but if the Bill goes through, as we all hope that it will, those difficulties will be behind us.
The park authorities will be given a new and clearer mandate and a new standing in public estimation. The parks and the park authorities are already established institutions in our society and their value is increasingly understood and appreciated. The news of this Bill has already won the enthusiastic support of all the organisations whose purpose is to save and protect the British countryside. High hopes have been raised. Those hopes can be realised only if the Government provide the time and the opportunity for the Bill to reach the statute book. I hope that they will attend to that.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on his enthusiasm, initiative and imagination in bringing forward this Bill, which enshrines most of the provisions of the Edwards Report. I was there, so to speak, when the Edwards Committee was set up because I was a member of the Countryside Commission for England and Wales. I do not have the slightest doubt that Edwards got it absolutely right and this Bill gets it right too.
I must confess to your Lordships that my attitude to the Bill is one of robust simplicity. My natural primitive instinct urges me to give the Bill as big a shove as I possibly can rather than to risk the fragility of all private Bills by examining too closely the small print and going along the amending path. This is the best Bill that we are likely to have within the current political infrastructure.
I had hoped to be of some use to your Lordships by covering one or two of the main points which appeal to me which have a grass roots flavour—I am thinking in commission terms. I shall pick them up extremely quickly and try to cover them in about three minutes flat.

333
As well as being a first step, the Bill is also an urgent step. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has already described the advantages of a free-standing status for the national park authorities. The Edwards Report refers to,
"the need for park authorities to make decisions in support of park purposes unconstrained by the sometimes conflicting priorities of their parent county councils".
That puts the matter in a straightforward way. While addressing that issue, the Bill also gives the new park authorities the advantage—and it is worth emphasising that—of remaining part of local government. They benefit from having the conflict removed and they benefit from remaining in touch with and responsive to local communities. That strikes a fine balance which accords fully with the Edwards vision.
I commend also the clauses relating to the role of the countryside agencies. Schedule 1 retains the obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales on appointments. Given the agreed need for a higher profile for those members and for them to represent a broader spectrum of interest and expertise, it is vital that the advisory role is made explicit in the Bill and that it is fully understood. As Edwards pointed out, the agencies are well placed to ensure that appointees are selected for their,
"commitment to national park purposes and their experience and skills in relevant fields of activity, rather than for their 'political acceptability '."
Over 10 years for the 11 parks I have interviewed scores of nominated men and women in their homes. That was not merely to see whether or not they were good enough for the job but whether they fulfilled a particular need for a particular park at a particular time. I believe that that was time well spent but I must confess that my judgment was not al ways infallible.
I welcome Clause 9 of the Bill which relates to the national park grant. That perpetuates the present procedures. It is worth emphasising that. The arrangements of functional strategies being prepared by the parks in consultation with the two public agencies as the basis for grant allocation have proved their effectiveness. That is yet another national park procedure which works.
Finally, perhaps I may offer a practical thought on the outlook for national park administration and management. There seems to be a broad consensus that the main element in this Bill—namely, free-standing status for the park authorities, which is a consensus of which Her Majesty's Government are a part—is a necessary and urgent measure. It is urgent because of local government reorganisation but it is urgent also for another reason; that of increasing pressures of all kinds on the parks demanding yet more sensitivity, more skill in balancing the often conflicting interests of park status and local community—and we must not flinch from recognising that there are such conflicts from time to time—and more sophistication in the management of land and people. Employment. the rural economy, landscape and wildlife, traffic and walking boots, local industry and conservation areas are all part of a great cauldron of decision-making which daily imposed the need for ever more Solomon-like judgments.
Moreover, we view a changing scene in the parks
334
which in turn needs deft hands. Visitor pressures will demand inspired administrative techniques, some of which are yet to be explored. How salutary it is to recall that the Peak District National Park now has over 20 million visitor days each year while the total population of Australia is 17 million. A visit to the Peak District National Park at the end of a hot, dry summer reveals starkly the problems which must be faced.
How salutary it is, too, to dwell on the underlying trends in farm policy. Can we really believe that 10 years hence the structures of hill farming and patterns of the sheep stock will still be the same? Land use changes will need to be anticipated by strong., far-seeing authorities which are firmly in charge.
Therefore, this is a good Bill to meet a critical complex of issues which faces the parks. it gives the authorities a more muscular and effective organisation with which to do their job. I wish, most profoundly, for it to find a fair wind and a safe passage.
9.40 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I, too, wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on his Bill. He must be very pleased that so many Peers have stayed late to support him. Indeed, it is right that we should do so. It is an important step in carrying forward to a new and improved phase a movement which started over 50 years ago. I am honoured to have been in at the birth of the national parks as a new, young MP in 1945.
The campaign had been growing in intensity since the 1930s. I represented an industrial Northern constituency, near Manchester. I know, and I knew then, how the workers in that smoky town and in the unhealthy mills and factories looked up to the Peak District, and other open spaces, for freedom, fresh air and beauty which they were determined to enjoy. The movement was ably encouraged by Tom Stephenson who was then secretary of the Ramblers' Association. He made his name pioneering the creation of long-distance walking routes. He was determined to secure the opening of the Pennine Way, which was over 100 miles of uninterrupted joy on the ceiling of the backbone of England above those smoky towns.
Tom Stephenson organised a series of walks at Whitsuntide—in fact, there were five of them—among Labour MPs of whom I was one. We were accompanied by Hugh Dalton who shortly beforehand had been Chancellor of the Exchequer. The objective was to forge that Pennine Way and to support the demand for national parks legislation which Lewis Silk in (then Minister of Town and Country Planning in the Labour Government) was preparing in his National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. That was a revolutionary step forward because it not only contained the concept of national parks, but it also strengthened the right of access to mountains as its title showed. Moreover, it preserved footpaths, rights of way and provided for such long distance routes.
We were enthusiastically supported, but in our view it had one drawback. We believed that we could only keep the national parks really national if there was a strong national parks commission which appointed the local parks committees. Therefore, we kept reminding

335
the local people that they were darned lucky to live in those special areas and should not prevent other people from enjoying them. That concept of ours was endorsed in the report of Arthur Hobhouse in 1947—the seminal report on the new national parks concept which was commissioned by the Government.
We were all concerned to prevent damage to the national parks which allowing the local interest too strong a say might achieve. Unfortunately, Lewis Silkin did not give way to us. I believe that he was got at by his civil servants. Moreover, I would not be surprised if the Treasury had put a foot in it, as it usually does in such affairs. We were left with the threat to the national parks which we wanted to preserve, in John Dower's words in his wartime report, as areas "beautiful and relatively wild". We were afraid that local pressures —those are perfectly understandable—would encroach on that beauty and that wildness in the form of inappropriate leisure pursuits. If one is to obtain the spiritual value of the solitary heights, one must not allow theme parks to litter an area.
There have been dangers in the interim period and we all welcomed the setting up of the review panel under Professor Edwards who found there had been,
"deteriorating environmental quality … permanent damage to the landscape".
That precious heritage which we were seeking to preserve had been damaged. It was Professor Edwards, as has been pointed out, who made the recommendation that the control of national parks should be taken out of the hands of county councils and should be placed in the hands of new freestanding park authorities. This Bill has come like a breath of life to those who care about these areas and about rambling, access to mountains, solitude, beauty, and the preservation of our landscape.
This Bill is not the constitution for which I agitated 50 years ago, but nonetheless I welcome it. One has to adapt with changing circumstances and I believe the Bill gives us the best institutional arrangements that we can hope to have all these years later. To have these independent authorities with their own finance, personnel and extra powers is a great step forward. Yet at the same time—I believe this is right—the Bill gives a strong voice to local authorities. I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly and I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. He has done a wonderful job of work.
I apologise to the House as I cannot stay to hear the winding-up speech. I shall have to leave very soon to catch a late train to my home in Buckinghamshire. However, I wished to attend the debate to say that those of us who pioneered the national parks 50 years ago welcome this step forward and believe it will meet many of the fears that we have experienced in the ensuing years.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I live in one national park, the Brecon Beacons. For 17 years as a Member of Parliament I represented another, the Pembrokeshire Coast. As Secretary of State for Wales I was responsible for both and a third, Snowdonia National Park. I believe there is only one, Exmoor, that I have not visited and
336
walked in. Therefore I have a tremendous interest in and concern for the national parks. I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Norrie on his initiative upon introducing this Bill so admirably earlier this evening. It deserves—and I hope it will receive—support from all parts of the House.
As we have heard, it is only a limited Bill. It takes one simple step and it leaves much still to be done. It is a pity that the Government have not yet found time to be able to introduce the comprehensive legislation that was promised in the document Fit for the Future. However, simple steps can be important and this one certainly is. It is the essential measure on which we can build. When the committee of Professor Edwards invited comments on its original consultation document, I was one of those who responded. I made the point—I believe it is an important point and it picks up an area that was discussed by the noble Baroness who has just spoken —that our parks in this country, unlike those in other parts of the world, are places where people live, work and play and where all the normal activities of life have to be carried on. However important the environmental interests and the environmental concerns may be, we must never overlook the rights of the people and the businesses actually housed within the parks. There is a delicate and difficult balance to be kept. If it is not kept we shall simply not be able to fulfil our objectives.
In my representations I also expressed anxieties about the way the planning process was working, at least in some parks. At that time it was working extremely badly in the Brecon Beacons park, and I made some suggestions for improving the balance of relationships within the committees which have been taken up in this legislation.
I also raised the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, touched on—namely, the threat of damage to the parks as a result of unsuitable activities. I am particularly anxious about increasing pollution and damage caused by motorbikes and cross-country vehicles. But we also have to be concerned about the damage done by the visitors who go to enjoy the parks. In Pembrokeshire they used to destroy the hedge banks. In the Brecon Beacons National Park there are areas on the Offa's Dyke walk which are stripped bare to the width of this Chamber by the footprints of walkers. One can point to many other examples.
One always likes to find that a committee agrees with one's conclusions. Therefore, having made those points I was glad that they were taken up so effectively by the Edwards Committee. Its report stated at the start that:
"The parks must demonstrate the highest standards of environmental protection and provide spiritual and physical refreshment for those seeking it. At the same time, they must develop a more supportive relationship with the communities living and working there".
On the same page the report picks up the point about intrusive and noisy activities which conflict with quiet environment. It says that those should be discouraged. It concludes that, where there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two purposes, conservation must have priority. I agree with that conclusion.
As Chairman of the National Rivers Authority I particularly welcome the preference expressed in the

