Sitting of 17 March 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order)

      UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 24 March.

      UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL (By Order)
        BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
        Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Inter-party Talks
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the resumption of the inter-party talks process and on talks he has had with the Irish Government.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I recently met the leaders of the three Northern Ireland parties involved in the bilateral discussions. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), is discussing our ideas at further meetings with the parties. At the intergovernmental conference on 10 March, both Governments reaffirmed their commitment to the search for a comprehensive political settlement covering the main relationships.
    Mr. McAvoy: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is St. Patrick's day, when we celebrate a great man of peace? Bearing in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's responsibility to follow in the footsteps of that man of peace, what proposals does he have to bring the Ulster Unionist party back into the three-stranded talks process?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I acknowledge the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said—indeed, I have personal reasons to be pleased that it is St. Patrick's day.
    There is no question of bringing the Unionist parties back into the talks at the moment. The Democratic Unionist party is not prepared to engage in bilateral discussions, but I am pleased that bilateral discussions are continuing on their former basis between my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Ulster Unionist party, the Alliance party and the Social Democratic and Labour party.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: In his discussions with the Dublin Government, has the Secretary of State agreed—as Mr. Reynolds said that he had in a recent Irish News article—on a definition of the word "consent" in the Downing street declaration? Under that definition, which the British and Irish Governments have agreed, there can be constitutional mutation which leads to a united Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, and only the final legal act of severance requires consent.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: There has been no such agreement.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State recall that, in the original scheme some four years ago, it was decided, and accepted by all concerned, that the first phase should concentrate on designing a workable, practical system of devolved government in Northern Ireland and that we would move, in due course, to discuss a possible relationship between that body and the Irish Government? Does the Secretary of State still feel that that was a natural order of progress?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the statement of 26 March 1991 set out the three strands. It was arranged that there should be discussions on the first strand until the stage was reached when, in the judgment of the Secretary of State, it was appropriate to invite the Irish Government to join the discussions, to discuss matters connected with strands 2 and 3.
    I think that it has come to be recognised among the parties that the three-stranded approach is essential and it has been borne in on me from all sides that people cannot be expected to reach final conclusions on any particular strand until they know the position of other parties on other strands. That is a sensible way of proceeding.
    Mr. Couchman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House—the callous brutality of the mortar attacks on Heathrow in the past week and of other terrorist atrocities notwithstanding—that the thrust for peace remains, that the Downing street declaration of December remains a vehicle for peace and that he will not let Sinn Fein and the IRA derail the thrust for peace through either the three-stranded talks or the declaration?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It was not only callous; it was extremely wicked to launch the attacks of which my hon. Friend speaks. The declaration stands as a freestanding declaration of principle, of consent and of rejection of violence. If Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA considers that, by violence, it can secure a departure from the declaration or any concession from the British Government, it would be better employed taking a running jump. There is to be no concession and no departure.
    Mr. McGrady: May I bring greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and all Members of the House on this St. Patrick's day from the Hill of Patrick in my constituency? Does the Secretary of State agree that the best prospect for the peace process now is the continuation of the inter-party three-stranded talks, based on the carefully negotiated agreement of 26 March 1991, which is still extant? Does he agree that, based on the principles enunciated in the

    1001
    Downing street agreement of 15 December 1993, the hope for peace, for which we all pray, would be best served by that?
    Will the Secretary of State recommence the first phase of the talks because, as he said, the strands are interwoven? We had passed from strand 1 into strands 2 and 3. We should not go back to the starting post, but carry on from where we left off. Those parties that, for reasons of violence or politics, cannot join in that process should be allowed to join the table when they feel that they can do so.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The best hope for peace is if the Provisional IRA and anybody else who uses violence for political means recognise that it will get them nowhere. They will end up in prison; in the past four weeks, 40 people have been charged with serious terrorist offences. That is the best hope for peace. I absolutely agree that it is necessary to proceed with the political talks with which I have already dealt this afternoon in answer to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, when he next meets the Irish Government, raise the issue of cross-border security? I acknowledge that relations are good between the RUC and the Garda, but it would be helpful if the Irish Government showed more commitment in terms of providing resources and manpower, sharing intelligence and permitting Army helicopters to go in hot pursuit of terrorists when they flee to the south. After all, terrorists are no respecters of any sovereign nation.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Cross-border co-operation is always on the agenda at meetings of the intergovernmental conference. Progress has certainly been made. Improved communications, technical co-operation, liaison structures and joint threat assessments are all items of improved co-operation. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend and the House to the statement issued yesterday by the Chief Constable of the RUC in which he said that co-operation was at an all-time high. He said:
    "The success rate of the Garda in finding arms and explosives, and making arrests, has been first rate and is plain for all to see."
    We shall continue to pursue those matters with the Irish Government.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity of underlining what the Irish Prime Minister said—that the struggle is not now against the British Government but against the Irish people? Will he consider the possibility of appointing someone like Ninian Stephen or perhaps the President as an interlocutor or mediator to take the peace process forward?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman accurately quotes what Mr. Reynolds said in America yesterday. I add to that another quotation. He said:
    "If they"—
    the Provisionals—
    "are trying to get new or additional terms for people who use violence to try and achieve a political end, then they will not succeed."
    I do not think, however, that there is any need for a mediator; the joint declaration makes the position abundantly clear and it will stand. As the Taoiseach said, the Provisionals have to recognise that, if they wish to join the democratic process, they must give up violence for good.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the outrage felt by my constituents in Erewash and throughout Derbyshire at the failure of the Irish courts to extradite the two people wanted for questioning by the Derbyshire police force about the murder of a soldier in Derby two years ago. In his talks with the Irish Government, will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to do everything he can to ensure that they change their law in such a way that the Irish courts would extradite in circumstances in the future? Murder is murder; it is not a political crime.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly agree, as of course does the whole House, with my hon. Friend's last sentence. She never fails—and very properly—to remind me of the concern of her constituents in that recent case. It is to be understood that the Irish Government are now taking through their parliamentary process—it has been through the Dail—a Bill that would have removed two of the three grounds on which the High Court judge relied in refusing the extradition request in the two most recent cases. I must recognise that the Irish High Court judges are as independent of their Government as ours are of the British Government. We referred to the first case at the previous intergovernmental conference and mentioned the disappointment that was widely felt at the outcome.
    Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State will, of course, remember that, in that particular case, the judges in the Republic made a comment on a third ground about the prejudging of cases by the British press and how dangerous that was. We have had examples of that both in the Republic and in this country.
    May we go back to the original question that was raised? I noted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman dodged the point that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy). Can he say that no attempt whatever will be allowed to decouple the first strand from the other two strands, that he still stands by "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and that he does not regard that as a fatuous formula?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is no question of dodging anything at all. I will not make any comment on the case; I never make comments on judicial observations either in our own jurisdiction or in anybody else's. It is perfectly legitimate to express disappointment at the outcome. That is as far as I go.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it has been made clear time and again that the Government stand behind a three-stranded approach. I suppose that I could go on saying that, but it would take a lot of time if I did. There is no question of decoupling. Whether the parties in the resumed talks wish to maintain that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed is a matter for them. That is not a matter on which I can lay down a rule.

    Harbours and Ferry Service
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who advises him on the safety of the harbours and the ferry service linking the inhabited island with County Antrim.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): Advice on these matters is provided by the marine directorate of the

    1003
    Department of Transport, which, from 1 April, will be known as the Marine Safety Agency, and by the Health and Safety Executive.
    Mr. Bottomley: Northern Ireland has one inhabited offshore island—Rathlin. If Rathlin were in the south of Ireland or in Scotland, the harbour facilities would be improved. Will my hon. Friend engage all the efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who has more right to call himself Irish than St. Patrick, to ensure that, whether from European funds or from Northern Ireland funds, the harbours at Castle Bay and Ballycastle are improved? That cannot be done by Moyle council itself. There must be some other form of funding.
    Mr. Smith: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in Rathlin island and am sorry that it was not possible to include improvements to the harbour facilities in this year's public spending round, but I will do as he suggests for the future.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the ferry services operating from Belfast and Larne, County Antrim, and my constituency operate within the highest possible safety standards? Does he further agree that the safety of ships' passengers and crews would be enhanced by the provision of a lifeboat at Larne and by the improvement of roads to the ports of Northern Ireland and to the ports on the western coast of the most inhabited island—Great Britain?
    Mr. Smith: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in the port of Lame and will look carefully at what he said about the provision of a lifeboat. I am looking with great care at road links.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I, too, should like to greet the House on St. Patrick's day and also to say that the Secretary of State could do a good service to Northern Ireland for once by declaring St. Patrick's day a public holiday. That would please the nationalists, because they think that St. Patrick was a Roman Catholic, and the Protestants, because they know that he was a Protestant and a Brit.
    Having said that, I remind the Minister that the real problem for Rathlin island is not its harbour but the deplorable harbour at Ballycastle. Is he aware that, last Friday, many school children could have been drowned by the terrible swell in the harbour at Ballycastle? Will he see to it that some of the structural funds that will now be available from the EEC will be put to an urgent reconstruction of the harbour at Ballycastle so that the people from Rathlin have a proper entrance to the mainland?
    Mr. Smith: I am afraid that I am not in a position to render St. Patrick's day a public holiday, much as I should like to do so. I will refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the. Secretary of State.
    I was very concerned to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about Rathlin island, and I will visit the island as soon as I can to see what can be done.

    Privatisation
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the Government's plans for privatisation in Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): The Government will privatise Belfast international airport by way of a trade sale during 1994. The Ports (Northern Ireland) Order will permit any trust port to bring forward a scheme for privatisation. The previously announced intention to privatise water and sewerage services will not take place within the lifetime of this Parliament.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Why do the Government ignore the views of the Belfast harbour commissioners, the work force at the port and the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland, as reflected by the elected representatives? Those people consider the privatisation programme completely irrelevant to the real needs of people in Northern Ireland and the rest of the country.
    Why is the Minister going to privatise the professional police force at Northern Ireland airport, and why is he ignoring the views of the Belfast harbour commissioners, who reject the privatisation proposal? Will he review these crackpot proposals?
    Sir John Wheeler: I certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the initiatives as "crackpot"—far from it. The proposals are designed to improve the quality and standard of services. I understand that the House considered the question of Aldergrove airport and its police service a short time ago and that the House was assured that the police service would continue to function as heretofore.
    Rev. William McCrea: During discussions in the ministerial team about the continuation of the plans for privatisation in the Province, did the Minister and his colleagues consider the possibility of privatising the Northern Ireland Office? Surely, if privatisation is regarded as a policy in the interests of the community, the privatisation of the Northern Ireland Office would be very popular. It would clean out the nest of those who flirt with our political enemies and negotiate privately with people who are our murdering foes.
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the originality of his proposal. I am confident, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my ministerial colleagues are satisfied with the high quality and standard of service given by the civil servants who serve the Northern Ireland Office.
    Mr. Stott: The Minister of State may not recall—if he does not, the Under-Secretary of State certainly will—that, during the debate on the privatisation of Belfast international airport, I pointed out that Commissioner Bruce Milian had informed me that the European Commission might seek a clawback of the proportion of money that the Commission had put into the refurbishment of the airport following its privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has received a similar letter from Commissioner Millan, saying that the Commission may seek to claw back—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have not heard the hon. Gentleman ask a question yet.
    Mr. Stott: Is the Minister aware that we have had a further letter from Bruce Milian, saying that a similar clawback principle would apply if the Government privatised any of the trust ports in Northern Ireland?
    Sir John Wheeler: I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State dealt with the matter in the debate in the House a short time ago. If there is any further information that the Government should take into account, they will certainly do so.

    Downing Street Declaration
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding the Downing street declaration.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The declaration by the two Heads of Government is a statement of the fundamental principles of democracy, consent and the rejection of violence. It is, accordingly, not time limited, and will stand.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the clearest signals that the Irish Government could send the men of violence would be a statement that they intend to scrap articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, which lay claim to Northern Ireland, if the men of violence—the IRA and Sinn Fein—do not renounce violence, as foreseen in the Downing street declaration? In any event, is not such a claim an anachronism in this day and age?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The answer to the second question is, honestly, yes, it is an anachronism. I believe that to be essentially understood. One of the most interesting features of the joint declaration is a clear statement by the Taoiseach in one of its paragraphs of his understanding of the resentment that the two articles cause to Unionists. On the other hand, he says that they represent an aspiration of many nationalists. A clear steer is given by the Taoiseach in that declaration—that if an overall package is agreed, then as part of a balanced constitutional settlement, amendments to the constitution will be put to the Irish people and will be supported by the Irish Government. I do not believe that there is anything between the two Governments on this issue, and my hon. Friend is right to raise the matter in that context.
    Mr. Mallon.: May I also bring greetings from the Hill of St. Patrick in Armagh, where St. Patrick wisely chose to live and work? That he decided to die and be buried in Downpatrick was a matter of fine judgment on his part.
    Will the Secretary of State agree with me, and remind the House and others, that the joint declaration of 15 December was signed not for Sinn Fein and the IRA, but for all the Irish people? The most recent opinion poll in Ireland shows that 92 per cent. of the Irish people overwhelmingly rejected violence and supported absolutely the principles in the joint declaration. Does the Secretary of State agree that the two Governments should now proceed to apply those principles to a set of arrangements for the whole island, which, in the words of the joint declaration, could bring agreement among all the people of the island, and do that in such a way that it is not prevented by the Unionists who have opted out or the republicans who will not opt in?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree very much with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement—[Interruption.] Perhaps I mean the second part, after the obeisance to St. Patrick, which was entirely appropriate.
    On the remainder of the statement, the joint declaration is based on the principle of consent. That is what got up the
    1006
    noses of the Provisionals. They recognise that they cannot obtain consent for their version of a united Ireland by democratic means. Accordingly, they resort to violence. The declaration said that nobody who resorts to violence for political ends will join the democratic process. It is because of that stance that the Provisionals are rejected all around the world, not least in the United States of America. The two Governments stand side by side on the declaration and on their determination to advance with the main constitutional parties down the talks process with the same objective there has always been.
    Mr. Hunter: As it was the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic who said that there would be a crackdown against the IRA if it rejected the terms and the spirit of the joint declaration, will my right hon. and learned Friend "seek clarification", as the expression goes, from the Prime Minister as to what he meant by that crackdown and inquire when there will be clear evidence of that response?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Those matters are always under discussion at the meetings that take place on a regular basis. It is important to recognise that no security measure has been held in abeyance. My hon. Friend would be rather critical had any practical measure been held in abeyance pending the response of the IRA to the joint declaration. The full range of security measures has been, and will continue to be, brought to bear on all terrorists. Those measures are reviewed the whole time, not least in conjunction with the Irish Government. I am glad to read what the Chief Constable of the RUC said yesterday about the high level of co-operation between his forces and the Garda.
    Mr. Trimble: Does the Secretary of State agree that the declaration addressed two questions—first, the circumstances in which a united Ireland could be achieved, which is a purely hypothetical question as there is clearly no consent for such an outcome, and, secondly, how the IRA could enter democratic politics if it so wished, although it is perfectly clear that it does not so wish? Given the response to those hypothetical questions, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman further agree that the declaration is an irrelevance and cannot be used as the basis for future institutions and should not be used by him as an excuse for not implementing arrangements for stability in Northern Ireland that he knows have the most widespread acceptance?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have never used the joint declaration as an excuse for anything. As I have said more than once this afternoon, the declaration is a declaration of fundamental principle; it does not cease to be one on 15 March, having been one on 15 December. Nor does it preclude the taking of any security or political measures that are deemed prudent and sensible for the achievement of a less antagonistic and more tranquil and prosperous way of life in Northern Ireland—the purpose which all the constitutional parties joined up to serve and to seek. The hon. Gentleman played a notable part in that process a year ago.
    Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State will be aware that he has the full support of the Labour party for his interpretation of the declaration. We regard it as a set of principles that will outlast any possible lapse in talks. That must be the way forward. Does he accept that Labour

    1007
    believes that, if the parties cannot reach agreement, implicit in the declaration is a responsibility on both Governments to attempt to develop their own institutional framework for peace and to put it to the parties?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's comments in the first part of his question, but he will not entice me into a clarification of what has always been extremely clear in the text of the joint declaration. I shall not follow him into any discussion of what is implicit. I am perfectly prepared to recite what is explicit and what it does not contain. That is all that I want to say about that.
    We must recognise, as both Governments did in the joint declaration, that there is no prospect of anything workable or durable being achieved in Northern Ireland, save that which is based on consent. That is the fundamental principle. We must continue, patiently and steadily, to probe what may be possible, what the areas of common agreement are and what, if possible, may require adjustment in people's positions. That is what we are doing and I should like to see a slightly more positive and slightly less carping attitude from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Brandreth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that prospects for inward investment will be particularly enhanced by the success of the initiative launched at the time of the declaration? Does he have any progress to report on inward investment in Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most hypocritical and disgusting features of the Provisional IRA is that it claims to speak for the people of Ireland, but does nothing but diminish their prospects for employment and prosperity. Fortunately, such are the attractions of Ireland—north and south, but I am talking about Northern Ireland—for inward investment from overseas that, in the past year, the Industrial Development Board has been able to secure £200 million worth of inward investment and about 2,000 jobs. Prospects for this year are no less bright.

    Party Leaders (Meetings)
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next hopes to meet the leaders of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has recently held meetings with the leaders of the three Northern Ireland parties who have been engaged in private bilateral discussions and I have subsequently begun a series of further bilateral meetings with representatives from those parties to discuss our ideas for giving sharper focus and direction to the talks process.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister continue to do everything possible to drive forward the peace process, in spite of the antics of fanatics on both the loyalist and republican sides? 'Will he take this opportunity to say a little about the Secretary of State's ideas for the establishment of cross-border executive boards, with delegated powers from the Irish and British Governments? What functions does he intend such boards to cover?
    Mr. Ancram: We have made it clear all along—I agree with the hon. Gentleman—that no one can be allowed to
    1008
    exercise a veto over the talks process by the exercise of violence. I repeat that assurance. It is for that reason that the talks process is proceeding. As to the second part of his question, the hon. Gentleman is talking about matters that are essentially part of the discussions that are required to take place over the three strands. It will be of no constructive use for us to try to define the parts of any strand in public in this House before negotiations have taken place with the participants in the talks. That is something to be considered in due course as part of the talks process.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend realise that some of us are often baffled by the language that is used when describing matters political in Northern Ireland? How can there be consensus if one is saying that there can be no veto? I do not see how the two can be bedfellows. Does it mean that we will never reach any agreements at any time?
    Mr. Ancram: No. The phrase that has been used many times in relation to finding a settlement in Northern Ireland—indeed, across the three relationships within the islands of the British Isles—has been that any solution has to be broadly or widely acceptable to the peoples involved. Therefore, any settlements in relation to institutions in Northern Ireland would have to have the broad agreement of the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Does the Minister agree that the constitutional leaders hold the key to peaceful political progress in Northern Ireland? Does he accept that the consensus of opinion is that all efforts should be directed, with those leaders, towards a devolutionary process rather than towards pursuing the three-stranded approach with the Irish Government?
    Mr. Ancram: I appreciate the importance of the leaders of the three constitutional parties who are presently taking part in bilateral talks with me. I certainly intend to continue those bilaterals. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already said, it is matter of practical reality that we cannot look at one strand within the three-stranded concept in isolation from the other strands. A solution in one strand cannot be achieved without solutions within the other strands. For that reason, we have made it clear that the talks that are taking place at the moment involve all the participants across all three strands.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for the hard work that he has done already in trying to keep the political dialogue going. Does he agree—particularly on this of all days—that the remarkable phenomenon of bringing fully into account the Irish dimension is that the two Governments stand shoulder to shoulder on the declaration and that there is no movement away from that? That is the disconcerting reality for the extremists, and we expect the moderates on the Ulster Unionist side also to acknowledge that reality.
    Mr. Ancram: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend that it is immensely important that the two Governments continue to stand shoulder to shoulder on the basis of the joint declaration. At the same time, I think that it is important that the Irish Government have restated their commitment to the talks involving the constitutional parties. I believe that we are not yet ready to get around a

    1009
    table. There is groundwork to be done and that groundwork will be undertaken, I hope, by the constitutional parties and the two Governments.

    Peace Process
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further plans he has to bring about peace in the north of Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I propose to continue to enlist and engage to the full every means whereby it is appropriate for a democratic society to defend itself against those who assault its principles and its people.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is the Government's view that, apart from the unification of Ireland by coercion or the expulsion of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, no constitutional political party has any veto on political progress, including the establishment of institutions agreed by the two Governments?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course it is a matter of constitutional reality that no one has a veto. It is something that has passed into the current language at the instance of people who object to the fact that the numerical majority of people living in Northern Ireland do not wish to end the Union. That is what is objected to and it is then described as a veto at the suit of some political parties. It is quite untrue.
    Sir James Kilfedder: I bring greetings from North Down, where St. Patrick landed 15 centuries ago. He was a distinguished Briton who returned to northern Ireland. Is not it appropriate that, on St. Patrick's day, we should remember St. Patrick's utter and unqualified condemnation of the murderers in Ireland in his day? He described those people as wishing to "gorge themselves on blood". He condemned to eternal damnation not only them but those who acquiesced in such slaughter. Does not the Secretary of State agree that St. Patrick's words are as applicable today as they were 15 centuries ago?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course that is right. I cannot claim to represent the place where St. Patrick landed or the various places where he is buried. I can claim only to be named after him and I am very glad about that, among the other things to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is indeed an historic occasion? It is the first time that a Secretary of State called Patrick has answered Northern Ireland questions on St. Patrick's day. Bearing in mind that St. Patrick is the patron saint of the entire island of Ireland, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to live up to his name by ensuring that any constitutional settlement contains a meaningful all-Ireland dimension that will help to reconcile and unite all the people of Ireland? Will he remind his good friend the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that if Ireland were united, St. Patrick's day would almost certainly be observed as a public holiday throughout the 32 counties, instead of in just 26 of them?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: St. Patrick's day is a public holiday for the Northern Ireland civil service, and probably rather more generally. If there is to be an all-Ireland connotation in anything that is agreed, at any time, it will
    1010
    be only because, for a start, that is the wish of a numerical majority of the people living in Northern Ireland. That is recognised by the Irish Government in the joint declaration. Everything must be based on consent. However, anything that serves, by way of tradition or example, to concentrate upon those things that unite, rather than those that divide, people in the island of Ireland is to be welcomed. I regard as felicitous my good fortune to be answering Northern Ireland questions on St. Patrick's day. It seems to have got me along all right so far.
    Mr. Spring: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the remarks of Speaker Tom Foley of the United States House of Representatives? Does the Secretary of State agree that, in retrospect, Gerry Adams's visit to the United States, far from being a spectacular propaganda victory for the IRA, drew attention to the isolation that that organisation's espousal of violence is causing not only in the Republic of Ireland and in the United Kingdom but in the world at large?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I entirely agree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I, too, express my greetings to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on her arrival in the Chamber on this felicitous day. From the other side of the Atlantic there has come a chorus of condemnation of the Provisionals for the continuance of their wicked and inexcusable violence. That is down to the two Governments' standing side by side with the constitutional parties in rejecting violence for political ends. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend said.

    European Community Funding
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning the disbursement of European Community structural funds; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir John Wheeler: As part of the continuing process of consultation with local organisations, Ministers and officials have received numerous representations on the use of structural funds money in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Godman: Given the immensely important role played by the voluntary sector in bringing and keeping people together, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the voluntary and community groups are brought into the deliberations concerning the European programmes and that they have adequate representation on the monitoring programmes that will determine how such funds are spent in Northern Ireland?
    Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I are grateful to the voluntary groups for their contribution to the life of Northern Ireland. When the Commission has made known its agreement to our proposals we shall consider establishing a monitoring committee. I am sure that it will be possible to bring into that committee appropriate representation from the voluntary sector to assist in the disbursement of the funds that will be available to us over the next six years.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Prentice: In the light of today's newspaper reports, does the Attorney-General still have the full confidence of the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: The Attorney-General has my full and complete confidence. He has made it perfectly clear today, in the light of the reports in this morning's newspapers, that he has no knowledge of any approach by MI6 to him or to his office asking that the Matrix Churchill prosecution should be stopped. He has received no notification from the Scott inquiry that any such evidence has been given to it, and the inquiry has made it clear that it cannot recall that any such evidence has been given.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will the Prime Minister find time today to plan a visit to Birmingham and Manchester city councils, where he will find debt at the same level as the national debts of Paraguay and El Salvador? Is it not a disgrace that those Labour-controlled councils, encouraged by Opposition Members, have betrayed not only their electorates but future generations? Is not it time that they were flung out of office?
    The Prime Minister: Those councils certainly have a very poor record, as my hon. Friend says, and although the people of Birmingham and Manchester have a great deal of which they can be proud, in Birmingham, certainly, the people cannot be proud of the record of their Labour council. Of every £10 that Birmingham receives in council tax it now has to spend £7 on servicing its debt, but when one considers many other Labour authorities one realises that it is by no means alone in that appalling record.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does not the Prime Minister realise that he need look no further than Westminster, which has a debt higher than that of Mongolia? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the average council tax to be charged in Labour local authority areas this year will be £40 lower than the average council tax to be charged in Tory areas?
    The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Lady's first point about debt, she might bear in mind the fact that Islington owes more than Togo, Camden more than Chad, Bradford more than Botswana and Leeds more than Lesotho. As for council tax, the right hon. Lady knows very well that she is not comparing band for band or like with like. When she compares band for band she will see that Conservative councils are many tens of pounds—in some cases more than £100—cheaper.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the measure that we have consistently used not only gives the best overall picture but is the measure with which the Government started out? It is the measure that was used by both the Department of the Environment and Conservative central office in their documents. Is not the truth that the Government changed the measure only when they realised that it showed that people pay less in Labour local council areas? Is not that the reason why?
    The Prime Minister: I must say that the right hon. Lady is being extremely silly and is talking rubbish. What the figures show across the country is that Conservative-controlled local authorities set far lower council taxes than do Labour. So far this year the figures—
    Mrs. Beckett indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: It is no good the right hon. Lady shaking her head: it is quite true. The figures show that where Labour controls both tiers of English local government the average council tax is £560 for a band C property, over £130 more than the Conservative average of £429. However the right hon. Lady wriggles, she will find that pattern across the country.
    Mrs. Beckett: It is the Prime Minister who is wriggling. He started off with average measures of council tax, he went on to quote band D and now he is quoting band C. Is not this just further evidence that we are fast reaching the stage where the Government are incapable of telling the truth about taxation? In local government or national government, with the Conservatives one pays more and one gets less.
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Lady wants to see some high taxes in local government she should look in the mirror, for it is her party which is providing them. Of the 10 highest council taxes announced, seven are from Labour local authorities and none has been set by a Conservative authority. Of the 10 lowest council taxes announced, none comes from a Labour authority. Five of the 10 districts announcing the lowest bills are under Conservative control. Whatever the hon. Lady has to say, she cannot hide the fact that one gets a better deal under Conservative councils, that the services are better and that the council tax is lower. Though she wriggles from here to next Tuesday, she cannot hide that fact.
    Mr. Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust stance to date on qualified majority voting. Does he agree that it will be in the best interests of both the country and the party if that robust stance is maintained?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in the middle of negotiations that are important for the future of the European Community and for us, and I have no intention of being moved by synthetic efforts at pressure from any source. We shall defend the country's best interests in those negotiations and I am entirely confident that that can be done in an acceptable way without any question of delaying enlargement.
    Mr. Ashdown: Why does the Prime Minister not realise that investing the £900 million necessary to provide fully funded, high-quality nursery education, available to every three and four-year-old in the country, is the best

    1013
    investment that the country can make? Instead of raising taxes to prepare for tax bribes at the next election, why will he not invest to prepare our children for the next century?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would raise taxes and he has made that clear.I hope that everyone understands that. We have made it perfectly clear that, as and when resources are available, we shall move towards further nursery education, towards universal nursery education. The reports that may have excited the right hon. Gentleman's interest earlier this week in one national newspaper were wrong.
    Mr. Marland: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the report of the forestry review group is now in the hands of Ministers. As my right hon. Friend recognises, the Forestry Commission is included in the review. Not only by my constituents in the forest of Dean but throughout the nation, the Forestry Commission is held in high esteem. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, before any decisions are made in the light of the report, interested parties will have the opportunity to comment?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we are examining the report carefully and will seek a good deal of consultation. We have the report, we are examining it and it will be some while before we reach a decision.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Has the Prime Minister seen the report today which shows that the response times of the London ambulance service have worsened since the Secretary of State intervened to sort out the chaos? In view of the inability of the London ambulance service to come anywhere near patients charter standards, does it make sense to close up to 10 of London's accident and emergency units—or is it nothing to do with him?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that, in terms of London health, we are seeking first to make sure that we have the resources for the improvement of primary health care, which needs substantial improvement in London. In order to do that, it is necessary to rationalise a proper hospital system. We have taken action—
    Mr. Foulkes: Answer.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will stop shouting and wait for the answer, I shall give it to him. As for the ambulance service, the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) will know of the measures that have been taken to ensure that a proper service is readily available.
    Mr. Thomason: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's car production figures? Will he join in welcoming them? Does he agree that the Labour party, many of the members of which have car plants in their constituencies, has consistently talked down our motor industry, and Britain generally?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly the case that the motor car industry was in a very desperate state a few years ago. That has changed dramatically. The production figures this morning show that car production is up 6 per
    1014
    cent. on a year ago. The British car industry is now a success story to an extent that was inconceivable in the strike-ridden days so beloved in the memory of Opposition Members.
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Darling: Is the Prime Minister concerned about the sale by Scottish Homes—a Government quango—of 1,200 houses, some for as little as £1 each, to a housing association chaired by a former Scottish Office Minister, an hon. Member who is now a Northern Ireland Minister? Does he agree that it is no surprise that many people believe that the Government are drowning in a sea of sleaze and secrecy entirely of their own making?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has any firm charges to make, perhaps he should make them other than by innuendo and under privilege of the House. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was an unpaid, voluntary, non-executive chairman of the Waverley housing trust. He had no financial interest whatever in the trust. His involvement was solely to pursue an interest in providing new forms of social housing management involving participation by tenant representatives. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on his question and he should then offer a public apology to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Coe: In the wake of the recent tragic murder investigations in Gloucester, is my right hon. Friend aware of the welcome news this week that four missing people have been reunited with their families? Will he welcome with me and salute the superb work of the Missing Persons Bureau and the national helpline?
    The Prime Minister: I had heard that welcome news. Out of the dreadful saga of recent weeks, it is at least one positive outcome that everyone can welcome. I certainly think that it shows how important is the work of organisations such as the Missing Persons Bureau. I willingly pay tribute to it and to the National Missing Persons Helpline, as requested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livingstone: As a Home Office Minister said on Friday that the Government would not support the Racial Hatred and Violence Bill that has been prepared by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), and setting that against the background of the eight racial murders that have been committed in the past few years, how can the Prime Minister justify to the relatives of those who have been murdered in that way the fact that the Government can find time in their legislative programme to outlaw hunt saboteurs, but cannot find the time to tackle the escalating tide of racial violence to which my party drew attention this morning?
    The Prime Minister: Every sensible person will share a concern about crimes motivated by racial hatred. That is certainly the position of the Government. As for the Bill,

    1015
    we believe that the scope of the existing law is adequate, although we shall continue to consider how that law is working in practice. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is already a specific offence punishable by imprisonment for up to two years to stir up racial hatred. In addition, the full range of criminal law is available to deal with other crimes motivated by racial hatred. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, for example, deals with low-level harassment. A range of measures is available. Of course we will keep them under review because there should be no place in this country for racial hatred of any sort from any group directed alt any other group.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on standing firm in his
    1016
    negotiations on the blocking minority. Does not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that if the Foreign Secretary chooses to stand firm next week, he will have the wholesale support of Conservative Members and of the country?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will certainly take the position in the negotiations next week—at the moment, those negotiations are at an extremely serious stage—that he believes to be in the interests of this country, both in the short and in the long term. There are important interests, both short term and long term, to be safeguarded, and it is on that basis that my right hon. Friend will negotiate.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House state the forthcoming business of the House?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam Speaker. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 MARCH—Proceedings on the Insolvency (No. 2) Bill and the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill.
TUESDAY 22 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill.
WEDNESDAY 23 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill.
THURSDAY 24 MARCH—Debate on a motion to take note of European Community document No. 4616/94 relating to the common agricultural policy prices for 1994/95 and related matters.
FRIDAY 25 MARCH—Debate on "inner cities" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 28 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 23 March to consider European Community documents No. 10401/93 relating to the Green Paper on European social policy—options for the Union.
[Wednesday 23 March:
European Standing Committee B—European Community Document 10401/93 European Social Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC48-iii (1993–94).
Floor of the House—European Community Documents 4616/94, Agricultural Price Proposals 1994–95. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report—HC48-xii ( 1993–94).]
Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and the Government for agreeing to the requests from my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for emergency legislation to enable the British Transport police to continue their essential work—something the Government forgot about when they first decided to introduce rail privatisation.
Will the Leader of the House find time next week, or at least in the very near future, to discuss the Government's spending plans, by Department? Each Department has now produced a statement of its spending plans. The total cost of the departmental reports is £267.75, and it would be a shame if we did not debate them. We have not had a debate on those matters since 15 May 1991. I hope, therefore, that even the Leader of the House will accept that such a debate is overdue.
May we have a debate before we rise for the recess on the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel? As well as a desire for the debate, there is an important constitutional point involved. It is right that we should scrutinise supply for the Executive annually and not set rates of supply well in advance.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for debates on two other pressing matters: the regulation of privatised public utilities and the abuse of directors' share option schemes? May we also have a Government statement on investment in London Underground's Northern line?
Mr. Newton: On the last point, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noted that one of my hon. Friends has a debate relevant to that matter in the Consolidated Fund debates tonight.
I cannot respond immediately to any of the hon. Gentleman's requests for additional debates at the moment, although I make the point that the Budget debate was extended to provide for debate on public expenditure. I know that that does not answer exactly the hon. Gentleman's argument, but it is relevant to his use of 1991 as the last date that such a debate has occurred. I am tempted to observe that there would have been more debates on VAT on fuel had the Opposition got their act together at various times. There will be further opportunities to do so when the remaining stages of the Finance Bill are taken.
Finally, although there was an ungenerous barb in the hon. Gentleman's otherwise kind words, I am grateful for his comments on the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill. I am also grateful for what I hope is an implied undertaking that the Opposition will be co-operative in allowing it to pass quickly through the House.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the business for next Thursday—as currently scheduled, it does not seem to be all that important? Instead, could we have a debate on Bosnia and the progress towards peace there?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure that those involved in the affairs of the British coal industry would take the point that my hon. Friend made. I certainly acknowledge the importance that everyone attaches to Bosnia and the pleasure that everyone has taken in the progress that seems to have been made there in recent weeks. As always, I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind, but I cannot undertake to provide time next week.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The eighth round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade is due to be signed formally in Marrakesh next month, so will the Leader of the House make Government time available soon for a debate on the importance of the agreement to British industry? The agreement is important, not least because the complex bilateral agreements need to be fully understood and a free trade agreement represents great opportunities for Britain; there is a great deal to be fought for in a competitive environment.
When will the Insolvency (No. 2) Bill, which is to be debated on Monday, be published and available to hon. Members?
Mr. Newton: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) as I understand that I misheard him, and he said "Thursday". I think, however, that what I said about the coal industry might apply to those who are interested in agriculture, who will regard it as having some importance. That view was implicit in the question of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), to whom I can answer that I shall bear in mind the need for a debate on GATT at an appropriate moment as matters develop.
I hope and expect that the Insolvency (No. 2) Bill and the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill will be published tomorrow.
Sir Anthony Grant: In view of the clearly expressed wishes of hon. Members on