337
Bill that the national park authorities should be strategic planning authorities. I am also pleased to see the prominence given in the Bill to national park management plans. They are an immensely useful instrument, not least for involving local people in the whole process of planning for the park and understanding what happens in it.
I am anxious that the National Rivers Authority should be consulted in the preparation of those plans. I should like some clarification of the relationship between the development of those plans and the development of our river catchment management plans. I should like to see a specific reference in Clause 3(7) to the National Rivers Authority in addition to the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council. That would strengthen the Bill. I hope that that can be considered.
I have a rather wider concern, which may spring simply from the obscurity and complexity of the drafting. Even by contemporary standards, it is exceptionally complex and obscure. I ask whether the Bill as drafted guarantees the requirements of existing legislation—for example, the Town and Country Planning General Development Order—to ensure that all the existing statutory consultees are involved in the planning process. I particularly have in mind the National Rivers Authority, but there are others. Will the new parks authorities have the duty to consult them in the planning process? Such matters can easily be overlooked in the drafting of a complex Bill of this kind.
Having raised the question with Professor Edwards's committee about the balance of interests, I welcome the fact that as a consequence of the Bill each local authority in the park will be entitled to at least one member on the national parks authority. It is also sensible that those representatives of the local authorities should be elected members accountable to their electorates.
However, having strengthened the district representation in that way, and having ensured that local interests are fairly represented by number, it is important to ensure that they are not unfairly represented in the decisions taken. The representatives appointed by the Secretary of State to protect wider national interests need to be strong and effective. They need to be fairly represented on the appropriate committees, and robust in ensuring that the broader interests which the national parks have been created to protect are not overborne by selfish local pressures. I should like to see a provision under which any committee or sub-committee of the authority has to have serving on it representatives from both classes. That is an issue that we can pursue at Committee stage.
It may be said that these are points of detail. The suggestion was that perhaps we should not pursue them too far and that we should take the work of the draftsmen on trust. I confess that I never take the draftsmen on trust. An important point arises here. If the Bill is to be improved, it must be improved in this House. If it is to overcome the immensely difficult hurdles presented to a private Bill in competition with the private legislation in another place we must get the Bill right in this Chamber and send it to another place
338
in a form which needs no amendment. The principles of the Bill are right. With all the uncertainties arising from local government reform, there is an urgent imperative to put the Bill on the statute book.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it is a privilege for me to follow noble Lords who have already spoken. It is always salutary to be reminded in debates of the long tradition of the national parks movement and its links with the early Labour Party. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, referred to that. It is important to ernphasise that we would not be discussing the issue tonight if it were not for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Barber. He was involved with the Countryside Commission for England and Wales in setting up this important review. As Secretary of State for Wales, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, took an active interest in all national parks. In particular, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for his consistency in ensuring that we are moving the Bill through Parliament.
In the context of Wales, it is a pleasure for me to say that the Welsh Office is slightly ahead in that we have a fall-back position in the Local Government (Wales) Bill which has now passed through this House. A model of an independent board for the three parks within Wales has already been placed in legislation in this House. If and when the Bill is enacted, the new provision will obviously replace that legislation in creating those new authorities.
I speak on the issue because, apart from when I have had to be in London or Cardiff, I have lived all my life at three points in and around the Snowdonia National Park: in the Conwy Valley, in the shadow of Carneddau; in the Wnion Valley, with an uninterrupted view of Cader Idris; and now in the Royal Borough of Caernarfon, with an uninterrupted view of Snowdon. I live in that environment from choice, as do many of us. For 18 years I had the opportunity to represent in another place a large part of Snowdonia. I am pleased to mention in this House my involvement as a vice-president of the Snowdonia National Park Society and the Snowdonia Appeal of the National Trust and the ramblers.
I mention those activities because it is important to remind noble Lords, and those in the conservation movement, that we who live and work in the parks are conservationists. We also care for our environment. There is not nowadays the conflict that there used to be between the local interests and the "national" interest referred to in the title of the Bill.
It is in that context that I also wish to pay tribute in this brief speech to the chairman of our National Park Committee in Snowdonia. Councillor John Tudor has been a long-standing sensitive and sensible chairman of a national park authority and I am aware that he is known to other Members of the House. He has set the difficult duty of park committees, which will become the difficult duty of the new park authorities under the Bill. I shall not take the time of the House by quoting it in Welsh, though I suppose I should, but in the English

339
translation the recent introduction by Councillor John Tudor to the Snowdonia National Park annual report states:
"The Parks Committee's job is to maintain the fragile balance between the very often conflicting aims of conservation, recreation and the social and economic well-being of the local people. This is not an easy task but we can only be successful in our objectives by working closely with the numerous other bodies which have their own individual objectives and above all with the local people who own most of the land in the Park and who live and work there".
I think he makes the point well that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made earlier.
I quote that introduction because in the Bill there is no change in the form of governance of the parks or in the balance of the governance. What we see in the Bill is a change of structure, a change of finance and a strengthening of representation. So those who in some aspects of local authorities have expressed anxiety in the past that there would be a move to nationalise the parks away from local representation are confounded by the Bill. It is quite clear that what we are seeing is a structure which is a change merely in terms of codifying the existing national park policies and legislation and establishing a structure of independent authorities but within local government.
In that sense, for those of us who have been following the progress of local government change, particularly in the recent Welsh Bill, it is important to stress that we may see in this model an example of what effective joint working within the local government framework might look like. We may have authorities which are comprised of a balance of local representatives. They will be very local and we hope that the local representatives will represent wards within the parks, as they sit on the authorities from the new principal councils; the councillors will represent their interests. Alongside we will have the balance, as we have it now, of those nominated technically by the Secretaries of State but representatives by nomination, as we heard in the short extract from the memoirs of the noble Lord earlier, on the advice of the Countryside Council for Wales and the Countryside Commission in the case of England.
It is a useful model. It is a model of how to provide a function for an authority which is part of local government and which, for the first time in the Bill, will lead to equal partnerships between the nominated members and the members of local government. There was the feeling in the past that the nominated members and the local members were not on a par. I do not just mean in terms of allowances and how they arrived there. The feeling was that they were not full partners in the work of the authorities. However, obviously in the structure of the new Bill that equal partnership will be possible.
I also welcome the funding changes in the Bill. It is not for me to criticise Gwynedd County Council or any other authority, but there have been instances in the past where the local authority 25 per cent. has not been forthcoming when it should have been. That has created planning problems and funding cycle problems for the park authorities.
340
A number of questions arise in the context of the Bill. There is the whole question of how the authorities will function as unitary planning authorities; what is the relationship between them and the surrounding authorities. Pembrokeshire will be within one principal council but in the case of Snowdonia it will be within two principal councils. Brecon Beacons is a rather different animal. It will be in far more councils. I am not sure how many but possibly seven. It will obviously be difficult for the Brecon Beacons to have joint planning structures with all its surrounding local authorities. We should look to ways in which the national park authorities can co-operate as strategic planning authorities with their neighbouring principal councils. One of the problems in the past has been that we have had national park policies within the boundaries of the park, or within the designated landscapes of the park; but often there can be conflict between those policies and the planning policies of authorities next to them.
I have always seen the national parks as unique landscapes; as areas where conservation had to be paramount, and balanced (obviously) with the statutory obligation for recreation and the well-being of the local community. I always favoured the idea of a third purpose. That point was discussed at some length in the Edwards Report; namely, that there should be a reference to the socio-economic position of the local population in national parks legislation in the future. That would place the national parks clearly in the context of sustainable development. That is what we are really talking about. We are talking about very precious landscapes which should become models of sustainable development, from the environmental, landscape and socio-economic viewpoint; in terms of "green" tourism; and in terms of environmentally friendly industrial development within a rural context. All that is yet to come. But this Bill marks a very important step in the direction of creating sustainable development, not only in our national parks but in all of our countryside.
10.6 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I lack the natural oratorical skill of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. To my regret, I speak only one of the native British languages. Nonetheless, it is with great pleasure that I offer my strongest support to my noble friend Lord Norrie in carrying forward this Bill. I add my congratulations to his already well-swollen head.
It falls to me at this stage of the debate to emphasise the ways in which the proposal in this Bill to create free-standing national parks will offer potential benefits to nature conservation. First, as was emphasised by the noble Lords, Lord Foot and Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, the existence of these authorities will increase the independence of park administrations from pressures which are unsympathetic to the natural environment, or, indeed, to other purposes of the park. Among those, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, emphasised, recreation and public enjoyment are vital considerations.
I remind noble Lords that the national parks of England and Wales are repositories of biodiversity and the sites of rare species. Their value in that respect was

341
recognised when the parks were first set up. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, has already reminded us of the Hobhouse Report 1:Cmnd. 7122), which stated that,
"The establishment of a system of national parks covering extensive areas of wild country will itself increase the potential protection of many species which cannot be included or confined within any reserve".
We have to recognise that Professor Edwards's panel identified a decline in the nature conservation resource in parts of the parks. But for the past 40 years or so, it has, in the main, been true that they have been important for nature conservation. The national parks still contain extensive areas of land and water that are of great conservation value. They also contain many sites of special scientific interest and national nature reserves.
Because it shaald foster the protection of these important areas and the enhancement of their value for nature conservation, for landscape and for people, this Bill is a very welcome step. I have the confidence to make those remarks being a Secretary of State's appointee,—not one who bustles up and down to London, as one might say of the noble Baroness, but one who is largely there most of the time. I am the Secretary of State's appointee to the Suffolk and Norfolk Broads authority. That is a successful model, similar to, but not exactly the same as, the kind of free-standing authority that the Bill will create. The Broads authority is a multi-purpose authority with duties for nature conservation, public amenity and recreation and, in this special case, also for navigation. It is not covered by the reach of the Bill because it also has its own Act of Parliament.
The Broads authority provides experience of a national park equivalent body that is working in partnership with others to achieve its objectives. It exercises its statutory planning function with the assistance of the constituent local authorities into which the Broads executive area extends. Confidence is maintained by the balance of representation which marginally favours local authority members. At the same time, its appointed members—if I can say so without immodesty—bring expertise from all quarters. They include landowners and land managers, navigation and boating interests, public bodies, including the National Rivers Authority, the Countryside Commission and English Nature, and voluntary organisations from within the local communities. The authority has powers to levy on the local authorities. Those are accepted and the high level of grant from central government allows it to fulfil its functions effectively from a position of strength. It is a useful model that gives confidence for the future of the new authorities proposed in the Bill.
The Bill does not propose any changes to the statutory purposes of the national parks or to their associated duties. I remind my noble friend the Minister that the Government clearly stated, in the recently published biodiversity action plan that,
"there should he legislation to make nature conservation a primary National Park iDurpose".
The Bill is therefore a first step in a process. The context of the biodiversity action plan or the national sustainahility strategy may be the appropriate mechanism for future legislation which should take on board the
342
nature conservation purpose and other recommendations made by Professor Edward's national parks review panel.
I join my noble friend Lord Norrie and others in asking the Minister for assurance that the objective has not been lost sight of. I hope that he will confirm that future legislation for the benefit of nature conservation resource in national parks is on the timetable. Also, does he have any view of when the legislation may be introduced.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foot, speaking second in the order of speakers this evening, lamented that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, had covered the subject so comprehensively that there was precious little left to say. Nonetheless, my noble friend found quite a lot to say. Imagine the plight of the rest of us who, like myself, coming in ninth and subsequent in the batting order, in finding anything at all to say. But one thing I can do, along with other noble Lords who have already spoken, is to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for his patient and persuasive skills in getting the Bill drafted, accepted, and given a fair wind by the Government. I thank him also for his kind reference to myself.
I prefer to strike a positive and appreciative note rather than to regret the Government's delay in bringing forward their own legislation on national parks, as they promised to do in their manifesto for the current parliamentary programme. Like everyone in this House, I pray that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will become law during this Session of Parliament, especially so in the light of prospective local government reforms.
I should also like to place on record the long and persistent efforts of many others, both within and outside Parliament. I am happy to make a special reference to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—I am not sure whether it is proper to refer to distinguished personages who are seated behind or below the Bar, but I am happy to do so. He campaigned for upgrading the status and strengthening the powers of the national park authorities for many years past.
The review panel under Professor Ron Edwards did an excellent job in its report to the Countryside Commission in 1991 entitled Fit for the Future. But the commission itself, under the splendid leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, had already conducted a three-year campaign for the national parks between 1985 and 1988 under the title Watch Over National Parks. I am happy to pay a special tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Barber, in that connection. The Council for National Parks, the CPRE, the CPRW and others, whose origins date from much further back, had all called for a stronger administration for the eight parks which are run by local authorities. Indeed, the Standing Committee for National Parks, which pioneered the movement in the 1930s, launched a campaign in 1972 which included a call for equal treatment as between all the parks. The SCNP was to become the Council for National Parks, of which I was privileged for a number of years to be the president.