1019
both sides of the House, has my right hon. Friend had the slightest sign from the Opposition Front-Bench team that they will co-operate in the implementation of the Jopling report?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know of the difficulties that have existed for some months in carrying forward discussions. There were debates on the matter at an earlier stage and I hope that it will not be too long before we can resume them.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Leader of the House aware that, because of changes in the criminal injuries compensation scheme, if the acts of attempted terrorism at Heathrow airport had succeeded, and people had been killed and injured, their compensation and that of their relatives would have been less than that for similar acts of violence and terrorism conducted in Northern Ireland? Should not we have a full discussion about the scheme, and the injustice that exists between different parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Newton: Without accepting the implications of the hon. Gentleman's question, may I say that I announced today our intention to make progress on the remainning stages of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. I have heard on the grapevine that there may be some on the Opposition Benches with ambitions to raise such subjects then.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House try to rearrange business for next week so that we can have a debate on the position in Albania, which, after 40 years of communism, has managed to achieve a level of debt equal to about one third of that achieved in the city of Birmingham after 10 years of socialism?
Mr. Newton: I may be able to do even better than that and, by turning the question round, say that those issues might be relevant to the debate on local government scheduled for later tonight.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have an early debate on the decision just announced by British Gas to close its headquarters in the city of Leicester, with a likely loss of up to 2,000 jobs? Should not the House consider how disgraceful it is that a once great public industry is no longer concerned with public service or its employees' jobs, but only with profits for its shareholders?
Mr. Newton: I clearly cannot promise an immediate debate on the matter. It is clear that British Gas has been performing a good job on behalf of the customer, which is ultimately what it is all about. There could perhaps be an opportunity to refer to such issues if the Opposition resumed using their Supply days to debate unemployment, which they have not done since unemployment started to fall.
Mrs. Ann Win.terton: Will the Leader of the House urgently review the business for Monday to enable the House to debate the blocking minority and all the matters that will be negotiated in Brussels on Tuesday, to enable hon. Members to ascertain how that will affect not only this country but the future of Europe?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can sweep away the two very urgent Bills that are scheduled for Monday, but
1020
I can make the point that you, Madam Speaker, have scheduled an extensive debate touching on various European matters for this evening.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Leader of the House will be aware that his office fixes the agenda for the EC Scrutiny Committee of the House, and he will also know that it was one of his predecessors who gave us the job of scrutinising directives and regulations. Will he therefore tell the House why it was 16 months before an auditor's report that contained very important information about fraud in the Community, in relation to the environment, came before the Committee? It was debated on Wednesday morning. Will he also tell us what he will do about the fact that the members of that Committee were united in their objection to what happened?
Mr. Newton: I am aware, and have been almost since that happened, of the concern that is expressed. I do not in any way dismiss it. I am still inquiring into what happened. Part of the problem was that it was originally proposed that the report be debated on the Floor of the House and it was later decided that it would be more appropriate and efficient to debate it in the Committee.
Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to have a debate on terrorism, bearing in mind the fact that today is St. Patrick's day and that the Labour party voted against the prevention of terrorism Act on the very day that mortars fell at Heathrow?
Mr. Newton: I think that the decision to vote in that way at that time was inexplicable and I still have not heard any satisfactory explanation. I cannot promise a specific debate, but such matters may well come up during the debates on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Following the response of the Prime Minister to a question about nursery education, is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Education took time out this morning at 8.15 to rubbish, in most uncomplimentary terms, a constructive report that was published today? Is not it about time that the Leader of the House provided Government time for the Secretary of State to come here and tell us about those matters? If he cannot find Government time on the Floor of the House, would it not be good to have a debate on the Government's objectives elsewhere, at any time?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has not made it entirely clear to what report he is referring, but it might be the one that was published today of an inquiry led by Sir Christopher Ball. I understand that, among other things, that report appears to have suggested a delayed start to primary education alongside an expansion in nursery education—not, I should have thought, an idea which would immediately appeal to everyone.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend will have heard the questions to the Prime Minister from my hon. Friends the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) and the question to himself just now from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). Does he not accept that the ability of this country to stand up for its own interests in the European Community is more important

1021
than some of the petty legislation that is currently being introduced by the Government? Will he therefore adjust the business for next week to allow the House to have a debate on the minority blocking mechanism, which, when all is said and done, is about the ability of this country to stand up for its own interests? If "back to basics" is to mean anything, it is back to backing Britain. When will we have that opportunity?
Mr. Newton: I did indeed hear the earlier questions, and I have just heard my hon. Friend's question, which he delivered with great clarity and vigour. I also heard my right hon. Friend's answers and I recall that I made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) last week that our negotiating objectives would be pursued with vigour. I think that that has been clearly demonstrated by what has happened since then.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on the enterprise culture, so that we can discuss a distinguished and rather enterprising old-age pensioner who had a very nice little earner going until it was spoilt by the carping behaviour of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), because of the absurd notion that the advertising campaign was based on a pack of lies? When did Ministers suddenly get sensitive about telling lies?
Mr. Newton: With his characteristic ingenuity, the hon. Gentleman turned a question about one thing into an entirely different point. The advertisement was obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Can my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on education to allow the Liberal Democrats to explain to the House how they will pay for their extra education spending pledges, which amount to £4.4 billion, by putting 1p on income tax, which would raise £–1.6 billion? Is there an inconsistency here that I am not getting? [Interruption.]
Mr. Newton: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's request. I think that the Liberal Democrats said that they had explained all that last week. The fact is that they still have not made their sums add up, so perhaps I had better look for another opportunity.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recollect that, on 17 February, he wrote a very civilised letter to me about bringing to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer my business questions on the costs of local government? Ought there not to be a statement next week from the Treasury about the costs that we are discovering in the Standing Committee considering the Scottish local government reform Bill, about the unanswered questions about Welsh local government reform and, I suspect, about the costs of Somerset and, indeed, Norfolk local government reform?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the terms in which he referred to my letter. However, he seems to me to be pursuing matters that he is well able to pursue in the Scottish Standing Committee of which he is a member. I am sure that that is what he will continue to do.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will my right hon. Friend arrange time next week for us to discuss the number of properties in council ownership that are empty, and particularly the close correlation between the number empty, socialist-controlled councils, the amount of debt that those councils have and the amount of homelessness that they have?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes some very good points. He, too, may wish to have his attention drawn to the debate on local government that is scheduled for later tonight.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week about the agreement reached on Norway's proposed accession to the European Union and its implications for the common fisheries policy? Does he realise that there appear to be about 15 different interpretations of what was agreed on the fisheries policy with Norway, not least of which seems to involve strange species called the accelerated cohesion cod and the paper haddock? Does he not understand that, in fishing communities such as mine, people have a right to know exactly what has been agreed on accession to the North sea?
Mr. Newton: I, too, had some difficulty with the concept of cohesion cod when it first crossed my path. I am sure that, at the appropriate time, everything will be made clear. I cannot promise a specific statement next week.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on an urgent matter raised with me by Chesham chamber of trade—the erosion by out-of-town retailers of the businesses of our small shopkeepers in our town high streets? In the light of planning policy guidance note 13, issued on 15 March by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which seemed to recognise some of the difficulties and problems, I should be most grateful if time could be put aside for such a debate before my small shopkeepers in Chesham suffer further.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend keeps me closely in touch with the concerns of the shopkeepers in Chesham town centre and their chamber of commerce. I note carefully what she says about PPG 13. Although I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate, I will ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is drawn to her remarks.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Leader of the House had time to read early-day motion 852?
[That this House is deeply concerned at the parliamentary answer given to the honourable Member for Islington North on 14th March that 61 detainees at detention centres have refused food for at least three days in the past year; is alarmed at reports of hunger strikes amongst detainees at Campsfield Detention Centre; and calls for an urgent statement on this by Home Secretary and an understanding that the grievances of hunger striking asylum seekers will be examined and that there will be no force-feeding.]
It concerns the hunger strikes among asylum seekers at the Campsfield detention centre and the reports that have been received that a number of those who took hunger strike action to draw attention to their plight have since been moved to prisons. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Home Secretary to make a detailed statement in the House about the number of people seeking

1023
asylum in this country who are held in custody, why they are held in custody and what desperation they have been driven to, causing them to go on hunger strike to try to get their cases resolved? Those people fled from oppression in the first place and sought freedom and liberty in this country.
Mr. Newton: I will, of course, bring that request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that only a tiny minority of asylum seekers are detained, on the basis of there being good grounds for thinking that they might abscond if they were released while their immigration position was being resolved.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate next week so that the plight of water charge payers in the south-west can be brought to the House and so that my constituents can hear at first hand of the excellent steps that the Government have taken to bring them relief? Would not such a debate also have the advantage of explaining to people that those charges were imposed by European directive, that the further we go into Europe the more those things are likely to happen, and that the two Opposition parties want to take this country further into Europe?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes some important points on behalf of his constituents. I am grateful for his recognition of the Government's strenuous efforts in that matter.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have some time allocated next week to a debate on the English regions? I have no objection to the significant amount of time allocated to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but time is not allocated to the English regions. We could then incorporate local problems, such as that indicated in early-day-motion 887.
[That this House recognises that with the electrification of the Leeds-Bradford, Forster Square, services, and adjacent lines, that new electrical multiple units should be provided; regards provision of refurbished third-hand stock as a kick in the teeth for frequently overcrowded commuters; recalls that the Government can allocate as much as £–7 billion for new war-planes but puts the comfort and convenience of travelling taxpayers in West Yorkshire in an inferior category; and calls on the Government to ensure that new rolling stock is provided, built in Yorkshire, as a matter or urgency and at a tiny fraction of the cost of one European fighter aircraft.]
New rolling stock is urgently needed for the electrified Leeds-Bradford railway and associated lines. The Government can spend £7 billion on new war planes, but cannot find the money for new rolling stock for the sorely tried and tested commuters in West Yorkshire.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have noted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will answer questions here on Monday. He might like to try to get that one in then.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the Leader of the House consider finding time for a debate to discuss Leicester city council's decision to take one of my constituents to the High Court to enforce a market franchise right which it owns but which extends beyond its electoral boundaries into another borough council? Given
1024
that that will be abolished by the enactment of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, will my right hon. Friend consider investigating whether that is a great breach of Leicester city council's responsibility and ultra vires in the sense of the Government's responsibilities?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am not familiar with the details of that action and therefore cannot sensibly comment on it off the cuff. I will ensure that his question is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House find Government time to discuss the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was carried by more than 200 votes to nil on Friday? It has gone into Committee, but is behind another Bill, which went through unopposed, but is now subject to scores of amendments tabled by Tory Members with a view to blocking this very important Bill for disabled people. If the Bill is to achieve its passage through Parliament, the Government must provide additional time. If the Leader of the House says that he cannot provide time, let us return one day early after Easter to get this important Bill through.
Mr. Newton: The Bill has gone into Committee. My right hon. Friend said that the Government wished it to go into Committee and to have it carefully examined there. That now seems to be the sensible course to undertake.
Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate to discuss Opposition Members' decision to vote against the recent uprating of income support and other social security benefits?
Mr. Newton: It was astonishing, and I hope that my hon. Friend will play his part in ensuring that all pensioners are made aware of it.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the Lord President refer to the Secretary of State for Education the crazy position whereby a child minder can smack a child, whereas a school teacher in, for example, County Durham, would be dismissed for doing so? The latter case is totally right and the other is absolutely wrong.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, like everyone else, will have noted the judgment yesterday. I cannot say what conclusions he will draw from it, but I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's conclusions to his attention.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on youth unemployment? The European Community is considering ways of tackling the problem, so we should have an opportunity to cite the fact that labour market flexibility and deregulation are the ways to lower youth unemployment. We should also be able to cite the example of Spain, which has 33 per cent. youth unemployment with the social chapter, whereas our youth unemployment is below the EC average and less than half Spain's without it.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to think that the comparison between Spain and the United Kingdom in that respect is striking. It is further evidence of the effectiveness of this Government's flexible labour market policies.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a debate soon on Government standards? A poll in The

1025
Guardian today shows that only 3 per cent. of the people believe the Prime Minister's claim that the Government operate under high standards, and nearly 30 per cent. believe that the Government are corrupt or are abusing their power. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud to be a member of a Government whom so many people consider corrupt?
Mr. Newton: I am indeed proud to be a member of the Government, because they are in no way corrupt. I am a good deal prouder to be a member of it than I would be to be a member of one of the Labour local authorities about whose exploits we have recently heard.
Mrs. Angela Knight: Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate on the role of the district auditor? A report published last week by the district auditor on the connection between a company that supplied goods to Derbyshire county council and a Labour councillor who was a committee chairman clearly stated that two files had gone missing since the investigation started. Further evidence published yesterday in the local newspaper showed that the connection between the councillor and the company was much closer than he had previously admitted. In such circumstances, should not the district auditor reopen his inquiries?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that, if additional and important evidence has come to light, the district auditor will consider what further action he should take.
Mr. Max Madden: I appeal to the Leader of the House not to be so dismissive of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about the United Kingdom's treatment of those seeking asylum here. Will he urge the Home Secretary to come to the House to explain why so many of them are routinely placed in detention or prison without any effective means of appeal?
Mr. Newton: I have already commented on that. I certainly did not intend to be dismissive of the hon. Member for Islington, North—although he does tend to phrase his questions in a way that invites dismissive replies.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that there were six or seven questions in Prime Minister's Question Time today and in business questions relating to European matters that require debate? I urge him to have a debate on how the House and its Committees scrutinise the legislation and activities of the European Community. For instance, had we had a debate on the presidency conclusions after the Belgian summit in December, we might have noticed that a declaration in the original proposals tabled for enlargement of the Community stated that qualified majority voting was an issue which should be left to the intergovernmental conference in 1996.
Mr. Newton: I have indeed heard a number of questions on that and related matters, both today and last week, and I have replied to them all as best I can. At this moment, I cannot add to my previous answers.
Mr. Barry Jones: When may we have a debate devoted to the steel industry? May I draw to
1026
the right hon. Gentleman's attention the predicament of British Steel plc? Does he know that its difficulties are created not by British Steel itself, but by the activities of our colleagues in Europe who are not playing fair? Steel workers at Shotton and throughout Wales are apprehensive about the possibility of redundancies. We should like a debate to learn what the Government intend to do to help the British steel industry.
Mr. Newton: Bearing in mind the fact that ours is one of the most successful steel industries—perhaps the most successful—in Europe, compared with 15 years ago, when it was one of the least successful, I think that the Government have already done a good deal for it. I cannot promise a debate, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's requests to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I back the call from the Opposition for a debate on corruption in local government? In particular, we would have the opportunity to raise the case of the quango contracted by the Labour-controlled Tameside metropolitan borough council, which has lost millions of pounds to the taxpayer and has employed many relations of Labour councillors and the like in Tameside on a scale that makes Monklands look normal.
Mr. Newton: As I have now said several times, there is a debate on local government late tonight—possibly very late tonight—and my hon. Friend may care to take part in it. It had occurred to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), whose debate it is, may have some somewhat similar points in mind.
Mr. George Foulkes: May we have a statement next week by the Attorney-General, in view of the astonishing situation where it now appears that both a Cabinet Minister—the President of the Board of Trade—and the intelligence services advised him against continuing the prosecution of three innocent men? As the Attorney-General has given strange advice on previous occasions, is it not time he gave a statement in the House so that hon. Members can ask questions directly?
Mr. Newton: I did not specifically notice whether the hon. Gentleman was here at Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. Foulkes: I was.
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in respect of a large part of the what he has just said, in my view, he should not have repeated it.
Mr. Michael Bates: Has my hon. Friend received any requests from the leaders of the Labour or Liberal Democratic parties to use an Opposition Supply day to explain their policies on Europe, which involve surrendering the national veto altogether, with the consequence that we would be forced to abandon zero-rating of VAT on children's clothes and food?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should have observed to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that one thing at least is absolutely clear: there will be only one party—the Conservative party—fighting the European elections on the basis of a British interest manifesto.
Mr. John Gunnell: May I thank the Leader of the House for his prompt action in answer to my business question last week? May I say how pleased I am that it is being turned into legislation next Monday, and how surprised I am that the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) do not consider it important to have constructive receivership?
Will the Leader of the House also turn his attention to the shortage of donated organs? Many people are waiting an incredibly long time for kidney and other transplants. Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to see whether legislation can be introduced—I am confident that it would have a good measure of support across the House—for changing the system to an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system? There would be far more organs available for transplant and that would bring great savings to the health service and would considerably ease the lot of many sufferers throughout the country.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that his second and main point has been a matter of long-running debate against a background of strenuous efforts to increase the amount of organ donation. I am not sure whether I shall need to communicate with my right hon. Friend; with a bit of luck the hon. Gentleman may be able to do it himself when she is here to answer questions next Tuesday.
The first part of the hon. Member's question was characteristically generous and I am glad that we have been able to move fast. I hope that his further remarks this afternoon, alongside those of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), mean we shall get universal speedy co-operation on Monday.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the Leader of the House ask his hon. Friends at the Department of Health to make a statement next week on the failure of the regional health authorities to provide basic information in response to questions from right hon. and hon. Members? The Mersey regional health authority pumps out dozens of press releases each week, but I cannot get a response to basic letter inquiring about cuts in physiotherapy in the Countess of Chester hospital which serves my constituency.
Mr. Newton: As I have already said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be here on Tuesday and I shall give her warning of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I acknowledge the urgent need for the British Transport police legislation, but does the Leader of the House agree that the fact that we have to have it is indicative of the fact that proper scrutiny is not given to Bills that pass through the House?
Secondly and most urgently, will the right hon. Gentleman make available today the contents of the Bill, or at least the long title, so that those of us who take an interest in the matter and would like to ensure that the Bill is improved and watertight this time will have an opportunity to study its contents and, if need be, table amendments? I see a problem here. If it is available before tomorrow, hon. Members will not have an opportunity to read it, understand it, take advice from people such as the Police Federation and table amendments in time. Can it be made available today?
Mr. Newton: I will do anything that I can to help the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot make the Bill available today, not least because notice of it was not given. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's points, he is among many to have pressed for urgent action to deal with a problem that needs to be dealt with by 1 April. That involves my moving speedily; that can cause difficulties. We will do everything to overcome them, and I hope that he will co-operate in helping us to do so.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: The Leader of the House will have heard the response of the Prime Minister in answer to my question on the failings of the London ambulance service. In that response, the Prime Minister alluded to actions that are being taken to remedy the situation. As the situation has worsened since the Secretary of State took some action, will the Leader of the House find time next week for the Secretary of State to come to the House to explain why her measures have failed, and what further action she will take to ensure that the London ambulance service meets the patients charter standards?
Mr. Newton: My understanding of the current performance is that an ambulance responds within 14 minutes 65 per cent. of the time, which compares with only 48 per cent. in September 1992. We have every intention of making further progress towards the patients charter standard of 95 per cent.