343
It is worth recalling those early years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, did so movingly, of the national park movement which led up to the 1949 Act in order to make the point that the Addison, Dower and Hobhouse Reports, which led to that Act of Parliament, all assumed that the future parks would have equal status and powers. The first two national parks, designated in 1951, set the pattern which it was expected would be followed by all the parks to follow. The Peak District Park and the Lake District Park were then, and are now, controlled by independent boards, having full planning powers, precepting on local authorities for funds and appointing their own staffs.
When in that same year, 1951, the Snowdonia National Park was created, the local county council, Caernarfonshire—or, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, Sir Gaernarfon—insisted on retaining control of its administration. That park "authority" was not, and is not today, a true authority. It was a committee of the county council. All other local authorities in whose areas national parks were designated by the Act of 1949 followed suit. In effect there were, and are, two grades of national parks, unequal in status and powers.
It is in no sense a criticism of the national park committees nor of the local authorities in whose areas they are located to point out the limitations under which those committees have worked. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Foot of the kind of limitations which they worked under. They hampered strategic planning in the eight parks in terms of conservation in general, landscape protection, public access and quiet enjoyment.
I have been purely historical so far and I would insist that that is all water under the bridge. It all happened 40 years ago. But now the pressures for land development are greatly increasing. It is in the national interest that all the parks should have greater protection today by placing them all on an equal free-standing and firm footing of independence on the model of the boards which administer the Peak and Lake District parks.
The Bill must not be the end of the matter of ensuring our national parks for the future. I, too, hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government have in mind to bring forward further and more wide-ranging legislation relating to the countryside in general and designated areas in particular.
I end on a proper note: the future. We have a heavy responsibility to hand on these very special places to future generations. They were perceived as necessary for the health and ethos of Britain nearly 60 years ago. How much more necessary they have become today; and how much more so will they be in the future. We, and our descendants, will need the parks for their own sake and no less for the values which they offer to human society.
10.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I too should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for bringing forward this Bill. I can assure him
344
that his long track record of concern in this House on behalf of environmental causes is widely admired within the Church.
The matters which I would wish to share with this House are not directly and immediately about this particular Bill, but rather to ask some questions about the principles which undergird it. There is still a widespread assumption that, whereas the Churches are deeply interested in social policy, they are much less interested in the environment. Regrettably, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth pointed out in a recent debate in this House on the follow-up to the Rio Earth Summit, the Christian Churches have a very patchy record indeed.
But at that Rio Earth Summit there was a parallel meeting in less salubrious circumstances in Rio, of Churches from across the world. In the discussion which took place the intention was to draw out the relationships between human beings, human community activities and the environment. I believe that they have something to say to this House about that which underlies this particular legislation.
Our inherited, main Christian stream of thinking has been to see human beings as of supreme importance, the pinnacle of creation, and given the task of subduing unruly nature and bringing order out of chaos. Such a strand has been taught for many years and has supported an arrogant and exploitative approach to natural resources.
There is a new anthropology—no, a rediscovery of a strand which has been there all the time—which says that human beings are of the earth earthy, with the responsibility of continuing to share and care for the creation, mindful of the needs and interests of their neighbours, of future generations and of the value and worth of creation itself. It is this principle that finds, I believe, important expression in our national parks. They are places above all, and may be an example to all, where we try to develop the attitudes and disciplines on which to base sustainable development which does not spoil and destroy the future. Such sustainable development demands self-discipline, humility, reverence for nature and respect for the interests of the wider community and future generations.
I said that this undergirded the present legislation and our concept of national parks, but also that our national parks might be an example to the rest of the whole community in which we live, in balancing these concerns together. But sustainable development cannot escape the conflict of interests which are present in our own national parks. As we have already heard, conservation is part of that, but the livelihood and economic development of those who live and work within our parks are also of concern, involving such matters as housing, mining and quarrying. Balanced against these are the recreation, restoration and enjoyment of the citizens of this country.
Balancing such, at times conflicting, interests, demands a strong and broad-based authority to manage each of our national parks. Against this background I hope that the House will start with a strong presumption in favour of this Bill. In fact all the speeches this night have concluded that that is the right way forward. It

345
represents a great deal of careful consideration given, as we have already heard, by Professor Ron Edwards and his committee in its report to the Countryside Commission. It is important to remember that they listened to lobby groups; they listened to vested interests; they affirmed the integral importance of the people who live and work in the parks to the nature of our national parks as living and evolving places rather than wildernesses. Bearing that in mind, the committee also came to the clear conclusion that the legislation needs to be strengthened to safeguard the unique place of the national parks in our national life.
The Bill is needed quickly if the national parks are not to go into limbo. It is needed because they require a free-standing body with a majority of local authority and local members. Two principles are involved: subsidiarity and accountability. Both are to be found in the Bill. I hope that the House will give this Second Reading its full support.
10.25 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the national parks are lucky and their cause is enhanced by the fact that my noble friend Lord Norrie is the sponsor of this Bill. I know a little bit about my noble friend as a sponsor because I was lucky enough to have him as one of my sponsors when I became a Member of your Lordships' House three years ago. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that there is a good chance that my noble friend will be recognised when he next visits Dartmoor. That is particularly appropriate. I am reminded of the fact that a few years ago, when one of the Dartmoor park wardens visited a local school wearing his green jersey with the black horse on it and began by saying, "Well, children, you all know where I come from", a little hand went up and someone said, "Yes, sir, is it Lloyds Bank?" That confusion could not possibly arise in relation to my noble friend Lord Norrie
I believe that the idea of having national parks was copied originally from the United States. Since then, however, the United Kingdom has been in the vanguard of the conservation and enhancement of the countryside. Government bodies such as the Countryside Commission and English Nature have played a part in that, as have voluntary bodies such as the CPRE, of which I have recently had the honour to be asked to be chairman, and the CI'RW. This country has an awful lot to teach other members of the European Union, and I believe that the Bill will provide a good path-finding demonstration.
I want to touch on only two points this evening because the hour is late and many of your Lordships wish to speak. I refer first to the question of planning. I hope that one of the big improvements that will result from the Bill is that the new authorities will be given a realistic and effective responsibility for the parks' structure plans. It would be desirable for the park authorities to collaborate closely with their neighbouring strategic planning authorities in exercising their planning powers. That is the basis already in the Lake
346
District, where the authority produces a plan jointly with the Cumbria County Council so that policies are co-ordinated. Each is an equal partner in the process
That may not be possible everywhere; for example, if there are too many such authorities, as in the case of the Peak District. As your Lordships know, the Lake and Peak District authorities are already structure plan authorities. I hope, however, that with this legislation the Minister will be able to ensure that in the future the new park authorities will at least consult closely. The ideal will be for each national park authority to be a structure authority unless it chooses not to be. I hope that when the Minister answers the debate he will be able to give us a little more detail of the Government's plans of how they will operate the legislation.
My second point relates to the importance of the Bill to the socio-economic interests in national parks. That has already been dealt with by a number of noble Lords, and particularly by the right reverend Prelate. I have a particular interest in this as a former member of the Rural Development Commission. I know that my noble friend Lord Vinson, as a former chairman of the RDC, would have wished to refer to that had he been able to be here.
We must remember that parks are places where people live and work. They must not he regarded as museums to be preserved in aspic. The NPAs should have a real role in supporting the local economy and contributing generally to the health of rural communities. Such projects are not just fully compatible with but enhance the parks themselves. People do not wish to go where they are surrounded by other visitors. In fact, if one is travelling anywhere and one wants to see oneself as a traveller rather than a tourist, the exciting thing is not to see other tourists but to see local people going about their everyday jobs.
I hope that the Bill will enable the NPAs to work with others to foster the social and economic well-being of their communities. The National Parks Review Panel made it clear that the NPAs have a part to play, and,
"an enabling role in the maintenance and creation of appropriate employment opportunities that contribute to park purposes. The issue then is one of identifying, supporting and fostering those economic activities that are sustainable and compatible with the purposes of national parks".
There is a good example which I hope will be encouraged by the Bill. The Peak District, already a free-standing board, as I have said, piloted a most successful integrated rural development project in the 1980s. Emphasis was placed on collaborative action combined with local initiative and commitment. It created 60 new full-time jobs and helped 24 businesses and 43 community schemes. All of that contributed towards environmental conservation in the park. I remember visiting the Peak District park with the noble Lord, Lord Barber, when he was chairman of the Countryside Commission. Incidentally, that was the first time that I met Michael Dower, the son of John Dower of national park fame, who was the creative and driving force behind that project. Of course, he is now doing an excellent job as the Director General of the Countryside Commission.
The new NPAs are ideally placed to prime the pump of similar initiatives. That should be able to contribute

347
to the health of rural economies and to the sustainable development which is the Government's goal. I welcome the Bill strongly. I hope that it will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House and I hope even more that it will have equal success in another place.
10.33 p.m.
Lord Feversham: My Lords, I join everyone else who has congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on bringing to us this timely Bill. It is timely in view of the mayhem which we are led to believe will be unleashed shortly by the Government on rural local government, producing, I have no doubt, widespread discontent and unrest in the countryside, almost certainly leading to massive Liberal Democrat gains in the shires at the next general election, always supposing that they can get their act together on country sports. Talking of country sports, perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on the magnificent pictorial spread in a recent issue of Field magazine, available, I feel sure, in the Library, and showing in glorious colour the noble Lord relaxing in open country—I do not know whether it is a national park—in the company of his dog Gnat, or perhaps like Gnasher, the dog of Denis the Menace, the G should be hard, and it should be the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and his dog Gnat. He is explaining to his pet the opinion of the National Parks Review Panel that,
"The present requirement that dogs must be kept under control is insufficiently precise".
The noble Lord is giving Gnat that news, I guess, but noble Lords will, of course, want to judge for themselves, in terms certainly not less quiet and masterful than those which he employed in introducing the Bill.
It is late, and I hope that I shall not delay your Lordships for too long, given that I come to the debate armed to the teeth with an action packed brief from the secretary of the National Association of Local Councils, of which I am the president, and given that I live in the North York Moors national park and have views. As of a few weeks ago, I also live in a national nature reserve because my garden was declared as such. I do not know whether that is because I am a particularly rare kind of insect or what! Nevertheless, I live in a national nature reserve as well as in a national park.
In general I support the view that we need new national park authorities, as recommended by the review panel in the Edwards Report. The great sadness is that tonight we are not debating a Bill which promotes many of the issues in respect of which Edwards felt there was need for further legislation. I understand the reasons for that and for the pressing need to bring forward in a Private Bill new authorities for the parks. As one observes the mode, timing and progress of the Government's approach to the reform of rural local government, the desire to cling on to anything by way of a passing life raft swells in the bosom.
I also support the view that the membership of any new national park authorities should be made up of a majority of elected local representatives, much as they
348
are now. It would not be in the interests of parks to become quangos. Local interest must be built up in their activities if they are to prosper.
In the terms of the Bill, membership of the new authorities is something of a detail. However, it is a very important detail, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said. We must look at that matter. I understand the expediencies required in steering a Private Bill through Parliament. This is an important Bill which I too wish to see on the statute book. Normally, I am as keen as the next man to rock boats but one tends to take stock before rocking the lifeboat!
In the Bill, although not in his speech where he was more forthcoming, the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has made gigantic efforts to avoid entangling himself in the hapless entrails of the Government's avowed intentions for rural local government reform. He has adroitly skipped past county councils, district councils and unitary authorities by producing an act of creation worthy of the noble and almighty Lord. With much writhing and anguish, he has given birth to that fine new beast "the principal council". Increasingly, one imagines that large numbers of civil servants and all those who have to lock horns with them are forced to spend much of the working day inventing names for these organs of local government. We pay our taxes to support them in this mighty endeavour.
I am not a county councillor or a district councillor. I am a parish or local councillor, which in a world of unitary authorities, for example, would mean that I was the only councillor who was not a principal councillor. It has long been the agreed policy of the National Association of Local Councils to press for one or two seats at the table of national park authorities to be filled by representatives of the parishes in the parks.
Historically, two main arguments have been produced against our case, both of them specious. The first suggests that the numerous small parish councils in each park would find it difficult to agree on who their representatives should be. We know that that is nonsense as we frequently carry out just such appointments to regional and, indeed, national bodies.
The second argument has been that the local authority members of park authorities should bring with them to the table a dowry from local taxation. Parish councillors are elected representatives, even though they operate on a small proportion of the community charge and would not be able to bring anything in the way of a dowry. However, the community charge payer should pay only once to the national park while being more than happy to have representatives of park parishes on the authority under the umbrella of the dowry of the principal authorities, which should still command a majority in committee.
I do not know what idea was recommended in Edwards, but in my view districts should not pay a dowry. The community charge payer should pay once through the principal authority. We are not convinced, as noble Lords should not be, of the arguments promoted against parish council representatives on national parks. Edwards suggested increased district

349
council membership on national park authorities because he identified a pressing need for the parks to get closer to their communities. The report says:
"There is a need to bring together the aspirations of the local communities with the pursuance of park purposes, and to minimise the conflict between them".
I ask your Lordships to note that there is conflict which needs to be minimised.
Again, from evidence received by Edwards, we learn that,
"local people consider that their interests are not properly represented".
In other words, th,. principal authority, with a dowry system employed at present, does not work in that respect.
The National Association of Local Councils told Edwards to get some parish councillors on the board. Edwards baulked at that, the panel heads no doubt spinning with dowry thoughts and fears of the conflict among the parishes in choosing their representative. However, Edwards had to solve the problem that local people did not consider that their interests were properly represented and that there was conflict. Thus, the idea was hit upon of dishing out more seats to the district councils; that would do the trick. Indeed, it may have done the trick were it not for the prospect of local government refer with the favoured option of the Government being unitary authorities which will be necessarily larger than districts and make local government more remote from local people than the present two-tier system.
It is likely to remain the national policy of local councils to press for local council members on national park authorities. Parish councillors in national parks have a beef about it and where parish councillors have a beef, it will be difficult to resolve the conflict. The best way to deal with that would be to give them a seat at the table.
However, apart from that, there are other ways which should be pursued to minimise conflict; namely, by courting local councillors. Edwards suggested that national park authorities should do so. It is suggested in particular that there should be systematic consultation with local councils regarding planning applications. In my experience, that is essential. It is suggested also that there should be regular forums with local councils to explain the implications of policy developments and to hear the aspirations and problems of park communities. I feel sure that that would be progressive. I understand that such a forum already exists in the Peak Park and I know that there is an Association of Local Councils in the Dartmoor Park which I feel sure would be raring to go with a forum. It strikes me that one advantage of such a forum is that a large number of parishes within the parks, if not all of them, could be involved with the forum and could be represented.
I believe also that it is hoped to set up advisory panels on the new national park authorities with representatives of various interests within the parks. It seems to me that parish councils have such an interest and could profitably be represented on such panels. In all those ways, I believe that i would be extremely helpful to the national parks to involve local councillors as much as possible in order to minimise conflict. Experience
350
suggests that a clear lead from the Government in stressing the need to work with local councils is helpful in making the kind of orders envisaged in the Bill.
That brings me to my final point which does not concern local councils but worries me somewhat. Local government members of national park authorities should include a significant number elected for wards actually situated in the national parks. Unless that is so the areas of conflict in the parks can only increase Edwards recognised that by suggesting that one-third of local authority representatives —those from the districts —should represent electors in the parks. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, believes that the wording of Schedule I will achieve something approaching that. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and one or two other noble Lords say that the Bill will produce greater democracy for people who live in the parks. I am not so sure. They may well be right, but I have a fear in that regard. I should like the Bill to be strengthened if possible. They may be right in the majority of cases but the Bill provides that the park authorities shall be composed of persons appointed by every principal council, any part of whose area is within the park and that appointments must be of members of those councils. I agree with that. The Bill provides further that regard must be had to political balance when appointing members. Since at present, and under most likely scenarios for reorganising local governrnent, many appointing authorities will have substantial areas not in their parks, it is possible that only a small number of appointees will be sitting for electoral areas actually in the park.
Given the likely size of park authorities, there is a real risk that the inhabitants of a park may see themselves excluded from proper democratic input into bodies supposedly designed to give them such. That democratic deficit could be exacerbated if., given the higher profile and the autonomous budgets of the new authorities, leading members of appointing councils were to serve in preference, for example, to local sitting members.
I should like to hear any views which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, or the Minister, when he comes to reply, may have on that aspect. They may say, "Well, we can work out the details to cope with it when we come to make the orders". However, like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I would prefer to see something written into Schedule I to say that local authorities should not only have to take account of the political balance—that is already there—but also the balance of their appointees who actually represent electors in the park as against those who do not. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It is a matter of balance. I am only concerned that we should get the balance right. In that respect as regards local councillors, Edwards thought that about half-and-half was the right balance.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I must, first. declare a personal interest in national parks, in that, for the past decade, I have had a Welsh base just south of Llangorse Lake in Brecon Beacons National Park. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, also lives in that park, as does

351
Professor Edwards, to whom justified tributes have been paid throughout the debate. Indeed, he is well aware of local needs and circumstances. Prior to that, I had a Welsh home within a few miles of the Snowdonia National Park. I cannot claim such close affinity with the Pembrokeshire coast park, which has its own special characteristics. But it is with a reasonably long record of personal experience that I declare my full support for the Bill now before us.
I am looking at the clock. It is not only my noble friend Lady Castle who has to find her way home. I have come to the conclusion that the kindest thing that I can do is to show restraint and not make the speech that I should quite like to make. We are only half-way through the speakers' list; indeed, I believe that I am number 13 on it. I have two distinguished noble friends on the Front Bench to speak for me, both of whom have Welsh connections and will, I am sure, wish to discuss the significance of the Bill, which we all welcome in the Welsh situation. Having said that, I shall now sit down.
10.47 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norrie must be congratulated for his determination in introducing the Bill and for the hard work involved. I believe that everyone who is concerned and interested in the future of national parks is most certainly indebted to him. I am sure that we are all committed to the concept of national parks as places where natural beauty is protected and as an environment in which people can peacefully enjoy their leisure time. We set great store on both aspects of their purpose—conservation and enjoyment.
Obviously there are times when the two parts of that twin aim run counter to each other. A balance has to be struck to ensure that usage does not damage the fabric or that conservation does not stifle the natural life and economic well-being of the local communities—that is vitally important—and nor should it debar the park as a facility for recreational enjoyment by those from other areas, especially urban dwellers.
There are many organisations using the parks for recreational purposes. The Caravan Club, of which I have the honour of being vice-president, is possibly one of the largest of these. I wish briefly to bring to the attention of the House the views of the Caravan Club on the relevance of this Bill to it. The Caravan Club is typical of a large and well controlled recreational organisation which, through its administrative and management structure and its codes of conduct, ensures that its members enjoy their hobby in a responsible way. An example of this is recognition and observation of the special rules which govern caravanning in the national parks. In this respect the staff of the Caravan Club find it much more efficient to work with those parks where single authorities already exist than with those where it is necessary to deal with a variety of local authorities each of whom controls part of the park.
Experience suggests that the essential balance of interests is best maintained by a single authority with the entire park, and solely the park, as its sphere of interest. Such an authority is also best placed to set
352
consistent, fair and high standards on all questions of development and usage. Valuable two-way relationships can be developed between single authorities and main users but those between the users and a number of different authorities, each perhaps with different perceptions, are much less efficient. For this reason the Caravan Club, and I am sure similar organisations, are very much in favour of this Bill.
I was particularly interested in a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, that there should be better liaison between the national park authorities and parish councils. Surely it is essential that the people who dwell and earn their living within the national parks are adequately consulted for they are the people most affected by all proposals and plans. By and large they are also the guardians of the environment within and the beauty of the parks and therefore the idea of a parish council forum in each national park is surely to be welcomed. A parish council forum has the virtue of enabling all parish councils to join in and discuss policy and issues of park-wide significance as opposed to individual parish concerns. As the noble Lord said, they would also be able to feed back the problems and aspirations of the park communities. This builds on the recommendation of the National Parks Review Panel that the,
"consultant arrangements between the NPAs and the Parish and Community Councils should be strengthened"
When the National Farmers Union submitted its view to the Edwards Committee it expressed concern that the credibility of some of the national park authorities was in doubt in respect of how representative their members were of local people in the park area. Even with all the local authorities nominating a member to the national park authorities, the NFU is concerned that there is a possibility that those appointees may well live in urban areas outside the park boundaries and have no first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day problems or activities of the local people. I share that concern and I endorse the recommendation of the National Farmers Union that national park authority membership should consist of one-third appointed by the Department of the Environment, one-third appointed by the local authorities and one-third directly elected by voters living within the park boundaries. That recommendation seems to be well worthy of consideration for it would ensure that local communities are well represented. After all, they are the people directly affected by the activities of the national park authorities. I cannot stress too strongly that in my opinion it is vital that the national park authorities co-operate fully with the local community, and they must listen to and work closely with all the farming community in the more remote areas. Without that co-operation the Bill will not achieve all that we hope that it will.
I strongly support the Bill and I wish it a speedy passage through your Lordships' House and another place. I hope that we can prevent the whole question of national parks becoming enmeshed in local government reviews.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, in view of the hour I shall certainly follow the fine example of the noble Baroness, Lady White, in being brief, as I have frequently attempted to do in the past.
I should like to add my word in praise of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for bringing this Bill forward. It has many merits, but it has one great merit in that it is of narrow focus. It is therefore possible to deal with it without extending Jiscussion into more difficult areas which it is to be hoped the Government may deal with in due course in their own Bill.
I am particularly interested in the conservation and enhancement of the countryside because I am chairman of the recently formed Sussex Downs Conservation Board. We have the same concerns and interests. I should have liked to speak this evening on the social and economic factors to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred briefly, but it is better that I should omit that section of what I wanted to say and confine myself to one question to the Minister. In this case I believe that it is correct to put that question to the Minister rather than to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, because the answer will depend on his view and his action.
That question arises in the context of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, relating to the membership of the authorities and in particular to the number of members. The Edwards Report recommended that national park authorities should normally comprise between 18 and 24 members. I recognise the force of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, and it seems to me that that is a wise proposal. It enables the authority to function effectively and not be so large and diffuse as to be incapable of taking decisions. On the other hand, there is the need for proper representation within the councils of the authorities of those who live and work and have their livelihoods within the national parks.
It would be interesting to learn of the Government's view on that point, either this evening or at a later date when the Minister has had an opportunity to consider the matter further in the light of what has been said tonight. Both factors are vitally important, and I do not put the effective management of the parks in second place. Both are equally important, and I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's response.
10.58 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I too wish to become a member of the Lord Norrie appreciation society. I shall try to be brief. I should like to concentrate on one area of the Bill, namely paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. I, too, warmly welcome the undertaking in the Bill that any council —any county, distric: or unitary authority—whose area falls wholly or partly within the park shall be entitled to appoint at least one member to the national park authority. That is no: the case at present. Although at present every county council appoints members, there are district councils which share members through a
354
rotation system. That need to share is because there are not enough district council places for each to have one place all the time.
For example, in the Peak District National Park, three district councils—Staffordshire Moorlands, Macclesfield and North East Derbyshire—share two places on a four years on, two years off basis. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred to the Brecon Beacons. In the Brecon Beacons, Dinefwr, Blaenau Gwent and Monmouth share two places; and Torfaen, Cynon Valley and Merthyr Tydfil share just one place. That is hardly satisfactory.
In its extensive consultations, the Edwards review panel found that over local issues many' people relate more closely to their district councils than to their county councils. The guarantee in the Bill of representation is therefore most welcome.
I have a specific question that relates to that aspect. Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3) states that the Secretary of State may make provision for excluding a council from appointing a member of the national park authority but only at the request of that council. I understand from my noble friend Lord Norrie that that provision is included in case there is any local authority with such a small area of land in a park that it would prefer to opt out from making an appointment or a financial contribution. I should therefore be most grateful if the Minister could clarify how the provision might operate and the area that he has in mind.
There is a related point on membership of national park authorities. The Edwards Report recommended that district council members should, wherever possible, represent wards within the national park area. That would go some way to addressing the concerns of local communities that their interests are not always properly represented. Therefore perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. How will the Secretary of State make provision for this to be achieved where possible'? And after local government review, where unitary authorities are set up, what logic will apply to achieve a similar effect under a unitary local authority structure?
I wish the Bill a safe passage and trust that it will riot be too long before I visit an area of park named the Norrie Plantation.
11.3 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my congratulations to and admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The hour is late and I shall endeavour to follow the wonderful precept of the noble Baroness, Lady White, and be brief. Almost every thing that I could have said has now been said.
The Bill gives precise legislative recognition to the central recommendation of the Edwards Report. It is a well crafted recommendation, and one which was endorsed by the Government as long ago as 1992. Applying the national parks structure which has been so successful in, first, the Peak District and then the Lake District is a simple concept. Subject to satisfactory clarification of one point, and with. regard to the other points raised, there appears no wish to see the Bill amended. It seems to me to serve admirably the recommendations of the Edwards report.