Points of Order
4.6 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your help and protection. Earlier we had questions about the British Transport police Bill. There is no guarantee that the Bill will be available in time for hon. Members to table written amendments. Can you give us some help, and assure us that it will be possible for manuscript amendments to be dealt with on Monday so that the Bill can be made watertight and improved if necessary?
Madam Speaker: The Chair takes appropriate action and is often sympathetic on these occasions. I will consider seriously the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to put the record straight following something that I said yesterday, when I accused the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) of never having served on Standing Committees. He shouted across to me that I was a liar. I did not bring that to your attention at the time, because he is feeling rather sensitive about things at the moment and I did not want to cause him problems.
As a result of the hon. Member's comment, I went to the Library and made one or two inquiries. I understand that, last year, the hon. Gentleman did serve on a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments which had one sitting, which he attended. Therefore, I should like to withdraw what I said yesterday. What I should have said was that he practically never attends Standing Committees.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is true that I do not serve on Select Committees, because I believe that they are all part of the sloppy consensus in this palace of varieties. As for Standing Committees, you, Madam Speaker, and others, will know that I served on the Committee of a housing finance Bill, which lasted the longest number of hours in Parliament, and on many other Committees. The hon. Gentleman's research is still wrong, because just before the election in 1992, I sat on the Committee considering the coal Bill as well.
Madam Speaker: After those totally bogus points of order, we can move on to the Easter Adjournment debate.

Adjournment (Easter and Monday 2 May)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 31st March, do adjourn until Tuesday 12th April and, at its rising on Friday 29th April, do adjourn until Tuesday 3rd May.—[Mr. Patnick.]
4.8 pm
Mr. John Biffen: The exchanges earlier this afternoon emphasised the interest of the House in Community affairs, and doubtless that interest is shown particularly in the context of the negotiations in Brussels involving my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary concerning voting within the enlarged Community. My right hon. Friend has my warmest and most full-hearted support for his stand and for the objectives that he seeks to secure. I believe that he takes the support and aspirations of all Conservative Members, not least because his successful vindication of his negotiation tactics has a real impact on our electoral fortunes in the European elections.
I wish to use this occasion to reinforce my support for my right hon. Friend, and to consider the form that that support should take. I believe that the case has not been argued in this country, partly because the Opposition have opted out of this debate.
Mr. Bob Cryer: That is not true.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend—if I may use that fraternal term in these narrow circumstances—is quite right: he and our friend the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) show a continuing and spirited interest in the subject. Nevertheless, in a party that purports to provide the next Government, we have seen total abdication in regard to this issue.
That is extraordinary. We know that the House's relationship with the European Community derives through the Council of Ministers: all the structures are related in that fashion. Indeed, the terms of the treaty could not make any other arrangement possible. We as parliamentarians therefore have a real interest in the future pattern, size and voting conventions of the Council of Ministers.
Some—my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is a good, robust example—have seen the issue in terms of national interest: they feel that possessing and exercising that vote in certain restrained circumstances enabled us to pursue a national interest that would not otherwise have been available. I accept that that is a fact. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield regards me as being decidedly at the "wimp" end of the Tory party; let me, however, suggest another reason why we should be so wholehearted in our support for the Foreign Secretary, and so anxious that he should maintain the position that he has adopted hitherto.
Our experience of the Community shows us that it is now generating an enormous amount of legislation. I cannot believe that that serves the purpose of the Community's supporters; all too often, it resembles a parody, generating endless aspirations to bring about uniformity across Europe, when it should be content with partnership. Within that structure there is a possibility of check and balance, in the sense that qualified voting of a certain character provides at least some check on the volume of legislation.

1031
I very much agree with the Prime Minister that the issues now at slake are long-term issues. If enlargement is confirmed, I believe that it will generate more legislation rather than less; the check on the legislative cascade must therefore be kept as tight as possible. That is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary seeks by means of the voting formula for which he has asked.
I consider this a matter of the utmost seriousness, which should engage the measured judgment of the Labour party no less than ours. I do not believe that the quality of the Community is improved by its becoming a bureaucrats' paradise, with the conversion of the powerful initiatives in the Commission's hands into an application of Community law on an unbelievably detailed scale, and an attempt to pursue uniformity to a degree that is wholly unnecessary for the ambitions of a wider Europe—the wider Europe represented by the current negotiations, which will be further fulfilled with the membership of Poland, the Czech and Slovak republics and Hungary.
I suspect that, as we move towards that position and have to reconsider the institutions of the Community, we shall begin to wonder whether it would not be much better in the long run to move items from the present Community structure to that of the intergovernmental conference. That is the structure that will enable a sensible repossession of national law-making and national sensitivities, and that is the true devolution that is inherent and, I believe, will eventually become inevitable if the Community can adjust to its wider membership ambitions.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in his place. He has been a welcome and innovative advocate of seeking to what extent we can repatriate the common agricultural policy. The hon. Gentleman is setting out on a long pilgrim's path, on which I will happily join him, so long as that is not too embarrassing for him in his constituency. We have been trying to reform the common agricultural policy from day one. It is only within the context of moving towards a more radical proposition that we begin to see at once why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is trying to hold a line—a line which has great potential for the future beneficial development of the Community.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am comforted by the right hon. Gentleman's encouragement, as I have great respect for his views. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the repatriation of the CAP—subsidiarity—could be extremely dangerous for this country in some areas'? For example, if subsidiarity meant a raising of standards and the equivalent raising of costs in areas such as animal welfare, Britain and its farmers would be penalised, while subsidiarity would reduce standards in other member states.
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is already showing welcome recognition of the stony path that he is treading. He will face precisely that sort of difficulty. Any aspect of the European Community which has been conducted on the basis of idealism will also have been conducted on the basis of hard bargaining, often in powerfully contested situations. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to say that we shall not achieve repatriation on the cheap. That is why it is far better for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to hold the line now, rather than thinking that we can haul it back during renegotiations in 1996 or thereafter.
1032
We send our good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his effort to hold the line, as he has been doing nobly and valiantly during the past week. However, let us be under no misapprehension about the dangers of a bureaucratic Europe. Why do some countries fear a bureaucratic Europe more than others? The answer is in the issue of law enforcement.
Law enforcement reflects the traditions and character of individual countries. There is a different standard of law enforcement in Nordic countries and in Mediterranean countries. It is not just a battle for narrow British interests that is at stake, although, in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I accept that British interests are never narrow. What is at stake is not just a purely national argument.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is arguing on a European plane, not merely for a British position within a European dimension, and I hope that he will be encouraged by remarks such as mine because he is fighting a battle which is worth—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: He is selling out.
Mr. Biffen: It is worth having a battle if we can debate with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We could detach him for the purpose of the European elections and take him around as an example of the ghost of Labour yesterday. He is now the sole relic within the Labour party prepared to question any Community institution, and he is found sitting with his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Biffen: No, thank you—I have paid all my compliments to my hon. Friend.
We are appealing to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to speak for Europe.
4.18 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: I have an interest to declare, but not a financial one, in the two issues that I want to raise in this debate. Together with the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), I am joint honorary parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion. Both issues are of deep concern to the Legion and should be debated in the House before the Easter recess. At the very least, there should be an oral ministerial statement about each of them before 31 March.
The first issue affects war pensions and war widows' pensions and is thus a highly sensitive one for the ex-service community. I refer to the Government's proposals to legislate to amend the Service Pensions Order to exclude from entitlement many people now qualified for war pensions and war widows' pensions. Widows of ex-service men now eligible for war widows' pensions would no longer be entitled to their pensions under the amendments that the Government propose.
Let me give the House an example of the kind of case that will be affected by the Government's proposals to change the law. A service man who suffered extreme cruelty—indeed, who was tortured—as a prisoner of the Japanese in the second world war emerged with a smoking-related lung disease from which he died. He became a heavy smoker, having previously been a non-smoker, to alleviate the chronic stress caused by what

1033
are described as his "horrifying experiences" as a prisoner of war; medical evidence was available to show that, in his case, smoking was directly attributable to the inhuman treatment meted out to him by the Japanese.
Like everyone else at that time, he was unaware that smoking could prove harmful. In fact, it was then very widely considered to have a beneficial effect as a tranquilliser and morale booster for service personnel on stressful active service.
No matter how conclusive the evidence of a direct link between an ex-service man's death and his resort to heavy smoking to deal with chronic stress on active service, his wife will have no entitlement to a war widow's pension if the Service Pensions Order is amended as now proposed by the Government.
Yet there are already some 60 cases in which war pension appeal tribunals have awarded widows' pensions where smoking, related to chronic stress during war service, was accepted as the cause of an ex-service man's death. This must be a very serious issue, more especially since many other cases are pending, and it is clearly one deserving of at least an oral ministerial statement before we rise for the Easter recess.
What is resented by the ex-service community almost as much as the intention of the change in the law the Government propose is the hole-in-the-corner way in which it is being attempted. No statement has yet been volunteered to this House. The only information we have so far received came in a written parliamentary reply to two questions that I tabled to the Secretary of State for Social Security. The reply said that the decision to smoke or drink was a personal one. It went on to say that the proposed change in the law follows a recent decision in the High Court and
"would ensure that the legislation reflects the policy intention"—[Official Report, 3 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 840–41.]
What that means, of course, is that the High Court had found that the existing law does not mean what the Government thought it meant and that Ministers now intend to reverse the court's decision to avoid paying war pensions and war widows' pensions to some very needful people. If that is allowed to happen, the independent status of war pensions appeal tribunals will be seriously undermined, and that, too, is worthy of an urgent debate in this House.
Smoking dependency in consequence of active service has long been accepted in other countries as a cause of severe respiratory conditions, notably by the Australian Government after a High Court ruling there some years ago. They did not appeal against the decision of the High Court; they honoured its decision. Of that, Ministers here say not a word, just as they ignore the fact that it was only comparatively recently that smoking became recognised as a health hazard. But as recently as the mid-1970s, smoking was considered both safe and socially acceptable.
Billions of cigarettes were issued free of charge to service personnel on active service, and they were also available to them at heavily subsidised prices in the NAAFI. I myself was actively encouraged to smoke as the recipient of 200 free issue cigarettes a week while on active service in the middle east in the post-war years. As late as 1975, there were instances of consignments of cigarettes
1034
from HM Customs being distributed to RAF personnel serving overseas and of cut-price cigarettes being sold in NAAFI establishments.
Another very disturbing feature of the Government's proposals to change the law is that the amended legislation will be applied retrospectively. I ask the Leader of the House to take special note of that point. In the case of any improvement in existing legislation, as he knows, the Government always refuse to make it retrospective; but when, as in this case, the Government's intention is to cease helping war pensioners and war widows, they do so retrospectively and without time limits.
As the reply to my parliamentary questions made clear, the Government's proposals stem from a recent High Court judgment in which their attempts to stop the award of a war widow's pension to the widow of a former far eastern prisoner of war were unsuccessful. The High Court upheld the war widow's entitlement which a tribunal had allowed because her husband's death from cancer was due to smoking related to service factors. The Government are understood now to be planning to seek leave to appeal to the High Court against other recent successful appeals by the widows of ex-service men where smoking was accepted as a factor of service. I know there are those on both sides of the House who will regard that as not only wrong but disgraceful.
The only circumstances in which the Government are prepared now to recognise smoking as a factor of service is when an individual became so mentally disturbed as a result of service that he was incapable of making a rational decision whether to smoke or not. But any war pensioner who is 80 per cent. mentally disabled and incapable of looking after himself is entitled to constant attendance allowance, thus ensuring that, in the event of his death from whatever cause, his widow will automatically receive a war widow's pension. Such cases are, in my experience as a former Minister with responsibility for war pensions, very rare indeed.
I hope very much that the Leader of the House will recognise the widespread concern to which the Government's proposals to change the Service Pensions Order give rise; that they will not repeat the now notorious mistake made in relation to noise-induced deafness for war pension purposes; and that we will now be given the opportunity of an early debate to persuade them to relent before it is too late. Not to do so would demean the House and cause deep distress to those who have one of the most compelling claims on our attention.
The second issue I want to raise can be dealt with much more briefly, since its importance is already being actively discussed by right hon. and hon. Members. There is an all-party early-day motion on the Order Paper about it in my name, which says:
"That this House, mindful of the increasing needs of the United Kingdom's ageing ex-Service population and the many problems of younger members of the ex-Service community, in direct consequence of Options for Change, considers that there is now a pressing need for a Sub-Department of Ex-Service Affairs within an existing Ministry and with a designated Minister to be responsible, as the only fundamental and long-term solution for the care and welfare of ex-Service people and their dependants; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government now to respond positively to The Royal British Legion's urgent call for a sub-department to be established."
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. The views that he is expressing are entirely cross-party, and he will receive