355
As some noble Lords know, I have the honour to be chairman of the National Trust. I think we can fairly claim some interest in national parks and how they function. We own over a quarter of the Lake District National Park; we have major landholdings in the Peak District; we have major landholdings in Snowdonia; and I believe that it is correct to say that we have landholdings in every national park, some of which are huge. That is not surprising because we are concerned with protecting the landscape, the wildlife and habitats.
To achieve that, we must concern ourselves with the welfare of the local communities and our own and other farming tenants. We must concern ourselves with archaeology and at all times we have to keep in front of us the considerations of amenity, of access and all the problems of visitor pressure—which have been mentioned but we must not forget them—of erosion of footpaths and so on; and then there is quiet enjoyment. All those concerns and objectives we have in common with the national park bodies. We have, I believe, now going on for 99 years' experience in the field and I think I may fairly say that we have excellent relationships with those who manage the parks.
It is our experience that the Peak District/Lake District model is the more effective model for achieving national park objectives. I say that without in any sense wishing to criticise the running of the eight other national parks. It is simply that the county council committee model will at times come up against conflicting priorities. That is perfectly understandable, but it is nevertheless unsatisfactory because we are dealing with national assets and national interests. The Bill, by establishing free-standing park authorities, will relieve these tensions. It should result, if the Peak/Lake District experiences are anything to go by, in a much better delivery of services and it makes much more management sense. Yet—and I emphasise this point —at the end of the day the new authorities will still be part of the local government family.
I do not wish to go over the detail of the Bill—that has been done already—but I should like to touch briefly on the matter of representation, which was dealt with at some length by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. One of the recommendations of Edwards was that to enhance local responsiveness the proportion of district council members on the authorities should be increased. The panel said that increasing this proportion would also be appropriate,
"in the light of the responsibilities of district councils in relation to the social and economic needs of park communities".
This raises the question of whether it is the intention of the Government, if a two-tier system exists in a national park area after the local government review, that the Edwards recommendation should apply. Specifically, should the local authority membership be half from county councils and half from district councils? If that is to be the case, how will the Secretary of State make provision for that to happen?
The Bill is an important first step in the implementation of Edwards. But much remains to be
356
done and I hope the Minister will be able to tell the House whether further legislation is likely to be forthcoming.
I have nearly done, but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I end on a personal note. My father was much involved in the whole national park movement from its inception. He was a member of the Hobhouse Committee and was involved both in the passage of the 1949 Bill in this House and subsequently at the time of the local government reorganisation in the 1970s. One of his great concerns was to achieve the type of structure that we have before us tonight. Sadly, in those days the time was not ripe, but now the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, with, I am glad to say, the support of the county councils, the district councils, the CLA, the NFU and other bodies and all sides of the House, has brought the Bill before us. If, as I hope he is, my father is looking down on us tonight from "another place", if I may put it that way, I am sure he will be delighted and would wish to add his congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
11.10 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I too am delighted to support my noble friend Lord Norrie in his introduction of this Bill. It is very hard when one is the eighteenth Member to speak to find the right words to say that. But I assure the noble Lord that my support is very solid.
I welcome the Bill in particular because it fulfils the Government's undertaking in manifesto form to create (or establish) independent national park authorities. I also welcome an aspect which has been mentioned by several noble Lords who have spoken before me; namely, the increased representation of district council members on those authorities, and also the necessary offset (I shall return to this point) of the one-third membership to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
As some noble Lords have said, sadly the Bill does not seek to address many of the specific issues arising from the Edwards Report, though I believe that we are all agreed that these will have to be addressed in due course, and probably sooner rather than later. I appreciate nonetheless the immediate need for the objectives that this Bill seeks to achieve.
Although, as my noble friend Lord Norrie said in introducing the Bill, it does not cover recreation, which was in the title of the 1948 Act, I should like to speak briefly on the importance of the national parks in the context of tourism —here I declare an interest—as well as on the importance of tourism to the viability of the parks themselves.
It is estimated that visitors to the English national parks spend some £650 million pounds each year. It is estimated by the Lake District authority that some 30 per cent. of the jobs within the park are directly concerned with tourism and leisure. If one were to take account of the jobs that are supported by visitor or recreational expenditure in other sectors, such as shops and transport—which after all exist first and foremost not for the visitors but for the local community—one could probably argue that 50 per cent. of all

357
employment in the Lake District national park is dependent in one way or another upon tourism and leisure use.
A major issue facing the new national park authorities will be that of maintaining the balance between, on the one hand, the primary objectives of environmental conservation and access, and on the other the needs of the local economy. As noble Lords may be aware, Maintaining the Balance is the title of a report of the Tourism and Environment Task Force set up by the then Secretary of State for Employment in 1990. The report was published in May 1991, jointly by the Department of Employment and the English Tourist Board. The task force in particular, comprising a complete range of tourism, countryside, recreation and environmental interests, was very positive in its recommendations. It set down a number of principles for sustainable tourism in the national parks. It recognised the need for proper planning and that the enjoyment of the environment and its long-term survival should not be prejudiced by short-term consideration. Finally, it recognised tourism as,
"a positive activity wilh the potential to benefit the community and the place as well Ls the visitor".
I commend that report in the context of today's debate and of this particular Bill to those noble Lords who have not already read it.
In its response to the national parks review panel, the English Tourist Board suggested that the sustained viability of tourism and the benefits flowing therefrom within national parks are vital issues. Those of us who do not have the pleasure of living within national parks —and hence do not have the pleasure of being democratically represented, as several noble Lords have stressed—must bear. that fact in mind. The national parks do not exist only for those fortunate people who are residents. They cannot exist without the visitors. If one takes out the visitors, if you take out leisure and recreation, the national parks almost become sacred cows, existing only for the benefit of the immediate neighbourhood. I believe, as does the English Tourist Board, that these are vital issues which we must continue to look at, even if they are not perhaps germane to the Second Reading of the Bill which my noble friend has moved. In saying that, I am agreeing with the Edwards report which basically said that,
"tourism policies for National Parks should be clearly defined in the National Park Plans and in the strategies of the Regional Tourist Boards".
Those policies, as the report suggests, should be drawn up in partnership between the regional tourist boards and the national park authorities. I believe that Her Majesty's Government support that view and also endorse greater co-operation between the national park authorities and the regional tourist boards. They commended recent initiatives such as the development of Principles for Tourism in the National Parks and also the publication of a Guide to Good Practice for Tourism in National Parks. That is vital. If tourism overruns we destroy the parks; but if we do not have tourism, the parks cease to have justification for existing.
Although those appointed to national park authorities by the Secretary of State may not specifically represent particular interests, I hope that the importance of
358
tourism to national parks—I have argued several times for this—will be recognised and that those appointees will include at least one member to each national park authority who has specific involvement with the needs of the tourism industry. That need not be specific knowledge because one can have academic knowledge and that is not necessarily relevant; it is involvement that is of paramount importance.
Let me conclude as I started, by welcoming the 13i11. I am saddened that time does not permit me to elaborate on one last concern; that is, that the planning policies of the bodies which we are establishing tonight must not overlook the pressures which the existence of national parks impose especially on the immediately adjacent Green Belt beyond the national park boundaries. The fact that one has planning constraints within a national park area puts enormous infill pressures and all manner of other pressures on the Green Belt area just outside.
I am thinking particularly of the New Forest. It is my neighbour and perhaps I should declare an interest, though I have no interest in any of the many committees. However, I have an interest in the New Forest, as its neighbour, in that it seems to have gone into a sort of limbo. It does not know if it is a quasi-national park; it does not know if it is a proper national park. We in the New Forest area have long been waiting for a declaration of the Government's eventual policy. I hope that in replying—I have given notice of this question—my noble friend will be able to give us a little progress report on the New Forest.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, unusually, just for once, as I rise to speak in your Lordships' House I know what I am talking about. I have bodily experience of the Welsh national parks, for have I not climbed with my fingers and toes in Snowdonia; walked on my feet every inch of the Pembrokeshire coast path, and crawled on my belly as a national serviceman over half the Brecon Beacons?
The three national parks are at present run as committees of county councils which, after local government reorganisation, will cease to exist. There is a most welcome provision in the Local Government (Wales) Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred, which would make it easier to change those existing committee parks into free-standing boards on the Lake District and Peak District models. So that provision represents an insurance policy for those parks.
However, the Bill presented by the noble Lord is a much more comprehensive set of arrangements for the administration of national parks and would put the whole family of national parks in England and Wales on the same basis. As a vice-president of the Council for National Parks I naturally approve of that. I also approve of the fact that the Bill is drafted from scratch rather than being patched on to existing law in the form of a simple amendment. There will be scope to sort out anomalies and incorporate best practice.
I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, for the assurance he gave me at the Report stage of the Local Government (Wales) Bill. It is now