1035
considerable support from both sides of the House. Will he please state the number of his early-day motion and the level of support that he has received for it? I am sure that, like myself as the Member for Macclesfield, most other hon. Members have had many representations from British Legion organisations. Naturally, those have been passed on, with endorsement, to the appropriate Minister in the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has worked long and hard to help the ex-service community, more particularly war widows. My early-day motion is No. 60, and it now has 172 signatories. It has been subscribed to not just by right hon. and hon. Members in both major parties but by members of all parties.
As of now, bits and pieces of responsibility for helping ex-service men and women and their dependants are scattered all over Whitehall. The Government act on the assumption that the Minister at the Department of Social Security who is responsible for war pensions is the right point of contact for the ex-service organisations; but the problems of their members go much wider than the Department of Social Security and, as we all know, in many circumstances the right hand of government rarely seems to know what the left hand is doing. In fact, there are times when the right hand seems not to know that there is a left hand.
In simple terms, what the Royal British Legion and other organisations that speak for the ex-service community want the Government to institute is a "single-door" policy that will provide ease of access to all Departments of State with which they now have to deal. They want not a new Secretary of State, but a co-ordinating Minister who, in my view, would not only make life easier for ex-service men and women and their dependants but save their organisations and the Government both time and money.
As war-disabled men and women and their dependants grow older—as the hon. Member for Macclesfied (Mr. Winterton) knows so well, the majority are now over retirement age—their needs multiply and their problems are compounded by avoidable delay. It must now be obvious to the Government that my early-day motion has not only comprehensive all-party support but, prospectively, majority support in this House. It deserves to be debated, and soon. I look forward to a positive response to both of the important issues that I have raised in this debate.
4.33 pm
Mr. David Porter: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has raised important issues that affect pensioners. I should like to go a little further.
With a new financial and tax year about to begin, and with a coming summer of wartime memories for so many of our older citizens who lived through that period, we have perhaps even more reason in this debate to remember the debt of gratitude that we owe to retired constituents. The oft-quoted saying that the health of our society can be judged by the way we treat our elderly is still very apt. Whatever hon. Members think about how elderly people are treated, we can all agree that some common fears of the elderly need to be addressed.
Clearly, many of them fear the prospect of not having enough money. Those who are just above income support
1036
level, those who perhaps had no opportunity to build up extra pensions or were prevented by war service from getting into personal pension schemes and those who have saved a little feel particularly vulnerable. Pensioner bonds, granny bonds, special rates for the elderly, and the fact that the home energy efficiency scheme and assistance with VAT on fuel have now been extended to all pensioners are all a great help, but for many the perception remains that they will or may run out of money.
Many people are told that pensioners do much better in Ireland, France or Germany. We can point out how difficult it is to make straight comparisons between pensioners in different countries, and we must ask questions about those countries compared with our own. Is the state pension normally a pensioner's only form of income? What health care entitlements and local social services do pensioners enjoy? What other social security benefits do they receive? What is the spending power of their income? Is the pension earnings-related or flat-rate? Is there provision for adult dependants? What is the qualifying age for receipt of an old age pension? On all those comparisons, British pensioners come out fairly well. At a time of rising life expectancy and health expectation, when the number of retired people is growing throughout Europe, we should take some pride in that fact, yet many still believe, or choose to believe, that they are the paupers of Europe.
The Government approach, rightly, has three strands—to increase the basic state pension in line with prices, to encourage private provision on top of it, and to focus extra help on the pensioners who need it most. Yet there is still often resentment on the part of many pensioners, and some go so far as to feel betrayed by today's society. To some extent that is a generational feeling, but it is fuelled by an understandable anger when they see people getting away with actions such as defrauding the social security system, attacking and robbing pensioners, and expecting and demanding everything, as so many people do.
We spend ever more on health care to satisfy the demands and expectations that we all have. We all want to live longer and better. We spend more on help with housing, with taxes and with residential care. That is all part of the system that we have built up over 40 years. People spend more, young and old alike, and they have ever more material possessions. Yet no matter how much we put into the system, it will never be enough. Medical inflation, advances in technology and public demand will always outstrip the taxpayer's ability to pay, so we are right to bite the bullet of some difficult dilemmas.
Questioning a common retirement age and fighting social security fraud are just two of the modest steps that we have taken so far. Even the Labour party is now saying, although not yet very loudly, that it may not necessarily be committed to raising pensions in line with prices or earnings every year. We have all come to realise that, if our gigantic health and social security budget is to be financed entirely out of taxes from business and from individuals in work, we are in effect taxing employment, and before long something will break under the increasing strain.
Any thinking about how to help the poorest pensioners in a more sustainable way is to be welcomed, and should be given proper public debate. If we all devote a little time to thinking that through in our constituencies in the short Easter recess, our time will have been well spent.
Pensioners have other fears, too. Both in our cities and in the rural areas, many fear loneliness and isolation. Scoff though many do at "back to basics" and basic family

1037
values, the fact remains that when grandparents were acknowledged as an integral part of families and communities in a less mobile, more rooted society, older people's fears were not so great as they are now.
Pensioners also fear immobility caused by lack of physical health, which is why hip replacements are now so popular. Today's hip replacements are often second or third replacements, because the previous replacement has been worn out.
Pensioners also have fears about transport. To be fair, most local authorities, and local organisations and voluntary groups such as DIAL, Help the Aged, Age Concern and so on, do incredibly effective work in combating that fear. There is also new bus technology, and attention is being focused on accessibility. All that needs encouraging. I suggest to my right hon. Friends in government that tax-friendly encouragement is the most effective method.
There is also a fear of lawlessness and of disrespect for law and order generally. The fear of walking the streets and the feeling that one is not safe in one's own home are real enough, even if they are not always borne out by the crime figures. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will help, but for many people I fear that the decision of the House against capital punishment will not help.
Focusing the Government's policy attention on families, on the difficulties of older people in getting work, and on any age discrimination will also help, if it translates into positive action. We have a tremendous natural resource in our older people. Why do we not use it more for the benefit of everyone?
Older people share our fear of being strangled in red tape and bureaucracy. The deregulation initiative will help there, even if it is only like a finger in the dyke trying to hold back the North sea. People will welcome any reduction in health service bureaucracy and waste, including the abolition of some of the health authorities. However, they do not welcome that if it is done badly, as in my area, where Waveney is being split off from Great Yarmouth and we are being lumped in with Suffolk. Older people fear that they will not be able to use the local hospital, the James Paget hospital, because it is just over the border in Norfolk. Again, it was a well-intentioned move by the Government but it has backfired because they ignored local fears.
Many older people are fearful of what we seem to be doing—Front Benchers of all parties stand accused of this—in giving away our sovereignty for an unproved, often unwanted, European ideal which sees us as the losers almost every time while the Germans and others, whom many, of these older people gave the best years of their youth to fight, seem to be the winners almost every time. For many, that is galling beyond belief.
In case my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are inclined to dismiss the power of the elderly as well as their fears, I would point out that they need to be carried with us. I quote from a Help the Aged document, "Speaking Up For Our Age", published last November for the European year of older people and solidarity between generations:
"For the record, the vote of the over 65s in the 1992 General Election split 49 per cent. Conservative, 31 per cent. Labour and 13 per cent. Liberal Democrat. On the evidence of specific manifesto pledges to older people, this is not the way one would have expected self-interested older people to vote. One must
1038
conclude that older voters are not self-interested."
That is fair enough, but they are a powerful group. Let us recognise their fears and carry more of them with us as we move forward.
4.40 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I was tempted to rip up my speech, follow the line of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and look at some of the problems facing the European Community, but that can wait for another day. There are more urgent questions. Similarly, I was tempted to discuss the issues affecting many of the residents of the south-west now, this week.You, Madam Deputy Speaker, no doubt have had your postbag filled with letters from those whose water bills have gone up yet again by 12 per cent. and look to double by the end of the century, having already doubled.
However, I decided that at this juncture there is an issue which does not often receive a hearing in the House but which deserves our attention. As it happens, it links with the concern that a number of hon. Members have already expressed about the fears and anxieties of the elderly, but not exclusively so.
It may surprise hon. Members to hear that it is 30 years since I became a member of a police authority. Hon. Members may think that I was precocious or enjoyed a misspent youth, but I was particularly concerned with rural policing and having then become a member of the Devon and Cornwall police authority for some years and done other things, I have continued to take a considerable interest in policing in rural areas. It would be helpful if hon. Members had an opportunity to discuss these issues rather more often, but at least I can take the opportunity today to touch on some of those with which many of us are concerned.
There has been a rising tide of crime throughout the country, but it has been particularly evident in some areas which previously we thought were immune from it—notably the rural areas. Many rural communities feel that the Government have abandoned them in recent years. They feel that their problems have been ignored and that, instead, Ministers have come up with headline-grabbing stunts, hoping for short-term political advantage. From my youth in a small village in the west country, I am reminded that the most effective form of deterrence is the presence of a constable living in such a village.
We had in the village a policeman by the name of PC MacPherson who moved round at a fairly steady pace because, although he had a bicycle, he did not often ride it because his spaniel could not keep up. The key point to us of the generation who might be concerned about such matters was that one never knew where he was not. The effective presence of the police constable and of his wife, a member of the Women's Institute, his children at the local school—he was also a member of the cricket club—meant that every part of the community had an immediate relationship with the guardian of law and order. That has long since gone, and initiatives by some far-sighted chief constables—notably John Alderson whom you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I remember as a most effective chief constable in Devon and Cornwall—have, sadly, turned the clock back only a little way.
In the past few weeks I have not only talked to our present chief constable and to many other police officers about this; I have spoken to magistrates, probation officers, neighbourhood watch organisers and even a prison

1039
governor. These people, who know what they are talking about when it comes to preserving the peace and ensuring law and order, are the people who feel that "solutions" are being imposed on them. They feel that they are not being given an effective opportunity to contribute to the analysis of the problems. They are not being told what is happening, and they have only a minimal chance to influence the course of events.
Analysis of the figures shows that there are more crimes per head in rural police force areas than in urban ones, while rural police forces are undermanned and underfunded. To take just one example, in my own police division of North Cornwall we have experienced in the past 15 years—roughly the lifetime of the Government—a doubling of recorded crime, with a drop in the proportion cleared up. Yet during that period the Home Secretary has permitted only a 9 per cent. increase in the establishment of officers.
Police areas which are more than 50 per cent. rural have averaged a rise in establishment of only 92 officers between 1982 and 1992, while in the most urban—with 25 per cent. or less of rural parishes—the rise in the number of officers has averaged some 300. That is not as a result of the crime figures, which point in the opposite direction: the threat of crime in rural communities is higher. With fewer police per head and those police spreading their work over much wider areas, people living in rural areas are evidently more at risk.
I have some more figures. In your area and mine, Madam Deputy Speaker—Devon and Cornwall—we have one policeman for every 516 people. In Hampshire, the proportion is even worse, with one per 522 people. Compare that with Merseyside, where it is one per 306 people, and with metropolitan London, where it is one per 258 people.
Moreover, the logistics is more difficult in a scattered rural area and it is harder for the police to get around at speed. The present restrictions on petrol and on the use of cars must be lifted. The effects of the budgetary constraints are patently absurd. Avon and Somerset police authority has had to limit its squad cars to 35 miles travel in one shift. What they do in a sudden emergency, I hate to think. There is thus a vicious circle: scattered population, less easy to police effectively, fewer officers, reduced mobility, less effective policing. It is a major cause of the increase in crime in the more rural areas of Great Britain.
I give two other examples, Gloucestershire and Cambridgeshire, both required to protect important people. In the case of Gloucestershire it is the royal family; in Cambridgeshire it is the Prime Minister. Yet Gloucestershire receives no compensation for the resources which have to be diverted to that task, and Cambridgeshire actually loses 2 per cent. of its manpower permanently for the protection of the Prime Minister, without any compensation. The Prime Minister's police area, Cambridgeshire, is a good example of the problems that rural areas face. It has one officer for every 540 people, fewer officers per head than any other force, while having the third highest rise in recorded offences—almost 80 per cent.—since 1989.
People in Nottinghamshire are more likely to be victims of crime than in any other part of the country. Rural areas such as Avon and Somerset have seen crime increase by 75 per cent. in the lifetime of the Government. People in Humberside are among the most likely in Britain to be the
1040
victims of violent crime; yet when their chief constable asked for 13 more police officers—a modest request—to tackle the crime rate, he was given none.
The Home Secretary continues to fudge the true test of his commitment to more effective policing of rural areas by refusing time and again to increase the number of officers to that which the chief constables accept as operationally required. The figures show that the rural forces have been left behind in terms of meeting their operational requirements.
On the Home Office formula, the Hampshire force should be increased by a further 223 officers. Last year, not unreasonably, the chief constable, using the Home Office figures, asked for an additional 200 officers. How many did he receive? Zero.
At the Christchurch by-election we Liberal Democrats were castigated for our profligacy in daring to suggest that the Dorset chief constable should receive 97 additional officers because he had identified them as necessary to his operational requirements, to meet the needs of the Dorset community. Later last year, the Home Secretary wrote:
"we simply cannot approve every request for more officers which is made"
by chief constables, and
"it is of paramount importance that we maintain controls on public expenditure."
How much was the threatened increase in public expenditure? What was the huge amount that was threatened? According to the Conservative party research department, it was some £55 million—an interesting figure, as it is precisely equivalent to £1 per head of population in the United Kingdom. I wonder how many people would think that that was a price worth paying.
Mr. David Nicholson: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's contrast between the problem in rural areas and the problem in urban areas. I am sure that he will agree that the absolute levels of crime are higher in urban areas. I imagine that he is not suggesting a shift of policing from the urban to the rural areas. He has just stated his spending demands. His party has made spending demands for education, social security, health and many other areas. Has he squared all that with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)?
Mr. Tyler: I have indeed. I have looked at the figures for Northumbria. The investment of vast sums of money in new prisons and other detention centres is on a scale far greater than the cost of preventing crime. The cost of crime is one of the scandals of today.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman treat the House to the conclusions that he has drawn from his consideration of policing in Northumbria?
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although it has put me off the tack. I was demonstrating that the cost of prevention is smaller than the cost of building all the prisons and other institutions that the Home Secretary seeks to impose on Britain.
The conclusion in Northumbria—I have the figures here—is that the rural areas show a dramatic increase in all types of crime. While I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) that historically the urban areas have high levels of crime in real terms, we are fast catching up, as he will know from his own

1041
constituency. That is also true of the rural areas of Northumbria. There is no longer any great divide between urban and rural areas.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: No, I will not give way again. Some hon. Members will have seen recently that the problem of drugs and drug-related crime has come to the rural areas, where 10 years ago drugs simply were not a factor. I accept that other hon. Members may not have had that experience, but those of us who have followed the police authorities' work over the years have to accept that serious crime is no longer confined to the urban areas but has spread to all parts of the community.
The Government pulled a rather gimmicky answer to rural crime out of the hat at their party conference—the idea of bringing back parish constables on the 18th-century model—and I do not deny that there may be some virtues in that scheme. However, it would be a disaster if the idea were used as an excuse for keeping the regular forces below the required establishment and struggling to make ends meet. It would be even more of a disaster if it were used as a cut-price alibi for not investing properly in rural policing.
In many parts of the country—other hon. Members will have the same experience—we have an excellent tradition of voluntary support given to the regulars by the special constables. It would be most unfortunate if the new gimmick were used as an excuse to divert attention from the good special constabulary from which we have benefited in all parts of rural Britain and, indeed, in urban areas. With their proper training and their dedication under oath, they have given a great service to the community and should continue to do so. In some parts of rural Britain, policing simply would not be effective without special constables. Again, I can instance rural parts of Hampshire, where the use of conspicuous patrol cars has substantially reduced the rate of burglaries. What is so special about that is that it relies on the special constables who are an integral part of the scheme.
I know that some theorists believe that all the problems will be solved by simply locking up or threatening to lock up more people, but the practical experience of people involved in policing throughout the country is that the theorists are sorely mistaken. There is no such simple magic-wand answer. People are afraid of crime and of the fear of crime. The answer to that is more bobbies on the beat deterring criminals as well as renewing confidence in the community. That is not a simple solution either, as the Audit Commission has made clear, and it is not the whole answer. Yet trying to operate well below the establishment that the chief constable knows to be necessary clearly reduces the effectiveness of every department of every police force.
Between 1982 and 1992 the crime rate rose twice as fast in the most rural forces as in the city areas. That is a simple fact which I draw to the attention of Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Taunton. I know that he shares my concern. Meanwhile, the officer-public ratio is 30 per cent. worse in rural areas despite the difference in convenience in terms of policing logistics.
1042
There is also a problem on the fringe of some city areas. The constabulary often has to pull out of rural areas for specific events or big problems in the town centre. The Bitten division of the Hampshire constabulary is controlled from central Southampton, so the outlying rural areas around Hedge End and West End have seen officers sucked into central Southampton to deal with specific problems. At those times, the chief constable has little room for manoeuvre if incidents occur in the more rural areas. If the shortfalls are not corrected, the trend towards less crime prevention, a lower clear-up rate and ineffective crime deterrence will accelerate.
Crime and fear of crime in the countryside are a serious problem not only for the elderly, to whom the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) referred, but for all of us. It deserves realistic resources, not just rhetoric. It may have been a shock to some Conservative Members to read the public opinion poll this week which showed that the Conservative party was no longer believed to have effective policies on crime. That is a direct result of some of the problems that have occurred in the more rural areas and the failure of the Home Office to provide the resources that we need.
On one side, we have the forces of dogma, myth and ideology drawn from the ranks of the theorists. On the other side are the forces of professionalism and practicality drawn from the ranks of the police, some of the Home Office advisers and those who understand what is happening in the rural areas. It is no surprise to find that the more realistic former Home Secretaries such as Lord Whitelaw are in our camp.
So where does that leave the present incumbent? Anyone who has ever admired that extraordinary architectural edifice the Home Office will know that it is a badly designed ivory tower. I hope that, during the Easter recess, the Home Secretary will come down from his tower. I hope that he will have time, if there is an Easter recess after this debate, to hear for himself from people in the countryside who are trying to cope with the rising tide of crime.
4.58 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I want to take the opportunity of this Easter Adjournment debate to thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for his firm stand in Brussels on the allocation of votes in the matter of the enlargement of the European Union. Other have done so and I know that others will also do so in the debates that follow this one. I wish him well when he defends Britain's best interests again on Tuesday and holds firmly to his position, as he has stated he has every intention of doing.
This is a vital issue and the pressures to weaken—placed on him by the European Commission, France, Germany, other of our community partners and the Foreign Office—will be so great that he will need not only his good judgment but the knowledge that he has the support of most hon. Members, Labour as well as Conservative. He has the support not only of those of us who were sceptical about the Maastricht treaty and the assurances that it was not a step on the road to the federal super-state—which only the Euro-fanatics and the Liberal Democrats want—but of a considerable body of his supporters and admirers who voted for the Maastricht treaty believing that it would not lead to a supranational European federal state.

1043
Those people were reassured daily that the powers of the Westminster Parliament would not be further undermined by concessions on the veto or on qualified majority voting. Those Conservative Members who trooped loyally through the Lobby in support of the Maastricht treaty knew very well that the overwhelming majority of people who sent them to Westminster had no wish to see Parliament's powers further surrendered to an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels, or even to a European Parliament, over which we in Britain have no control and only very little influence.
I know that my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Foreign Secretary agree that the
"principle is, and will remain, a simple one. Where we can work together as Europeans, we do so; where we cannot work together, for lack of agreement or where there is no need to do so, we are free to go our own way."—[Official Report, 30 March 1993; Vol. 222, c 170.]
I know that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House will acknowledge that
"no United Kingdom Government of any political colour would agree to matters that we would regard as being of great consequence or which had a significant effect on our national interest being decided by qualified majority voting."—[Official Report, 4 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 144.]
I know that my right hon. Friend would give that commitment on behalf of the Government.
I know, too, that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House will agree that
"the Maastricht treaty marked the point at which, for the first time, we began to reverse the centralising trend, and moved decision-taking back towards the member state in matters where Community law need not, and should not apply."
I know, too, that that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House would want qualified majority voting on foreign policy issues to be permitted
"only if all member states agreed by unanimity in advance. That is a double lock".—[Official Report, 19 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 489.]
On such issues
"it simply would not be appropriate or suitable, and we would not agree to it. The circumstances in which qualified majority voting can be used are set out in the treaty. There is no suggestion that it should be applied".—[Official Report, 19 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 119.]
It was not suggested that it should be applied to foreign policy issues. I know that my right hon. Friends will agree to those statements because they are the statements that they themselves and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers have made. They are only some of the assurances given to the House by my right hon. Friends as we debated those vital matters in recent months.
I respectfully remind my right hon. Friends in the Government of what they have said and of the assurances that they have repeatedly given to this House, because do not believe for one moment that they will want to eat their words. They will not want to go back on them or to betray their intention to resist further moves to weaken Parliament's sovereignty.
When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary goes into battle on Tuesday, he needs to know that, in honouring the Government's assurances—that there will be no extension of majority voting to other matters or weakening of the extent to which we have already accepted majority voting—he will have the support not only of the Conservative sceptics but the Conservatives who followed him nightly into the Maastricht Lobby. He may also have
1044
the support of much of the Labour party. He will certainly have the support of the overwhelming majority of people who sent us to this place.
5.4 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I want to raise the subject of coach safety and seat belts. I expect that all hon. Members can recall the accidents last year involving coaches and the sad loss of life that followed. At that time, statements were made by Ministers and the Department of Transport. They commented on coach safety rules in this country and in Europe. I am sure that many hon. Members will remember the calls made at the time for much tighter controls on safety regulations and, in particular, for the compulsory fitting and wearing of seat belts.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House tabled early-day motions on the subject—it in no way became a political issue. The early-day motions—one of which was signed by more than 60 Members, including myself—referred to the injuries that occur each year in the United Kingdom. Some 4,000 passengers in coaches suffer injuries following collisions. Dangers face young children when they use minibuses or school transport.
Passengers were seriously injured in those road and coach accidents, although, thankfully, they were not killed. An interesting report published by the Consumers Association showed that 12 per cent. of coach deaths could have been avoided if the people involved in those tragedies had been wearing seat belts. I and other hon. Members, including yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, can doubtless recall our long discussions in years gone by on the compulsory wearing of seat belts in motor cars. There was great opposition to that, but I do not think that anyone would now dispute that the fact that car drivers and passengers are required to wear seat belts has saved a great many lives.
I raise the subject because we are approaching the spring and summer, when hundreds, possibly thousands, of coaches will come on to our roads, many from European countries. They will carry many thousands of passengers each week. A few months ago, following the tragic coach accidents to which I referred, we heard from the Department of Transport, but, since then, we have heard very little about coach safety or about seat belts. I am not saying that nothing is being done, but I should like to know, as would other hon. Members, exactly what is being done.
A constituent of mine was very badly injured in a coach accident and, two years later, is still critically ill. His family have left me in no doubt that he firmly believes that, if he had been wearing a seat belt in the coach, his injuries could have been prevented.
I have done some research, following my constituent's sad experiences. Two special types of seat belt could be used. First, there is a seat belt that is similar to the type that are used in aircraft, with which we are all familiar. Secondly, there is a seat belt that is similar to the type that are used in motor cars. However, I am told that each type of belt presents its own problems.
The type of belt that we are used to wearing when we travel in aircraft—one receives instructions to ensure that seat belts are fastened—would not be suitable in a coach because, sadly, most of the injuries that passengers suffer in coach accidents are to the spine or the head. That often results in brain damage.

1045
The problem with the other type of belt, similar to the type that are used in motor cars, is the fitting of such a belt to an anchor point in the coach, because the present flooring of modern coaches is not strong enough for that anchor point to be installed. I, other Members and the general public would like to know the Government's thinking on that issue, because it leads to another problem. It would add substantially to the weight of coaches to fit the flooring to which that type of belt could be anchored.
In the past few days, I have asked a number of questions about bridge safety. I am told that there are weight restrictions on about 60 bridges in the United Kingdom. I will not go into detail, but coaches in Europe are heavier than coaches generally in the United Kingdom and, as a result of the age and structure of many bridges in this country, certain coaches, because of their weight, are not allowed to use those bridges. Therefore, the anchor point for what is generally suggested by experts—the car-type seat belt—would place additional weight on the coach, which in turn would not allow them to use certain bridges in many parts of the country.
I realise that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to take part in this short debate so I will only make two more points. The first is about cost. We are aware that substantial costs will be involved. It would be interesting to hear from the Department of Transport, which is responsible for those proposals for improving coach safety and seat belt regulations, who will help to pay the costs. Will it be the Government? Will it be local authorities?
I refer to local authorities especially with regard to school transport, because I understand that there are special problems with school transport. For example, would each youngster travelling in a minibus or school coach be required to wear a seat belt? That, I am told, could result in considerable expenditure. Having said that, I do not think that anyone disputes the urgent necessity for that issue to be considered in detail.
I conclude, largely echoing my opening comments, that last year there were tragic accidents, both for adults and, sadly, for a group of young people, in minibuses. I am sure that we all want progress in that area, but we have had no statement for a considerable time. Indeed, we have had no debate in the House on that issue. I do not expect the Leader of the House to be able to reply to my comments today, but I feel that I have a right to make them.
I hope that, in the near future, a Minister from the Department of Transport will make a detailed statement on coach safety and seat belt regulations. Members of the House, many organisations who are involved with consumer affairs or car manufacture and, I am sure, the general public would like to hear a statement from the Government about their thinking on those issues.
5.14 pm
Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, I wish to make four brief points.
The first point concerns hospital radio. I have the honour to be the unpaid parliamentary spokesman for hospital radio broadcasting. Hospital radio has been trying to obtain its own frequency for a long time. As hon. Members know, it is the largest voluntary organisation in the country without paid workers.
1046
Recently, the Radio Authority issued a consultative document entitled "The future use of 105–108 MHz." Comments on that document have to reach the Radio Authority by 22 April. All hon. Members have been written to on that subject and I am delighted to say that there has been a large response. It is a crucial opportunity for hospital radio to secure its own frequency. I hope that hon. Members will encourage Major-General Baldwin, chief executive of the Radio Authority, to choose option C. That offers a new network lattice of services. It is vital to hospital radio for radio stations to be allowed up to 10 km on FM.
The second point that I wish to raise is the Fenchurch Street line. It must now be about two years since I and other Essex colleagues made a disastrous journey on the Fenchurch Street line with the present chairman of British Rail. His manner and his response to hon. Members on that occasion was little short of a disgrace. Since that time, I and others have felt strongly that the Fenchurch Street line should be privatised. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to tell me when the announcement will be made about the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line.
It is a great discourtesy to all hon. Members affected by the line—I have three railway stations in my constituency: Pitsea, Basildon and Laindon—that we were given no notice that Fenchurch Street station would be closed for seven weeks in the summer for engineering work. It seems to be a coincidence that the closure would take place in July, when the House will be in recess. No hon. Members were written to; no meeting was sought.
I happen to have to hand a customer newsletter, in which I am told:
"We know this work will cause severe disruption for many of our customers, and we have looked at other options."
Severe disruption? The railway station will be closed for seven weeks. Some of my constituents have been told, "Take your holidays." I do not know how employers will judge their employees if they go on holiday for seven weeks.
All hon. Members who favour the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line well understand that heavy engineering work has to be conducted, but we do not understand the cavalier attitude of British Rail and its great discourtesy in not consulting Members of Parliament about the difficulties that will confront their constituents in those seven weeks. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will convey my anger, and that of other Essex Members of Parliament, to the chairman of British Rail.
My third point concerns Essex county council. I and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House have the tragedy of sharing the consequences of the incompetence of the rotten, socialist Essex county council. The county council is a love affair between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. They are disastrously engaging in power sharing. There is no area in which we have felt their wrath as much as in education.
I had the privilege of participating in an Adjournment debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), who touched on the matter of Hockerill comprehensive boarding school. Forty children from my constituency attend that school. The school wishes to become grant-maintained, but wicked Essex county council proposes to phase out the existing

1047
boarding subsidy without giving transitional support, for which there is a precedent, if the grant-maintained application is successful.
Wonderful Barstable school in my constituency is a grant-maintained school. There are a number of outstanding insurance claims which were incurred when the school was under Essex county council. The council is now wickedly passing the buck to the grant-maintained school.
Chowdhary school in my constituency is a wonderful school, which is attended by 107 pupils. It offers a unique type of education which many parents in my constituency very much believe suits their children. Again, Essex county council—Labour and the Liberal Democrats together—is considering closing this school. Yet the chairman of the governors, who stood as a Liberal Democrat candidate against one of my Conservative county councillors—I am pleased to say that he was defeated—is campaigning to save the school, although it is Essex county council, with Labour and the Liberal Democrats working together, which wants to close the school. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reflect on that.
Wonderful Lee Chapel South primary school in my constituency has now suffered the removal of the lollipop lady. Parents are. rightly outraged at this, which is a matter for Essex county council and the police. This Monday, I acted as the lollipop man. If I have time in future, I shall join other parents protesting outside the school and asking that the lollipop person be restored.
My fourth point concerns sex selection. Last February, I introduced a ten-minute Bill which would have prohibited sex selection. A number of feminist Members of Parliament opposed the Bill and it was defeated by 18 votes. If we are to believe newspaper comments, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has said—I do not know whether he was quoted accurately—that he is not in favour of sex selection.
This morning, I took part in a television programme, which was the first opportunity for me to debate the matter with the owner of the grubby little sex selection clinic in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). The owner of the clinic had the gall to say that the people who use his services sign a piece of paper agreeing that, if the wrong implantation is made, they will not be allowed an abortion. Emotively, a number of people who were receiving the treatment were present with him in the television studio.
What the clinic owner does not tell the people who are receiving the treatment is that it costs £650 on the first occasion, another £450 on the second occasion and more on subsequent occasions. This is the worst kind of commercialism. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people are against the principle of purchasing the sex of one's child. Above all, the nonsense of the practice is that the clinic itself claims only a 50 per cent. success rate. Is the man mad? There is a 50 per cent. chance of having a boy or girl, regardless.
I hope that every child, regardless of sex, is loved. The overwhelming majority of people, when they experience the joy of a new life, are not bothered about the sex of the child as long as it is healthy. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reflect carefully on my correspondence with Department of Health Ministers on the subject and on the response given to me after my ten-minute Bill.
1048
I was told by hon. Members that I should not have had the arrogance to introduce the Bill, but that I should have waited for the report from the committee considering the matter. I have waited. The committee reported that it certainly would not license the practice in its own clinics. When the managers of the British Medical Association said that they were in favour of the practice, their members came out against it. The Labour party spokesman on health, the hon. Member for Brightside, is against it. The BMA is against it and the committee is against it. What do my Government intend to do?
5.25 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: On 15 December 1993, after long deliberations, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, Mr. Reynolds, signed the Downing street declaration. They predicted that it was the basis on which the two Governments would be able to initiate a peace process. Mr. Reynolds went further when he declared that he would not sign the document unless he had confidence that it would achieve acceptance by the IRA and deliver a cessation of violence by Christmas.
The great suspicion among the Unionist community, based on years of experience, is that anything to which the Republic puts its hand in respect of Northern Ireland is frequently devious and intended to undermine. That is a sad and unfortunate reality, which is not always recognised on this side of the Irish sea. Yet for us to have decided summarily to reject the declaration would without doubt have been judged harshly in the House. It would have been claimed that we had thwarted the opportunity to provide the IRA with the means to move from violence to democracy.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I make it clear that neither I nor the party that I represent has even the slightest obligation to let the IRA off the hook, but we recognise our responsibility to 90 per cent. or thereabouts of our community who have a real desire for peace. That community, of course, has for the past 25 years made it clear that it cannot be peace at any price. The Government must be no less resolute, assiduous and honourable on that point.
If the declaration had succeeded, that would have been fine. Ulster Unionists, unlike another Unionist party, do not require the community to be kept in fear and trepidation to provide it with a raison d'être. Scaremongering to build up European election credibility is hardly going to save Ulster. What was necessary was that Ulster Unionists should carefully monitor the process, ensuring that what had been agreed was not given a new interpretation to accommodate those who were able to bring violence into the equation. After 25 years, we knew the IRA well enough to believe that the declaration would self-destruct under the pressure that it would bring to bear.
There is a major aspect of the declaration to which Ulster Unionists take serious exception, which is the totally unjustified assumption that, some day, the people of Northern Ireland will inevitably wish to become part of a united Ireland. The assumption is fundamentally incorrect, both now and for the foreseeable future. That is not Ulster Unionist intransigence, but the freely expressed will of the people of Northern Ireland. It is not a sectarian issue as those who glibly cite demographic trends would wish us to believe. Right across the community, there is a large

1049
majority who, whatever they may presently consider to be Northern Ireland's shortcomings, have no aspiration to achieve a united Ireland. There is no popular demand for Dublin rule.
Despite its fears and past betrayals, the Unionist community would do nothing to frustrate the Government in their efforts to bring violence to an end, but the harsh reality is that the Downing street declaration has been rejected by Gerry Adams and his Irish Republican Army. We warned that that was so in early January, again when Adams went to the United States, and at the time of the Sinn Fein conference. Do we need to say it again? It does not matter now whether the declaration was a good idea. It was killed off by the Provos before the end of last December.
So where do we go from here? Absolutely nothing has emanated from the Provisional IRA to suggest that it is war weary. It still has more than 100 tonnes of Gadaffi weaponry in hides, mainly in the Irish Republic. While that is so and the Government permit the command and control structure of the organisation to remain intact, cannon fodder will always be available among the misguided youth. That harsh fact must be addressed.
Bluntly, there is no future in pandering to the IRA. We have all taken political risks in trying to point it down the road to political sanity, but without success. We cannot afford to waste the lives that have been snuffed out and the bodies and minds that it has broken. Nor can we offer any further sacrifice to its madness in the hope that those evil people will be redeemed.
So where else can we look for support in the battle against the men of violence? Anyone who took part in the 1992 Brookes-Mayhew process will remember the negative contribution of the Irish Republic's delegation, and will have reached the conclusion that there is virtually no scope for any Government from the Republic to enter serious negotiations with Ulster Unionists. They are constrained by their inability to live with the political reality of the 1990s and to move out of the myths of the past.
While there is no doubt that the men from Leinster house talk a good game and that those in the present coalition see themselves as being the strongest Government in the history of the state, one has only to recall what happened to Albert Reynolds at the Fianna Fail annual conference last year. When he was seen to question the worth of the so-called "Adams-Hume initiative", the backwoodsmen of his party rallied against him and we had a demonstration of the power of hard and implacable republicanism. Whether Albert Reynolds has the ability to differentiate between one part of his anatomy and another, he can recognise his Achilles heel.
Perhaps that is the reason for Dublin's inability to cope with the political reality of what Ulster Unionism means. There appears to be a belief, even among the more enlightened elements such as one might associate with Mr. Spring's Irish Labour party, that it is necessary continually to appeal for Unionists to talk. One never quite knows whether that is intended to create an aura of goodwill for Great British consumption or an impression that the Unionists are impeding progress. In 1992, Ulster Unionists did everything in their power to get the Dublin Government to talk and found that they had nothing to say.
1050
Even when we went to Dublin and tried to deal with issues that we thought may have been on their agenda, the Dublin team proved to be politically impotent. For example, Ulster Unionists tabled an outline for a Bill of Rights. That detailed document was promptly ignored by the Irish. We later tabled a paper that addressed in practical terms the possible grounds on which a north-south relationship could be developed. The Irish delegation did not even want to discuss that, either. On the advice of his Department for Foreign Affairs, whose officials hated every minute which they had to spend outside their comfortable little world of Iveagh house in St. Stephens green, Mr. Reynolds could do nothing other than rush his team back home and bring the process to an abrupt end.
Mr. Reynold's only reason for closing the door on those talks in which we had invested so much time and effort was that he felt that he should have a conference under the aegis of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I challenge anyone to examine the subject matter and importance of that conference to see whether any issue discussed was so significant that it merited the deliberate destruction by the Irish of the 1992 talks process.
It is time for the Government and, equally important, Her Majesty's official Opposition, to send a clear signal to the Irish that they are both openly committed to the democratic process in Northern Ireland and that, while it would be a welcome bonus to have the genuine friendship of a neighbouring country, it cannot be constructed on the basis of megaphone diplomacy or the variable activity that often articulates co-operation but seldom produces the goods.
For example, the Government of the Irish Republic have had more than eight years since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to sort out their extradition procedures, but have singularly failed to do so. They knew of the flaws in legislation that they introduced several years ago but failed to do anything about it at the time. Now we are told that the problem has been resolved but that resolution is yet to be implemented. I stress that there will be no satisfactory extradition while the Irish constitution continues to incorporate the irredentist territorial claim enshrined in articles 2 and 3-mark my words well.
The idea that, by constantly whittling at our democratic rights, the IRA, the Irish Republic or anyone else will pare aware the resolve of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future is a folly. Ulster Unionists are not in the business of violence; we are neither half-hearted Unionists nor half-Unionists like the Democratic Unionist party, which toys with the idea of some sort of Ulster independence but which weakens Ulster's case by hollow rhetoric. By tradition and through the ballot box, we will maintain the British tradition of accountable democracy. I urge the House not to cast aside lightly that honourable objective.
The adage adopted in the 1992 talks that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" defines a foolish and elusive objective, as it sacrifices things that may be worth while now in favour of some utopia at the end of the rainbow. It asks, "How long is a piece of string?", and only a fool would hazard a guess. It is linked to that other cliché about three-stranded talks, which is another good way to create a vacuum rather than make progress.
Strand one is about the internal administration of Northern Ireland—that accountable democracy to which I