359
abundantly clear that there is no conflict between Clause 19 of that Bill and this Bill, and that the latter is the preferred option.
As the former president of the Council for National Parks, the late and lovely Brian Redhead said:
"It is not enough to stop the bad. We must encourage good things in these beautiful places".
Brian Redhead cited farmers as essential to this process, and I wholeheartedly agree. And so does the Farmers' Union of Wales. Autonomous status will enable the park authorities to devote more of their time and resources to working with local communities. Support for farmers is just one example which will be most welcome in the national parks in Wales.
There is one aspect of the Bill on which I should be most grateful for some clarification from the Minister. The Bill says that the Secretary of State "may" make an order to set up one of the new national park authorities. That implies that he may not. Can the Minister provide some reassurance that it is intended that the existing national parks are all to have new authorities set up to run them? Can I be further assured that there will be no national park area designated under the 1949 Act that will not have a new authority to run it? To have an area without an authority would be a grave matter of not only national but international concern.
The national parks are unique places, repositories of a rich cultural heritage as well as beautiful landscapes. They deserve the best that can be provided in terms of their administration. I am confident that the Bill provides the best.
11.21 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Norrie for introducing the Bill, which I broadly welcome, and for doing it so clearly. Many of the points that need to be made have been very well covered by other speakers. I shall therefore confine myself primarily to Clause 4, with its presumption in favour of strategic planning powers being vested in the new national park authorities, and refer briefly to the status of local interests within the new national park authorities.
I speak largely from my own experiences of land use and planning. But I should also add, because of its relevance to Clause 4, that I am chairman of the Landscape Foundation, an organisation that has a particular interest in the impact on the landscape of planning. I am acutely aware of the pressures on land use that currently face many planning authorities. These pressures can be intense; they can be wide ranging; and they can demand difficult and sometimes controversial decisions. This challenge, which encompasses both planning strategy and planning practice, is often at its most critical in areas designated on landscape or environmental criteria. To achieve an effective, consistent and far-sighted response, planning authorities, especially those with a major responsibility for designated areas, need cohesive, strategic structure policies. Hence my broad support for Clause 4. No authority will have a greater responsibility for
360
designated land areas than the new national park authorities and therefore no authority has a greater need for proper structure plan powers.
At present there is no guarantee in legislation—apart from the two exceptions which have been referred to by other noble Lords—that the integrity of each national park landscape will be contained within a single structure plan. The Brecon Beacons, for instance, which appears to be the most densely populated national park, falls across four county councils and, therefore, four structure plans. Such arrangements are clearly not in the best interests of any area designated for its landscape value. The assumption in Clause 4 of one structure plan for the whole of the national park is a clear benefit of this Bill.
Much has been said about the economic and social interests of those who live and work in the national parks. I shall not add to the comments that have been made except perhaps to make two points. First, the livelihood and circumstances of residents are often crucial to the management and care of the landscape within the parks and the very landscape that the designation intends to protect. Secondly, environmental protection and environmental improvements are very often better served when local land use interests are able to thrive, are able to evolve and are able to feel a part of a wider strategy. Many noble Lords have said that a balance needs to be struck. I agree. That is why genuinely intentioned consultation is needed. The consultation should be genuine in spirit as well as in the letter of any new arrangement.
If any guidance or inspiration is needed on the sort of balance that could be aimed for, I would urge reference to the thinking behind Scottish Nature's new designation, the NHA or Natural Heritage Area. This designation recognises that the appearance, heritage and future of many areas of exceptional natural heritage owe much to man's active and passive land use in that area. The NHA designation, therefore, deliberately aims for flexibility, for local participation and integrating multiple objectives, both at local level and in terms of national strategy, in its management and policies.
I shall finish by making brief reference to Clause 3, which requires management plans for national parks. Clause 3 will provide a leading edge of strategic landscape planning and it will do so for some of our most beautiful landscapes. In doing so, Clause 3 will provide a splendid frame of reference for any other party involved in or affected by national parks' strategy. It will enable other parties to co-ordinate their own policies and actions.
As a result, if Clause 4 confers a clarity of purpose in terms of planning, Clause 3 confers an equal clarity of purpose in terms of management. I therefore wish my noble friend's Bill well and, as with many other noble Lords, would welcome any reassurance that attention will be paid to the state of local interests within the parks themselves.
11.26 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on bringing forward this Bill and, as is always the case in a debate at this late hour, most of the points I would have liked to have made have been made much more eloquently by others.
I shall begin by declaring my interest. I farm about 850 acres in some of the more beautiful parts of the Exmoor National Park. I very warmly support this Bill. I particularly hope that it may deliver an improved service to the local communities as implied by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. It is crucial to carry local commitment in national parks, and that cannot be overstated. I also wish to enter a plea which has been referred to by others. Those who serve on the new national park authorities should have locational relevance to the park itself as a minimum requirement. I take that no further, but that, too, is very important.
Picking up points which have been very well made by others, I also express the hope that the interests of farmers and landowners are not just taken into account but that they are recognised as full partners in the management of the land in national parks and, with that, the provision of recreational facilities and the conservation of nature. That should be part of an inter-dependent process. I do not believe that there is one single factor that can have total pre-eminence. National park authorities should be enabling and facilitating and not dictatorial authorities.
The Government in This Common Inheritance said of the countryside,
"What we see today is the result of centuries of interaction between man and nature".
That must never be forgotten or we lose our heritage as well as the functional competence of activities as a whole within national park areas. I say that with great feeling. My late father worked out that the land I now farm with my wife has been in the family since the year before the Black Death, so it is a fairly longstanding association which we have with that location.
I too would like to see consultative panels set up in all parks and I look forward very warmly to the Minister's response on this point. Finally, I hope that Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, which is specifically referred to in this Bill, and with that also Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 7, will be honoured in national park areas as elsewhere. National parks have to function economically. Without an economic function there can be no deliverance of the essential goods which are required. In that I would like to reinforce what has been said by others. In its own terms this Bill is an excellent thing and I wish it every success through this House and another place.
11.29 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too start by congratulating my noble friend Lori Norrie on introducing the Bill and on the meticulous way in which he has addressed it to so many of us and allowed us to join him earlier in commenting on it.
My noble friend knows well that I have strong reservations about the way in which some of the national parks have been conducting their business. I
362
speak as I find. I am not against the principle of national parks and fully appreciate their objectives and the need to balance local requirements, visitor requirements and nature conservation.
Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I live in a national park and own and manage land in a national park. Indeed, I had the privilege of serving on a national park committee for six years. But I am bound to say that recently this has nothing to do with the fact that 1 am no longer a member of a park authority there has been a marked deterioration in the relationship between the local community and the park authority. I must say that I have found a far greater appreciation and understanding of the needs of realistic land management combined with a genuine wish to co-operate when I have dealt with other organisations. However, that does not apply to all national parks. I have recently become involved with the Dartmoor National Park authority and have been very impressed by the initiatives that it has taken to enhance the well-being of the environment through local involvement. People I know who operate and work in the Lake District have found similar co-operation.
I have no wish to dwell on personal experiences, but I am bound to say that I have some sympathy for the park authorities because in many cases other initiatives which might have gone to them have been given to other authorities, government agencies and, indeed, government departments. Therefore, much of the glory that might have gone to the parks has gone to those other agencies, leaving the parks very often with the more mundane and less attractive aspects of countryside management such as planning and public access.
That begs a very basic question: do we actually need national park authorities now if those other agencies can carry out countryside enhancement as effectively as they do? Environmentally sensitive areas are, for example, dealt with by MAFF. The SSSI system and the national nature reserves, many of which are in the national parks, are dealt with by English Nature, on the council of which I have the privilege to serve. 'The Countryside Commission administers stewardship schemes, and the Rural Development Commission promotes rural businesses. I often find that the park authorities seem to fall between too many stools being neither one thing nor another, but attempting to deliver countryside initiatives that are in many cases carried out so much more effectively by other organisations. That results in a duplication of staff, many of whom have no real technical support or proper career structure. As we see too often, that results in a constant change-over of staff which is very demoralising for those of us who have to work with the park authorities.
I put an idea to your Lordships which I am sure will raise a few eyebrows. In about two weeks' time we shall be debating the Unstarred Question that has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford on the proposed merger of English Nature and the Countryside Commission. I ask whether such an agency, if it were to be merged—I hope very much that that will happen—could not take over the countryside and public enjoyment responsibilities of the NPAs—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, not in Wales!
Earl Peel: My Lords, yes, and in Wales—thus leaving the planning to go back to the local authorities where I believe that it belongs.
I hasten to add quickly, as I see my noble friend Lord Cranbrook (my chairman) sitting there, that I have not been briefed in any way to come up with that suggestion. It is purely one of my own, but I believe that it would work, that it would be financially prudent to do so and that it would lead to a much more cohesive and effective running of the park authorities.
The problem at the moment is that for those of us who try to manage land and farmland there are too many organisations delivering many of the same objectives. The more cohesive and streamlined they become, within reason, the more effective they are likely to be in financial terms and in their ability to build up good working relationships with the rural communities, and that is the key to success. My noble friend Lord Lindsay mentioned national parks in Scotland. There are none, and things seem to work effectively there.
Having got that off my chest, I am realistic enough to know that NPAs are almost certainly a political sacred cow, and are likely to stay. As I said to my noble friend Lord Norrie, I want to be helpful, and I genuinely understand the purpose behind the Bill. If by giving the park authorities autonomous power that will lead to an improved and more cost-effective service, an improved relationship between the parks and the rural communities and genuine improvements in nature conservation resources, I most certainly welcome the Bill.
Many noble Lords have expressed their concern about local representation. I too have that concern. I do not wish to go into the matter in detail, except to say that if we are going to have genuine local representation it must come from councillors who represent wards within the national park itself. I give North Yorkshire as an example. A county councillor from York is not local to the North Yorkshire Moors National Park or the Yorkshire Dales National Park. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take that message loudly and clearly. It is one that has been expressed by many noble Lords.
My other anxiety so far as concerns the Bill is the question of structure plans. Again that topic has been touched upon by other noble Lords. How are the new structure plans for NPAs and the other authorities, however they turn out to be, to dovetail together? It seems to me that it is a question of getting together and trying to work out a mutually acceptable plan, but I ask my noble friend which strategic plan would prevail—the park plan or the county or local plan? That is something to which we perhaps need an answer.
As I have said, I believe that I have good reasons to be sceptical about enhancing the role of national parks, but I have no doubt that the purpose behind the Bill is a genuine belief that it will lead to a more locally accountable and efficient group of park authorities operating in a more enlightened fashion to the increased benefit of local communities and the environmental well-being of the areas concerned. That in turn—and it
364
is an important point—can only bring enhancement of pleasure to those who visit the areas. I sincerely hope that to free the national park authorities from the shackles of being simply an extension of local government will give them a new sense of responsibility to which I hope they will rise. A great deal needs to be done in some parks to win the respect of the local people.
I wish the Bill well so far as it goes, but I am worried about what might come afterwards. I hope that if the Government see this as a first step to future legislation they will consult widely and that we shall have a full-ranging debate on the many aspects recommended in the Edwards Report.
Finally, I wish to make a plea on behalf on one aspect of the local vernacular that is systematically being destroyed in so many parks. Please can we have no more brown windows?
11.41 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, it is late and I shall be brief. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I am pleased that the Government support the Bill and I look for further government legislation in the near future. I am aware of the urgency of the Bill due to local government reorganisation.
I wish to comment on one or two specific points because I can describe myself as a member of the midwife team that brought the Broads authority into the world. As the Broads are unique, special legislation was needed. I am sure that any new park will be unique and will need unique legislation. Therefore, we are not concerned with that tonight; we are talking about legislation to secure existing parks, which is important.
Let us not lose sight of the functions of national parks. They must be concerned with the protection of the countryside and its conservation and the repair, refurbishment and reinstatement of features both natural and man made within the park, but not to the exclusion of the interests of those who live and work there and those who visit it.
I wish to make a plea about planning. That is an essential function which should go with the authorities. I beg, however, that it will not mean the setting up of a further monolithic planning department for each national park. That expertise can easily be bought in.
As regards membership of the new authorities and the input of various other bodies, there have been rumblings, in particular from the NFU, the CLA, the National Rivers Authority, the National Trust, tourist boards and local universities. As suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, it is far more appropriate that those bodies should have an input through panels and not through membership of any particular board.
Such requirements have been achieved by the Broads authority, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said. The authority uses its local authorities for planning and uses panels for input from everyone else. It has special panels on such aspects as agriculture, water recreation and scientific research, which the noble Earl was too modest to say that he chaired. That is where the bodies which I have mentioned should be represented and not necessarily as members of the authorities.

365
I am proud to have been part of the team which set up the Broads authority. It is highly successful, locally popular and efficient. The authority's constitution bears a strong resemblance to what is proposed in the Bill. I know that the formula works and, with good will on all
366
sides, it will continue to work. I am sure that the authorities covered by the Bill will also make it work provided that everyone makes an enormous effort. I wish the Bill all the best.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am extremely happy to join with my noble friends Lord Foot and Lord Hunt, both of whom have considerably greater experience than I have, in welcoming the Bill from these Benches. In this party, we had hoped that we should have free-standing national parks along these lines as part of a Local Government (England) Bill but the Government would not have that. They thought that it was not workable and the fact that they have done exactly that in the Welsh Bill seems to reveal a certain lack of logic in their reasoning.
They promised us this Bill and they have not been able to deliver it. We are extremely grateful, as we have all said, to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for taking it on, but that does not mean that this is a satisfactory procedure; that a measure which is largely agreed to be necessary on all sides, including the Government, should be left to this kind of procedure. That is so, in particular, when the time of your Lordships' House, as I have said on another occasion, is taken up with Bills which then have to be withdrawn either in full or in part because the Government have got it wrong. Why do not the Government give proper time to deal with legislation which we all agree is needed? However, we must take what we have and, as I say, we are graceful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
There is now, as always on these occasions, pressure to deal with the Bill with speed. That is what makes these matters so difficult. We shall do what we can to help but I agree that we must get it right in this House because, whatever its fate in another place, there will almost certainly not be time to deal with it there. That means that we must get it right here.
I had hoped that we might have been able to save time by exploring some Committee points on Second Reading but the lateness of the hour and the length of the list of speakers have made that impossible. For example, I feel very strongly that limiting local authority representation to elected members is patronising and misconceived and is a variation on a point which I was fighting in your Lordships' House 20 years ago.
I see the opposite point of view which has been argued by other noble Lords; namely, that the representation should be from those councillors who represent wards in the national parks. That is almost equally acceptable. One or other is acceptable but the present situation is not acceptable. I propose to set that out before your Lordships in Committee.
This is basically a good Bill. We shall do our best to give it a fair wind. We must not be hurried into letting it go to another place in an inadequate state. If the Government will not father it or admit paternity then we, as its godfathers, must see that it is properly brought up. And we must do our duty.
11.49 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is late and we have all had a long day, or, at least, I have had a long day. I do not wish to detain your Lordships too long. I give a welcome to the Bill not merely on my own behalf,
368
as the president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, but also—and this is quite unusual—on behalf of my party. I have consulted extensively my colleagues on the Front Bench in another place and I can say to the noble Earl that the Bill will receive the support of the Front Bench in this House and in another place.
Therefore, we wish the Bill well in principle. As noble Lords have said, it fulfils at least part of the Government's commitment to implement Edwards. Of course, we would have preferred a government Bill—indeed, everyone would—but we understand the realities of the situation and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on taking the initiative to bring forward what is perhaps best described as half a loaf. However, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.
The Bill is long and quite complex. In general, as I said, I have no problems in principle with it. However, there are a number of fairly detailed points that I should like to put to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, some of which I have given prior notice of. I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said about amendments for the Committee stage. If we are to go into Committee, I shall keep my remarks fairly short. I do not want to go into long and detailed Committee points which I might otherwise have raised.
The doubts which arise in my mind when reaciniz the Bill are as follows. On Clause 1, there is the question of whether the Secretary of State should have a duty, or whether it should be a permissive power to order that a national park authority be established. If the Bill is to have any effect at all when it is enacted, it seems to me that the Secretary of State should have a mandatory authority to designate national park authorities where there are existing national parks, but that he should have a permissive authority to designate national park authorities where there could be parks in the future. That would provide a distinction between paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1(1).
I now move to Schedule 1, because it follows on from Clause I. Several speakers commented on the schedule. I have many points about it which were raised by some noble Lords both as regards the wording and, indeed, some of the principles. I am not entirely certain why in paragraph 2, for example, the word "appoint" is always used rather than the word "elect". I always prefer to call a spade a spade. If we can use the word "elect" rather than "appoint" for local authority members, I would be somewhat happier. Similarly, I am not entirely clear as to what paragraph 2(6) means. But, again, that is a Committee point that we can resolve; or, indeed, perhaps the noble Earl or the noble Lord can resolve it at the conclusion of the debate. Does "retiring from any council" mean that a council has ceased to exist because elections are taking place, or does it mean something else?
However, the latter are very detailed points and I am more concerned about paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 as regards the aspect of consultation. Several speakers raised the point regarding the consultation that the Secretary of State shall engage in with either the Countryside Commission or the Countryside Council

369
for Wales on his appointees. We must do better than that. Consultation is a very broad term. Your Lordships have discovered all sorts of formulae for police authorities during recent days which are much more transparent and open than what is represented by simply the word "consult". If the Bill is enacted, I very much hope that some formula will be found to allow a thoroughly open form of selection for Secretary of State appointees. In other words, they should not simply be cronies of the Secretary of State and the public should see them as not belong so. Of course, it is not for me to say how that should be constructed; indeed, it is for the Government or, perhaps, for the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, to indicate how he sees it in the legislation. But I think we have to do really rather better than what is in the Bill as such, although if the Minister can make a full statement about how he envisages the procedure being carried out we might well be satisfied on that point.
There is also the question of paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1 and what the terms of appointment would be for members appointed by the Secretary of State. I am sorry to bore your Lordships with these Committee points but I have been asked to set them out in as much detail as I can to hasten the progress of the Bill. In paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 there is the question of whether the chairman and deputy chairman of a national park authority should be elected by the members of the national park authority. It is as simple as that. Why they should be in some sense appointed, I do not know. Political balance is, of course, built into the measure but I never know what political balance means. Speaking from a Welsh point of view I can say that in rural areas political balance consists of independents who have one view and independents who have another view. They all stand as independents. What the political balance is between independents who favour one point of view and independents who favour another, I do not know, but I find that an odd concept in terms of national parks.
I now turn to compulsory competitive tendering, which appears to apply in this Bill. I do not see why it should if it does not apply to quangos. Will national park authorities in that sense be local authorities with CCT built in. or will they be much freer, possibly to trade themselves? In Clause 8 the levy gives rise to problems of capping of local authorities and the local authority contribution. Will the local authority contribution be built into the standard spending assessment or will it be ring-fenced in some way? Will local authorities be capped or will they be allowed to contribute in the way that the national park authorities wish. and will that come outside the capping procedures? How will all that be arranged? Will national park authorities be allowed to trade—of course at the moment local authorities are not allowed to do that—through shops, garden centres or through selling camping equipment or other goods?
I am sorry to be slightly disaggregated in what I have to say, but I am working through this in a rather different manner from the way I thought I would have to present it. On the planning question, a number of noble Lords have asked whether the planning policy guidance notes will apply to national park authorities. Will, for example, PPG7 or PPG22 apply? After all, PPG22 has
370
a presumption in favour of renewable energy—recently we had a short debate in which we discussed wind farms —and it encourages the development of wind farms. Clearly the national parks will have to take account of that. Would the national park authorities be subject to that provision?
The main point about Clause 11 is that it is a Henry VIII provision. It gives powers to the Secretary of State to vary primary legislation. As I understand it, that provision has been examined by our Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and it will report on it. We will take account of that report. The committee may well take the same view as it did about certain aspects of the Local Government (Wales) Bill, in which case we will certainly have a problem in Committee. However, if the committee does not take the same view as it did on the Local Government (Wales) Bill we will be happy to be guided by it, but certainly this clause will have to be studied by that committee and I shall follow its recommendations.
The only other detailed Committee point I have to make concerns Schedule 4. There are a number of Acts which are to be amended by this legislation. The Telecommunications Act is not mentioned. It is my understanding that under the Telecommunications Act British Telecom has powers as a planning authority in its own right for wayleaves where owners give up rights. I may be wrong about that. I have not had time to check the matter out because it was only brought to my attention today, but it would be very odd if British Telecom were able to override the planning decisions of a national park authority.
I apologise for the disaggregated nature of the speech that I have just given, but it demonstrates to the noble Earl that all is not quite as simple as some noble Lords have tried to represent. In principle and in general we —and I say "we" rather than "I", which is rare for a Private Member's Bill—support the Bill and wish it well. We hope that it becomes legislation. Nevertheless, there are some very complicated issues of a detailed nature which need to be addressed before it can go forward.
Midnight
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the hour is late, but I am certain that your Lordships would not wish me to skate over many of the points that have been raised on all sides of the House. It is 45 years since the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act made provision for the creation of national parks. We all acknowledge that the landscapes which the Act sought to protect were the product of centuries of loving stewardship by many local people. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, in a very interesting and moving speech, reminded us that the establishment of the parks was a recognition that those areas were a national asset which had to be provided with national means to ensure that the qualities that we all cherish and respect were not lost. The 1949 Act thereby provided for the most beautiful areas of our countryside to be designated, protected and provided with a special administration
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us that it is vital that we continue to manage and protect those

371
national assets. Living in the foothills of Exmoor, as I do, where my wife's family have lived for many years, I too have the same strength of feelings on the preservation of national parks and all the riches that lie therein.
My noble friend Lord Norrie referred to the work of the National Parks Review Panel. I fully support his endorsement of the panel's report and would add my own thanks to the countryside agencies for their realistic recommendations. We set out proposals for the future of the parks in our January 1992 policy statement, and I share the regret that the pressures on the parliamentary timetable have not allowed us to bring forward legislation to implement those proposals in the current Session.
We were therefore delighted and most grateful to my noble friend Lord Norrie when he announced his promotion of this Bill to examine and address the specific issue of establishing a new and common administration for the 10 national parks in England and Wales. That was the principal recommendation of the review panel. Our 1992 policy statement accepted the recommendation that the administration of the national parks should be independent of any other local authority while remaining within the family of local government. The Bill delivers that objective and will enable the parks to be managed more effectively while maintaining their well-being as living, working areas.
I am happy, however, to reassure my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and many others who referred to further legislation that it remains our intention to introduce that legislation as soon as there is a suitable opportunity. We shall then reconsider and update the purposes of the national parks and return to further consideration of the review panel's recommendation that there should be a statutory duty on Ministers and public agencies in the exercise of their responsibilities as they affect national parks.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans asked for clarification of our plans for the New Forest following the consultation exercise in which we sought views on our proposals for the future care and protection of that unique area. We are considering the considerable correspondence generated by that consultation exercise and we hope to make a statement with our conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and many of your Lordships sought assurances about the relationship between national park purposes and the economic and social needs of local communities. We have said that we will clarify the national park authorities' duty to take full account of those needs when we introduce legislation. We have had placed before us several suggestions as to the form such clarification could take, including that which the review panel favoured. We shall be considering the matter again in the light of tonight's debate and other representations.
The Bill maintains the status quo. However, the new national park authorities will clearly have to take account of factors beyond the qualities of natural beauty and public enjoyment for which they are designated. I believe that they will continue to recognise the positive contribution which economic and social development
372
can make towards sustaining those qualities. The new national park authorities will need to work closely with other authorities and agencies whose primary responsibility is the economic and social development of their areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, raised the issue of Wales. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made clear that the Government support a common approach to the future administration of national parks in England and Wales. If the Bill succeeds, the three national parks in Wales will have created for them new authorities of the same form as are proposed in England. However, should my noble friend's Bill not succeed, the Government will rely upon the provisions in the Local Government (Wales) Bill. The Government's commitment to free-standing national park authorities makes it unreasonable to expect the new local authorities in Wales to have to set up new committees for the administration of the parks, knowing that this responsibility would soon pass to new national park authorities. That would be a recipe for uncertainty and disruption. For that reason, the Local Government (Wales) Bill contains provisions to establish joint or special planning boards in Wales similar to those already in the Lake and Peak Districts. These provisions will be used only if the Bill fails but will secure the continued effective administration of the parks in Wales.
There has been much discussion, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, of the Government's intended use of the powers which the Bill confers, particularly the so-called Henry VIII clauses. Clauses 4 and 11 are of most significance. Clause 4 allows for a national park's structure planning responsibilities to be amended by order. I shall say more about that in a moment. The provisions in Clause 11 give the Secretary of State power to modify primary legislation for incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional purposes. The practical scope of this power is, however, limited by the primary purpose of the Bill to establish new authorities to administer the national parks.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked for an assurance that all national parks will have a national park authority. I can assure the noble Lord that it is our firm intention that every national park designated under the 1949 Act will be managed by a national park authority.
Some noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Peel, stressed the need for local people to be better represented on the authorities. We intend to increase district council representation to equal that of the county councils and to maintain that principle wherever a two-tier system of local government persists. We shall, of course, recognise the consequences of any changes which result from the present review of local government. We also intend to encourage the new authorities to set up local consultative groups where they do not already exist. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, that we shall also encourage them to make provision to ensure that the parish councils in their areas are given full opportunity to make their views known.