1051
referred earlier. It cannot be delayed to suit the mercurial disposition of outsiders. It is wrong to condemn Northern Ireland to a state of limbo. Let us get on with it.
Strand two 'was about relationships between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, but that was where we found a total lack of reality. The Republic adopted the attitude, "We must talk first about what we nationalists want and, if we can agree that, we might—just might—talk about what Unionists want." In effect, that simply means talking about one thing: more. It is open-ended and destructive. Ulster Unionists have talked, can talk and will talk to anyone operating within the normal democratic process, but we might reasonably ask for some indication that there is a serious agenda, not just an intention to increase the aggravation.
Strand three is about the relationship between the two sovereign Governments. As the Prime Minister has been known to say in this House, that is not a matter for me. Ulster Unionists cannot dictate to whom Her Majesty's Government will talk. We can, however, caution that nothing can be agreed which would ignore the rights of the people of Northern Ireland. Only once democratic principles prevail and Governments meet their obligations to eradicate terrorism can we hope to make progress. Ulster Unionists will certainly not be found wanting.
5.39 pm
Mr. Michael Bates: I believe that the House should not adjourn for Easter until it has discussed a matter of vital importance to my constituents. For this Parliament, which believes in free speech and in freedom of association, there can be few more repugnant sights than institutionalised apartheid. That is why we—rightly—took stringent measures against South Africa, where people were not prepared to play sports with other people because of the colour of their skin or because of their background. We repudiated that idea absolutely.
Yet it is with regret that I must report to the House that a system of apartheid is alive and well and living in Cleveland, where there is discrimination not on the ground of the colour of someone's skin but because of the colour of a person's school tie.
Macmillan city technology college serves the area of Middlesbrough and it has brought opportunity to many in that area. Its football team, reported the Darlington and Stockton Times this week, is about to win the Middlesbrough cup—without playing a single game. That is because it is the only team playing in the competition; no other school was prepared to play football with the CTC team—not because of any argument, not because of incapacity, not because there were no football teams, but simply because this is a city technology college. So the LEA schools have refused to take part in sports with it.
This is the worst sort of apartheid, because it plays politics with children. Those who took this decision are not the children or the football teams: these children probably live next door to each other. The fault lies with the sports teachers, the head teachers, the unions, the local education authorities, all of whom are backing this system of apartheid.
At one point we were told that the apartheid had stopped. On 21 May 1991, my predecessor, Richard Holt—a doughty fighter for my constituency if ever there was one—took up the issue in the Chamber, saying:
"When my hon. Friend"—
referring to the Minister for Sport—
1052
"leaves the Chamber, will he pick up a telephone and ring the chairman of the Sports Council and tell him that he will not pay one penny piece to Cleveland county council until my constituent, Mr. J.G. Campbell, and his son are treated fairly? The boy, who is a captain of the Middlesbrough football schools XI, has been denied the opportunity to continue to represent his home town and possibly to go on to greater things in football because the mean, vindictive and spiteful Cleveland county council will not recognise the Macmillan city technology college for the excellent place that it is."—[Official Report, 21 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 772]
Sadly, Richard Holt died soon afterwards, but in the ensuing by-election the issue was very much to the fore. Quite rightly, the parents of the children concerned and the press expressed their worries about the discrimination against a schoolboy whose only sin was that he wanted to play football for his town but was not allowed to.
Miraculously, during the by-election, there was a change of heart in the Labour party—perhaps it found the heat a little too much to bear. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the then education spokesman of the Labour party, arrived in the constituency in November 1991 to declare that he condemned this type of activity and discrimination. As a result, Cleveland county council apparently experienced a Damascus road conversion and the city technology college was allowed to join the Middlesbrough schools football association. The discrimination was supposed to end there, and the council took all the credit in the press for this change of mind. It claimed to have backed down on humanitarian grounds.
On 21 November 1991 my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Mr. Devlin), who takes a close interest in this matter, tabled an early-day motion in these terms:
"This House notes with considerable satisfaction the decision by Cleveland schools sports council to reverse its mean and vindictive ban on participation in county sport by Macmillan college, Middlesbrough; further notes that this will enable the school to take on its neighbours in competitive sport and will enable talented youngsters to play sport for their town; further notes that this change of heart has only come about because of the embarrassment of the national Labour party in the Langbaurgh by election when they had previously regarded the matter with indifference, in spite of a Langbaurgh child being banned from playing for Middlesbrough; regrets that the school sports council made their recent decision only after great pressure from parents, the local press and hon. Members of this House; and further regrets that Richard Holt is not still alive to see this end to victimisation take place."
Unfortunately, it has not ended, as the press reports have made clear. The CTC is allowed to be part of the schools football association, but the unions, the head teachers and the governors are preventing the football teams from taking part in competitive sport with the children from Macmillan.
The Secretary of State for Education condemned Cleveland in the House for condoning this type of discrimination. That sparked immediate outrage and denials that any discrimination was going on. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) felt moved to action, in the form of early-day motion 808, tabled on 10 March, just a week ago. It condemns the Secretary of State for Education for daring to suggest that a disgraceful form of educational apartheid exists in Cleveland. Little did the hon. Gentleman know that the policy continues, and that the people who are losing out are the children.
What sort of prejudices must be growing in the minds of the children in these schools? What will they grow up thinking when they find that they cannot play football with a CTC just because it is a CTC? It is all very strange. These people will have to answer for themselves.

1053
There is, however, something that we can do in this House. The Labour education spokesman—or perhaps today the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on her behalf—can join me, as her predecessor did, in condemning this discrimination against young people. That is not to say that we cannot debate education policy in this House: that is only right and proper. We can debate CTCs, grant-maintained schools and so on, but the place to debate them is on the political field, not on the football field. The sooner that message is rammed home among the people blocking this sort of sporting activity in Cleveland, the better for everyone.
The strangest thing of all is that the chairman of Cleveland county local education authority committee, Councillor Legg, claims that he was not aware of the system of apartheid or that games could not be played by LEA schools against Macmillan CTC. He did say, however, that it was understandable that a team should not play another team, even though they both belonged to the same association, simply because of the colour of a school tie.
It is even more ironic that Cleveland county council's headed paper states that Cleveland county council is an equal opportunities employer. There are equal opportunities policies coming out of their ears, but what about equal opportunities for children who want to play football? Those children are not at a private school, but at a state school. Their parents are not council tax payers in a distant part of the country; they are council tax payers in Cleveland and they deserve equality. Cleveland county council should be ashamed of itself for daring to endorse that discrimination and prejudice against Macmillan city technology college.
We also need to bear in mind the legality of one school refusing to play football with another, not on the ground that it is not affiliated to a football association such as the Middlesborough Schools Football Association or the English Football Association but simply because it is a CTC. If one English FA-affiliated school refuses to play another, surely that casts doubt on the relevance of that association. If it cannot ensure free competition and fair play between its members, what is the point of having it? What can the football associations do about it?
There are some clear challenges here. The first is to Cleveland county council—the equal opportunities employer—to practise a bit of equal opportunity in relation to Macmillan city technology college. The second challenge is to the Labour party to confirm that it still condemns such discrimination on the sports field. Labour Members may, if they wish, continue to argue and debate the policy in this place, but they should condemn using children as political pawns.
There is a challenge to the English Schools Football Association. What can it do if one member refuses to take part in sport with another? Surely that raises a question which needs to be answered.
Above all, our thoughts should go out not just to the pupils and teachers of Macmillan city technology college who want to play sport and who are not prejudiced against other schools; they should also go out to the children at schools in my constituency and others in Cleveland county council who want to play football irrespective of people's background, the colour of their skin or the colour of their
1054
tie. Those children want to play sport because sport is a good thing. It should not matter where people are from, what their background is or where they go to school. Democracy should be found on the sports fields of England.
5.52 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: That was one of the least convincing speeches I have ever heard from a party synonymous with selection, protection and isolation. I wonder just how many private schools play football with local schools. I spent my youth travelling around the wilds of Lincolnshire looking for other grammar schools to play against because the local secondary modern schools, which were also local authority schools, were not deemed fit to play.
Mr. Bates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Worthington: No. It is traditional to mention the speech of the previous speaker.
I should like to use this valuable debate to ask the Leader of the House to find time before the Easter Adjournment to take notice of early-day motion 653, which has already attracted 187 signatures. It concerns the Government's closure after 1996 of the Commonwealth Institute. I ask the Leader of the House and the Government to reconsider.
This is exactly the wrong time to send out a message that the Commonwealth does not matter. In a world where there is too much racism and ethnic cleansing in many places, it is the wrong time for the Government to withdraw from an important Commonwealth institution—the Commonwealth Institute.
We should be building up the Commonwealth and its symbolism of multi-racialism. It is a largely democratic institution in 50 countries. One of the major divisive influences on the Commonwealth during the Thatcher years—South Africa—is changing. We hope that, after successful elections in South Africa on 27 April, the new South African Government will want to apply to join the Commonwealth, as Namibia did a few years ago.
I find it difficult to understand why so many of us who support the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association are not agitated by the Government's proposal to close the Commonwealth Institute in 1996. There has been a firm commitment and statement by the Government that they will withdraw the funding of £2.6 million—equivalent to expenditure on a secondary school—in 1996.
Closing down the Commonwealth Institute in Kensington will also close the Commonwealth Institute in Scotland and the regional centre in Bradford.
The Government expect that private funds will be forthcoming after the privatisation of the Commonwealth Institute, but Lord Armstrong, who they commissioned to carry out a review of the Commonwealth Institute, concluded:
"I can see no reason to suppose that a private sector body could be found to take on the work of the Institute as it now is and in its present building without a Government grant".
The Government are showing a lack of commitment to multiracial values. It is a pity that, after what was probably the most positive Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting for years in Cyprus last year, where the right words were said about the Commonwealth, the Government should be planning to withdraw.

1055
I am not suggesting that the Commonwealth Institute is perfect. In recent years, there has been a lack of impact, but to some extent that is due to the Government, as the grant to the Common wealth Institute has been inadequate and has been cut in real terms over the years.
The building itself is a major problem, the extent of which depends on what one reads—sometimes the Government say that it requires the expenditure of £8 million to £10 million, sometimes they say £3 million. However, there is a problem about the building, to which I shall return later.
There is also a problem about why solely the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has to fund the Commonwealth Institute. A huge amount of its work involves supporting education—in particular, the national curriculum.
There is a case for other countries to contribute to the work of the Commonwealth Institute. It is strange that there are no concrete links between the Commonwealth Institute and the Commonwealth Secretariat. Such links would seem logical, but the Government are in the driving seat. They should be looking at how the Commonwealth Institute has developed. Two of its trustees are the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education. The Government are represented on the board of management of the Commonwealth Institute and should have made sure that such problems did not arise.
Simply to step in and point a gun at the head of the institute is wrong. It would be wrong, particularly in Africa, given the difficulties that that continent is experiencing, for the Government to send out a message of withdrawal from the ideals of the Commonwealth. Most people would agree that we need that symbol of hope, of multiracial working together, stimulating good governance, trying to achieve a peaceful world in which the 50 countries of the Commonwealth can demonstrate that they can positively work together.
What is perhaps most difficult to understand about the Government's position is that the building in Kensington is a listed building. It is a building of some distinction but has been allowed to decay. It has to be restored and cannot be allowed simply. to close down. Money will have to be spent by the Government to restore it; but to what purpose? What alternative use do the Government have in mind for the building? In view of its location, it is difficult to see what planning permission Kensington and Chelsea council would approve. The area is probably the centre for museums in this country, and the local Conservative council would probably not allow it to be used for any purpose other than the present one. The local Conservative council recently condemned the Government for what they were doing.
In his report, Lord Armstrong said:
"It seems that outright closure cannot be regarded as likely to generate any significant savings on public expenditure in the short term: perhaps even the reverse."
Instead of the Government working with the trustees and the board of management of the institute to make it a fully effective organisation, the proposal is to close it—the institute should be a beacon of light to the world—for no savings whatever.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom's bid to host the Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002 makes the issue all the more sensitive?
Mr. Worthington: I do. I know my right hon. Friend's interest in this matter. The Government are sending the wrong message on all kinds of dimensions, and this is one of them. It is difficult for Manchester to carry the conviction of the whole nation when the Government are pulling the plug on its bid. In effect, the Government are saying that they are not interested in the Commonwealth any more.
The Commonwealth Institute celebrated its centenary last year. It has gone through various changes during those 100 years. Every Government have said that they could afford first the Imperial Institute and then the Commonwealth Institute, but the present Government have said that it has no priority. I cannot see the financial savings, because the building has to be restored. I can see a major loss of the institute's functions occurring, but this seems an inept move politically by the Government, because primary legislation is needed to close it.
The institute cannot just be closed, because, under the terms of the trust deed from the Ilchester estate, the building and land are on a 999-year lease and can be used only for that purpose. Why are the Government seeking to do that, because I am sure that there will be significant rebellion in the House against it? I cannot think that the legislation would have much chance of getting through the House of Lords, because there are prominent defenders of the Commonwealth and the institute there.
Before the Government get a bloody nose through attempting to close the Commonwealth Institute, they should see sense and withdraw their closure proposal and start working with the board of management of the institute in order to give an effective message of hope for the Commonwealth and this country.
6.5 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: It will not surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to know that, before we rise for the Easter recess, I believe that the House should think again about the high-speed rail link as it passes through Kent, but particularly as it passes through my constituency in the borough of Gravesham, which has been afflicted by a multiplicity of routes during the five and a half years in which the matter has been under consideration.
You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, the statement in January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, when he said that he had decided to omit Pepper hill, in my constituency, and Ashford from the safeguarding of the route. At that time, he was treated with considerable derision, particularly from Opposition Members, for making those omissions to the route. He could easily have said, with great courage and strength, "I have decided. That is it. This is the route from St. Pancras to the channel tunnel." But he did not, and we may well ask why. My right hon. Friend had the courage to refuse the proposal of Union Railways to tunnel beneath the houses of residents at Pepper hill. He instructed Union Railways to engineer up alternatives, particularly the route under the A2, at my request.
The route that was announced to the House last year skirted the entire southern edge of the urban area of Gravesham—Gravesend and Northfleet—all along the A2, but suddenly and inexplicably crossed the A2 and passed beneath the houses of the Pepper hill housing estate, which is on the far corner of Northfleet. It was totally unnecessary to bring misery to the lives of the residents. It was quite