373
The Secretary of State will continue to appoint the remaining one-third of members who represent the wider national interests. We will continue to make sure that there is a reasonable mix of interests among them. We already seek nominations from a wide range of organisations and we are keen to ensure that there is a good field of high quality candidates from which the Secretary of State members can be drawn.
I have already mentioned Clause 4 which deals with the strategic planning provisions of the Bill. Your Lordships will appreciate the uncertainties the parks face in relation to local government re-organisation. However, I can assure my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Marlesford that it is our intention to give the new authorities the full range of appropriate planning powers. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell raised the question of consultation, and I can assure him that the National Rivers Authority and all other bodies which are statutory consultees will continue to be so when the new national park authorities are established. We shall also be advising them to consult widely on other park matters.
The parks are already responsible for local development plans and for development control. This Bill will also allow the park authorities a formal role in strategic planning. The manner in which this may operate will depend upon the circumstances of individual parks.
The pattern is already clear in Wales. The Local Government (Wales) Bill provides for unitary local authorities throughout Wales and for unitary development plans to replace present arrangements. That Bill provides for the three national park authorities in Wales to be unitary planning authorities and this will be the case whether new authorities are set up under this Bill or as planning boards under the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
There may be circumstances in which similar arrangements will be appropriate in England, perhaps in the Peak District where the national park authority already has responsibility for both structure and local plans. More common perhaps will be the position where the scale and geography of the national park make it most appropriate that it exercises the strategic planning function in collaboration with other authorities.
My noble friend Lord Peel asked a question concerning the interplay between county council and national park authority structure plans. In those cases, the national park authority will be solely responsible for the preparation of the structure plan for its area, but it will need to ensure that its plan is co-ordinated with those of its neighbouring authorities. That arrangement has worked well for many years in the Lake District and I believe that it may be a model with wider applicability. Nevertheless, I can assure your Lordships that it is our intention to give the new national park authorities a full and formal role in the strategic planning process.
Many noble Lords have sought assurances about the future funding arrangements for the parks. Placing the funding of the parks on a secure and sustainable footing is one of the main objectives of this Bill. It is an aim which the Government especially support. The Bill provides that all the parks will continue to be funded
374
jointly by central and local government. This is an essential principle if local accountability is to be preserved. The national park authorities will continue to receive 75 per cent. of their approved expenditure from central funds, with the local authorities contributing the balance. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Barber, that we will continue to look to the countryside agencies for their views on the appropriate level of resources, as well as considering the plans put forward by the individual authorities. In turn, we expect the authorities to operate efficiently and effectively and to have proper regard to the need to ensure value for money and to demonstrate that they do so.
The ability of the two board parks to raise their contributions from their constituent local authorities by levy is being extended to all the national park authorities. We expect the authorities to use that power wisely and to consult widely before submitting their expenditure plans to the Secretaries of State for their approval. All the local authorities represented on a national park authority will be expected to contribute to its expenditure. We recognise that extending the financial commitments to district councils represents an increase in the resources which they will need. They, along with the county councils, have the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State through the consultative panels on local government finance in England and Wales in respect of the burden which falls on them to contribute to national park authorities' expenditure. We shall need to issue advice on that and other matters about the operation of the new authorities, and we would envisage that that would be done by a circular well before the new authorities come into being.
My noble friend Lord Norrie has taken a very important step forward for the continued care and protection of the national parks. I accept that this is an interim measure that does not deliver all the commitments that the Government made in their 1992 policy statement. Without in any way reneging on those commitments, I recommend this Bill to the House as a way of ensuring that the most essential proposals are carried forward effectively and urgently.
Some of the questions raised this evening—particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Williams--are of a very technical nature and deserve to be taken at Committee stage. They need considerable thought and sensible answers. But if the Bill succeeds, the Government will be committed to the earliest implementation of its provisions to ensure that the long-term future of the parks is secured.
I believe that this Bill marks a major milestone in the conservation of our most beautiful landscapes, the spiritual value of which has been so eloquently expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. Your Lordships have an opportunity tonight truly to ensure that these unique national assets are fit for the future. I am therefore pleased to give to my noble friend's Bill the full support of the Government and I commend it to the House.
12.17 a.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, it has been a most valuable evening. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Arran for stating the Government's support for this measure so strongly. There have been some very interesting and informed contributions on this important topic. We have heard from all sides of the political spectrum as to why this Bill is so important.
National parks have always remained a matter of all-party consensus, and I am pleased that this Bill also finds favour with noble Lords from the opposite Benches as well as from this side of the House. I am hopeful that this level of agreement will make for a speedy passage to the Bill, without which, at this stage of the parliamentary timetable, it might indeed fail despite wholehearted support.
The debate has produced some very searching questions. I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for being so forthcoming in his answers and assurances at the Second Reading stage. With a Bill of this complexity I may not be able immediately to answer every question that was addressed to me, but I am anxious to establish an early dialogue with any of my noble colleagues who feel that his or her concerns have not been sufficiently addressed. Tomorrow would not be too soon for that to happen.
I should now like to comment on some of the contributions made by noble Lords this evening. I shall start by referring to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. She observed quite rightly that the new authorities will in no measure be quangos. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, made clear that those authorities would sit firmly within the local government framework. That has been confirmed by the Minister.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook raised a question that was echoed by so many other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on future government legislation for national parks which the Minister answered. I should like to add my support to that chorus of opinion, voiced not just inside but also outside this House.
I am also grateful to the Minister for his helpful clarification in response to my noble friend Lord Marlesford as to how he will exercise his discretion over the planning provisions. On the same theme my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Lindsay were anxious to see a wide consultation carried out in preparation of management and development plans. In answer to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell I would anticipate a close partnership and consultative process between national park authorities and the National Rivers Authority in the preparation of both management plans and the water catchment plans prepared by the NRA. The two parties have complementary objectives and their future relationship can only be improved by the Bill.
I am happy to reassure my noble friend Lord Lindsay that the national park authorities will continue to draw up their management plans after wide and public
376
consultation. In fact, national park authorities will consult widely, just as other local authorities do, in the exercise of their development plan functions. That is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 12 and no change in this system is proposed.
My noble friend Lord Peel expressed concerns and reservations about the current state of affairs in some of the national parks. We appreciate the sharing of his experiences on that subject. No one would deny that problems have existed and opportunities have been missed. Indeed, as was made clear in the debate this evening, we know now that the administrative structure of national parks has not been all that it might have been. That point was well made by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Foot, and the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, who have the advantage of the historical perspective on those early days of national parks.
All I can say to noble Lords concerned with the fate of those who live and work within the parks is that the Bill is intended to make the operation of national park authorities more efficient and effective, especially when it comes to delivering services to local communities and to improving the local responsiveness of national park authorities. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for pointing out the benefits that the Bill could bring to the health of rural economies, and to the noble Lord, Lord Barber, for reminding us how crucial it is that we equip national park authorities to cope with the many challenges ahead.
On the specific point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on a socio-economic purpose for national parks, I made clear that my Bill does not seek in any way to change the national park purposes or associated duties. My noble friend Lord Arran indicated that that will be addressed by the Government. I should welcome a more clear assurance from the Minister that any revision will be guided by the spirit of the Edwards recommendations.
Many noble Lords speaking tonight pointed out the advantages that the new status will bring to national parks. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, for drawing a most helpful analogy with the Broads Authority, which is seen to act with the "vision and clarity" to which the Edwards report referred.
The noble Lords, Lord Chorley, Lord Feversham and Lord Nathan, and my noble friend Lord Addison asked questions on membership of the new authorities. I am anxious to see a greater degree of local responsiveness and for clear guidance to be given where the Bill's provisions can only adhere to the general principle. The Minister stated that the Secretary of State would be issuing a circular to include details of membership of the new authorities. As we heard, guidance on those key points will be consistent with the Edwards recommendations, which carry the consensus of support in these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, in pressing for a louder parish council voice for national park authorities, proposed a most welcome way forward in the shape of a parish council forum for each of the parks. That view was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Wise. I am most sympathetic to the idea, which has the advantage of

377
enabling every parish council within a national park to gain access to the authority. Again, that is consistent with the Edwards report.
On a similar point, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised a question about consultative panels, which were recommended by Edwards to be created in each national park in order to provide a sounding board for various interest groups, and I believe those would be welcomed across the national parks.
Noble Lords w ho spoke from the perspective of Wales—the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Elis-Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, were most helpful in clarifying the relationship between the Bill and the Local Government (Wales) Bill. They made clear the advantages of a Bill which covers the national parks of Wales and England, levelling them all up in accordance with the Edwards recommendations. l am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for drawing attention to the central role of national parks in sustainable development. For this reason alone it is essential that in order to face future challenges they be given the most effective authorities that we can provide.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred to the Henry VIII clauses in the Bill. We are most fortunate to be able to draw on the expertise of the Scrutiny Committee, and I am sure that it will advise us accordingly. We rely on the committee to make sure that parliamentary democracy is upheld in all cases. I note that in the case of this Bill the Secretary of State has explained clearly the basis on which he might make any order.
378
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also asked for more transparency in the Secretary of State's appointments process. This was an Edwards recommendation. Let us hope that the prospect of new national park authorities will encourage all relevant interest groups to put renewed effort into finding suitable people to nominate. I include here the tourism interest, so constructively referred to by my noble friend Lord Mountevans. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on his other more detailed points, which he described as Committee points.
On a personal note, I should like to express my gratitude to my team of 11, who make it possible for me to bring this Bill before your Lordships' House. Many organisations have been involved: the Council for National Parks; the Association of National Parks; the Countryside Commission and Countryside Council for Wales; and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Without their hard work, together with that of the government draftsmen, this Bill could not have been debated in your Lordships' House this evening.
Finally, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol for his contribution. In an era where we talk of the need for a more sustainable relationship between people and the earth's resources, it is perhaps fitting to end on this point. National parks are vital to the health and well-being of everyone, as well as to those who are fortunate enough to live in them, work in them or visit them. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past midnight.

  SECURE TRAINING CENTRES
  SECURE TRAINING CENTRES
  REMAND IN SECURE ACCOMMODATION
  REMAND IN SECURE ACCOMMODATION
  LONDON BOROUGHS TRANSPORT SCHEME: PERMIT SYSTEM
  LONDON BOROUGHS TRANSPORT SCHEME: PERMIT SYSTEM
  PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES: PENSIONS ADVICE
  PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES: PENSIONS ADVICE
  PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES: OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEME OPT-OUTS
  PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES: OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEME OPT-OUTS
  ALBANIA: MILITARY BASE
  ALBANIA: MILITARY BASE