1057
clear to those residents and to me that Union Railways' claim at that time—that people living above its tunnel would neither hear nor feel the trains passing beneath—was unbelievable. It does not seem credible that a tunnel with high-speed trains passing through it, at a depth at its most shallow point of only 17 ft, would not have an effect on the residents concerned. Union Railways was adamant.
I called for a geological survey to be done immediately, which Union Railways would clearly need in due course with such a proposal. It took Union Railways three months to say yes. It took it a further two months to get started. That is five months gone in a six-month consultation period. That was why my right hon. Friends the Ministers quite rightly extended the consultation period in Gravesham to the end of 1993 so that the views of the residents of Gravesham, the borough council and myself could be given.
I am not a scientist. A geological survey could be produced with every manner of statistics, bar graphs and goodness knows what else, and I would not know what conclusions to draw. For that reason, I asked Gravesham borough council to retain specialists who could draw conclusions and state authoritatively, drawing on the data from the survey, to what extent, if any, the residents would feel vibration and to what extent there might be subsidence. Those consultants came up with proof that there would be vibration, subsidence and noise.
We laymen might say, "Surprise, surprise," but here was scientific proof, which I conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I argued that it was entirely unreasonable to tunnel beneath those people's houses when an alternative should be investigated. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's courage in saying, "No, I will not determine the route. Union Railways must go out and try to engineer an alternative."
Union Railways has now done that, and it has called the new route the 227. It involves the railway line continuing westward in its cutting, past Northfleet and beneath the A2, then passing into the Ebbsfleet valley slightly beyond the electricity substation. At last, Union Railways has done what seemed perfectly logical in the first place. It has presented my right hon. Friend with that option, which was revealed to my constituents only last week at an exhibition in Northfleet.
Since then, I have spoken to a number of Northfleet residents, particularly those living in Pepper hill. I was led to believe that they support the route, which would avoid tunnelling under their houses. My campaign for the route has the strong backing of the A2 rail action group—a voluntary group of local residents, led by Mrs. Celia Jones, who have put their case forcefully, democratically and steadily over many months.
I fully expect Gravesham borough council to give similar bipartisan support. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will draw the strong views of those involved to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is after the determination of the route that the preparations of our MEP, Ben Patterson, will come into force—that is, his efforts to establish the extent of the European Commission's support, in the form of funds for environmental protection in connection with the great transport infrastructure projects of Europe. I believe that,
1058
even if the high-speed rail link is necessary for the transport infrastructure of this country and Europe, it should not be introduced at the expense of the environment of residents all along the route.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for paying close heed to the welfare of my constituents in Pepper hill. We look forward to a positive result from his decision to make an exception and hope that our MEP will succeed in harnessing the funds and the initiative of the European Commission for the support of my constituents' environmental protection.
6.12 pm
Mr. John Spellar: I believe that the House should not adjourn for the Easter recess without discussing the serious abuses of human rights in the Punjab, and, in particular, the deplorable phenomenon of enforced and involuntary disappearances. The subject is especially relevant this week, because of the visit of the Indian Prime Minister.
I am sure that no hon. Member would argue for the encouragement or support of terrorism. The activities of groups around the world who try to advance their cause by means of intimidation, rape and murder are abhorrent and should be condemned. We should also acknowledge the importance of the relationship between this country and India. There is a long-standing political relationship and a developing trade relationship. We hope that those links were strengthened during the Indian Prime Minister's visit. It is also important to stress that India is a democracy—not the commonest constitutional form in that part of the world.
Even if we take all those factors into account, however, the activities of the Indian security forces in the Punjab cannot be excused. That is clearly of concern to many citizens of this country with families in the Punjab, but it goes much wider than that, especially as a result of a campaign by Amnesty International, which has drawn the problems to the attention of many other people here.
The most recent Amnesty International report, published in December last year, put it very well:
"However provocative, the grave abuses committed by armed separatist groups can never justify the security forces resorting to arbitrary detentions, torture, extrajudicial executions or 'disappearances'."
I commend that report, and Amnesty International's continued interest in the area. Regrettably, its work has been frustrated considerably over the years by the Indian Government—who have refused access to the area—as have attempts to secure visits by other teams of independent observers, both from this country and from international sources.
Despite those frustrations, Amnesty International has managed to compile reports of torture and disappearances in the Punjab. Last year's report stresses that, each year, scores of people disappear in the Punjab from among the many thousands of political prisoners detained by the state. Some are detained under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act—TADA—regulations. Official sources say that several thousand more are held without trial under preventative detention laws in force in the Punjab.
The report goes on to describe the manner of the arrests. Usually, no explanation of the reason for an arrest is given and arrests are often not registered at the local police station. One can imagine the concern that that causes to relatives. Victims are often abducted by police in plain

1059
clothes travelling in cars without number plates. When attempts are made to follow them up, many are found to have disappeared.
The report says:
"State complicity in such practices is evidenced from a clear pattern of official cover-up. This involves officials routinely ignoring numerous letters … Cables from relatives to government officials reporting a 'disappearance' … go unanswered. Officials even go to the extent of giving contradictory statements. In court, police persist in denying that 'disappeared' persons were ever arrested … or simply claim that the victim 'escaped'."
The position was summed up by India Today on 15 October 1992:
"Many of the cases of killing of militants as reported to the police, and dutifully carried by the newspapers are plain disinformation … The police have acted beyond the pale of the law time and again, and often in the most blatantly callous fashion. The police have devised many ways of keeping the judiciary off their back. One of them is proclaiming that a militant has escaped. He can then be kept in custody, for an unlimited period to extract information by whatever means."
Let me make it clear that it is to the credit of Indian society that officials—judicial officers—will sometimes expose wrongdoing, and the press will report it. It should be stressed that India is not a totalitarian state, although it may be acting as a repressive state.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the residents of the Punjab require the proper maintenance of law and order, and the proper control of extortion rackets and the like? It is even more necessary for the Indian Government to deal with their police force and army, so that corruption of this kind can be stamped out.
Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had made clear the opposition of all hon. Members to terrorist activities, which he has just reaffirmed. I shall come to the Indian Government's failure to deal with abuses and excesses in the security forces. That, too, is an issue that unites hon. Members in all parties.
It is all the more regrettable that, rather than following up abuses when they are revealed, the Indian Government threaten journalists, lawyers and others who expose those abuses. Furthermore—as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) rightly pointed out—concern is expressed about the responsibility of the Punjab police not only for actions in Punjab but for actions elsewhere in India involving disappearances and even shootings.
There is also widespread concern at the operation of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act. There is an absence of fundamental legal safeguards for detainees. Under the legislation, police can often claim that those who have disappeared have "escaped from custody." An even more worrying section refers to
"any action taken, whether by act or by speech or through any other media … which questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt, whether directly or indirectly, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or which is intended to bring about or supports any claim … for the cession of any part of India or the secession of any part of India".
That attacks not just terrorism but the right of free speech and political opinion. TADA has allowed detention for investigation for up to one year without charge.
We have seen the way in which that legislation has been used in repression of the press during the recent raid on the Aj Di Awaz newspaper and the arrest of its staff. That has been the subject of questions in the House and, I hope, of representations by Ministers to the Indian Ministers when they were here recently.
1060
A case that has caused considerable concern in the House and has been raised by several hon. Members is that of Harjit Singh. He is featured prominently in Amnesty International advertisements and is related to one of my constituents. I also took an interest in his case because he worked for the electricity authority in India. In a previous incarnation, I was an official of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union.
In April 1992, Harjit Singh was standing at a bus stop waiting to go to work at the state electricity board. He was surrounded by police who began jostling him. He was then dragged away. He has "not been seen since". The police firmly denied his existence and then said that he was killed in an incident with armed militants. They refused to produce his body. His father and other relatives claim to have seen him in prison, but say that he has since been moved on. That has put enormous strain on the family and is creating enormous pressures. In many ways, he has become a symbol of many who have disappeared in the Punjab. It is fair to say that the authorities have been obstructive, to say the least.
There is a reluctance to investigate or take action against those responsible. The hon. Member for Gravesham mentioned that, and it has been of concern in not just this case but many others. It was suggested that those who had perpetrated human rights violations should have legal action taken against them, but the director general of police said that it would "demoralise" the police force. The Chief Minister said that the Punjab police would not be "screened and cleaned up", as it would hamper "anti-terrorist operations."
That is not good enough. As I said at the outset, the entire Sikh community in this country is concerned, and we should be concerned, at that abuse. Whatever our views or whatever their views about the constitutional status of the Punjab, we cannot accept that breakdown of law and order. I hope that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have conveyed the concerns that have been expressed in the House to the Indian Prime Minister and his colleagues during their visit. We also hope that the pressure will continue to restore proper standards and bring peace to the troubled land of the Punjab.
6.23 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) raised an important subject and I feel almost reluctant to move away from the problems of the Punjab and the weighty problems of national sovereignty to talk about a subject that is of no great moment in that respect. However, it is a subject that gets right up my nose and, I suspect, up the noses of many Londoners—the current state of London's roads.
An enormous amount of frustration is building up among Londoners as they see the chaos with which we are daily presented as we try to move painfully around the capital city. I am not necessarily a great devotee of a roads lobby, but the alternative of using public transport is not up to scratch, either. The buses are affected by all the other vehicles on the roads and, at times, the London underground system, rather like the roads, is approaching a state of near-chaos and collapse.
At times, it seems almost as if every road in London is being dug up, while every Thames bridge is being worked on. I know that that is an exaggeration, but it is the sort of

1061
exaggeration from which I seem to suffer as I make my journeys on public transport or as I drive into the House each day. The impression one gets is that there is chaos all around us. There is no co-ordination and no one in charge. There is no one to get hold of and brutalise in order to expiate the enormous anger that builds up as one tries to go about one's lawful business.
It is not just the sheer frustration of sitting in a traffic jam surrounded by traffic cones, all of which seem to grin. I do not know why it is, but they seem to take on a life form of their own. In fact, we have become the world's largest exporter of traffic cones. We must be making an awful lot because I should have thought that we would be importing them, given the number that seem to infest our roads. What really gets one is that there is no warning about the traffic jam in which one suddenly finds oneself. It could perhaps have been avoided if one had been given an opportunity to re-route. One is not given that sort of chance. A road that one might have gone down in the morning has sometimes been dug up by the time one comes back in the evening. It is very frustrating.
There is little, if any, evidence of any common sense or planning being applied to those works. I accept that many of them are essential because they represent infrastructure investment. However, many seem to be, if not unnecessary, certainly carried out extremely tardily. Traffic lights are not rephased, and temporary traffic management schemes are not even considered or seem to have been devised by half-mad aliens from space. It seems that maximum inconvenience to Londoners is the objective.
I am assuming that it is not Martians who are responsible for what is going on in London.
Mr. Worthington: It is the Minister for Transport in London.
Mr. Banks: I should like to see that estimable gentleman spending a little more time concentrating on the problems of moving around London. I do not think that he is the only one responsible. I am ready to point the finger at any Tory because I blame the Tories for most things, including the state of the weather. However, I do not think that they are the only villains in this case.
Who are the villains? Essentially it is the public utilities—electricity, water, telecommunications companies and, at times, London Transport. The main villain seems to be the television cable companies. All those bodies have the legal right to break open the streets. Also, the work of private developers sometimes manages to spill over on to the public highway, inconveniencing those who are trying to use streets.
Those public utilities not only have a statutory right to break up the road but seem to take a perverse delight in doing it one at a time on the same stretch of road. The road is dug up, it is filled in and then someone else digs it up again. It does not make any sense and, as I have said, it causes great frustration.
The work on the roads seems to conform to the normal working pattern of the day. In other words, it starts at about 8.30 or 9 o'clock and continues until about 5.30, when everyone goes home. I do not believe that people should have to work unsocial hours, but many people are ready to work on a shift system. We should have more night-working on major road repairs and there should be
1062
weekend work as well. Plenty of people are ready to do overtime, but none of the statutory undertakings seems ready to pay it. [Interruption.] I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) as he seems to be beside himself with enthusiasm to join in.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Has anybody asked my hon. Friend whether those road works were outside his own house at midnight?
Mr. Banks: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point, because obviously such works cannot be undertaken in residential areas. He will recall, however, that emergency repairs to a collapsed sewer in Parliament square were conducted at a time convenient to right hon. and hon. Members. The utilities know to get a move on when they will be inconveniencing Members of Parliament, but there is no concern for the poor perishers who live in my constituency. The utilities can dig up roads in the east end, walk away and leave them for a few weeks. When they come back, the holes will be full of litter, but that prevents it from blowing around. But if works affect Members of Parliament, they must get on with them straight away. That seems to smack of double standards.
We have all commented on the enormous profits that privatised companies are making, so there is no economic excuse for their not completing works on London's roads as quickly, efficiently and effectively as possible. They are not short of a bob or two when it comes to shelling out for extra overtime. They minimise their costs on street works and maximise the inconvenience to Londoners.
I hoped that the Government would have included in legislation the recommendations of the Horne report, which was welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was felt that the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 would have made some improvements. Far from it—the situation in London seems to have gone from bad to worse. I know that I am getting a little aerated, but I have been waiting for this opportunity. I keep thinking, "I am going to write to my Member of Parliament about this," but then I realise that I am my Member of Parliament. So I am raising this matter not only on my behalf but on behalf of my constituents and many Londoners.
Anyone who uses a taxi only has to scratch slightly to hear the complaints of taxi drivers, who often seem to question the parentage of Ministers, especially Transport Ministers. Naturally, I always stoutly defend Conservative Ministers. Despite the welcome that it received from hon. Members, the 1991 Act has serious defects—primarily, local authorities no longer have responsibility for carrying out street works on behalf of the utilities. The new Act gives utilities responsibility for works under the terms of a nationally agreed set of specifications.
I shall quote from the British Road Federation, which is unusual for me but it is in line with the advice that I have received from my borough council, the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities. Everyone seems to agree: only action is missing to deal with the problems. The British Road Federation says:
"The legislation has been broadly welcomed and few expected there to be an overnight transformation."
That is an understatement, but we certainly did not expect it to get worse overnight. The federation continues:
"Information about the daily activities of utilities is still very limited. This causes significant problems for local authorities if they are to achieve the inspection levels required in the regulations without incurring excessive abortive costs. The inspection fee is inadequate to fulfil the duties indicated by the

1063
Act and highway authorities are experiencing a real increase in costs. There is also concern that the standards of reinstatement set may not be sufficient."
It can say that again. Good metalled roads are broken up by contractors on behalf of public utilities, only to be repaired in a slipshod fashion. Within a few days or weeks, they are reduced to potholed patchwork quilts. Such is the state of London's roads today.
The British Road Federation continues:
"The co-ordination of street works needs to be improved. The duty to co-ordinate rests with highway authorities"—
local authorities. It says:
"utilities have to endeavour to co-operate but it is not a duty."
I tell the Leader of the House that they do not endeavour much when it comes to informing local authorities, because it is not a duty. We have a permissive, lax system, and unless a requirement is imposed on the utilities, they will not take any notice but will laugh at us.
The federation says:
"In many instances it is impractical to co-ordinate all the small scale works being undertaken. This is because the notice period for minor works is too short."
That may be so, but the delays caused by minor works certainly are not too short. The federation continues:
"Co-ordination, therefore, is only happening on major works, where there is a minimum of one month's notice. The major area of concern is the belief that the implementation of the Act is adding to local authorities expenditure."
That is what all the local authorities and associations in London and, I suspect, throughout the country, whatever their political complexion, are saying. The public utilities simply cannot be trusted. The Act is not working as we intended.
We must address the problem, which is giving rise to enormous frustration and anger not only in me but among Londoners. I ask the Leader of the House and his colleagues to initiate an urgent investigation into the impact of the legislation and to seek ways to deal with the problems that we are experiencing on London's roads.
6.35 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I rise to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether it would be possible to ensure that we do not break for the Easter recess until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made a statement on the important issue of the road building programme and on the problem facing my constituency—the proposed new motorway from the M25 to Chelmsford.
I remember sitting in the House soon after I was elected in 1987 and listening to a statement from the then Secretary of State for Transport on the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity". I thought that it did not affect my constituency or any of the surrounding constituencies in mid-Essex, but to my amazement I discovered that it recommended the construction of a new motorway from the M25 to Chelmsford.
Few people—commuters and those in industry and commerce—would dispute the need to have good road and rail communications throughout the country, especially in the southern and mid-Essex areas, offering access into the hinterland of East Anglia, to the ports at Harwich and Felixstowe and up into Norfolk and Suffolk. That is particularly true with the arrival of the single market and the opening later this year of the channel tunnel. Business, industry and commerce must be able to maximise their opportunities to flourish and to take advantage of improving economic conditions.
1064
It seems to my constituents and me, however, and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles)—and even, I suspect, to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton)—quite criminal that a new motorway could be constructed from the M25 through the green belt and the small villages and rural areas of Essex, passing through Highwood in my constituency, on to Writtle in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree and back to the Al2 south of Chelmsford at Margarreting. That is virgin, agricultural and rural green belt land.
What puzzles our constituents is that nobody ever asked for this road. We do not want it. It is unloved and unnecessary and there are other ways to improve the existing road network into East Anglia. I cannot find many people in south and mid-Essex who are in favour of the road. All the local authorities reject the need for a new motorway. Certainly, my right hon. and hon. Friends with constituencies in the area reject it.
The excellent work done by the "Stop the M12" association has highlighted the anger, disgust and antipathy of local residents towards a new road through that part of Essex. The campaign that has been waged almost ever since the proposal first became known has been successful in that it has been able to sustain itself for a long time and to continue lobbying without splitting into splinter groups and to bring it home to the Secretary of State for Transport and other Ministers at the Department that nobody wants this unloved road.
Ultimately, we do not know whether the campaign has been successful because no decisions have been made or announced, but we shall continue to campaign and lobby until we hear from my right hon. Friend that the road is to be killed off and that the proposal will never see the light of day. I stress that the sooner that the announcement can be made the better, because it would remove the fears of our constituents and the potential blight of properties along the proposed route.
There is a problem as to what the route might be. Three suggestions have been pencilled or sketched in from the M25 to Chelmsford. For the past 18 months consultants have been trying to determine whether any of the three routes should be used or whether the existing Al2 should be upgraded. We do not yet have the consultants' report or the results of the public inquiry to go on. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is anxious to save on public expenditure. Some months ago, I suggested to Ministers at the Department of Transport that one way of cutting public expenditure and saving waste would be to stop examining the routes and abandon the proposal altogether, but they have not done that, so we must now wait for the report and the decision of the Department of Transport.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport the concern and desire to have an announcement, if at all humanly possible, before the Easter recess so that our constituents can have peace of mind and so that we can ensure that this hare-brained, unloved and unwanted scheme is killed off once and for all.
6.42 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: The Evening Standard of Wednesday 16 March carried the headline, "Victory for Right to Smack". I believe that that

1065
is a tragedy for thousands of children. To a great extent, I blame the stupidity of Justice Wilson, who rejected a bid by Sutton borough council to outlaw smacking even with parental permission. It is an interesting dichotomy—who decides and what degree—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman really should not criticise a member of the judiciary—he can do so only on a substantive motion. Will he please bear that in mind?
Mr. Boyes: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
An important group—the Physical Punishment of Children pressure group—claimed that the decision to permit smacking went against Government policy, undertakings made by the Government and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Will the Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues look into the matter?
Let us imagine the serious consequences of the decision for social services departments. I was an assistant director of social services for Durham county council and I am well aware of the organisational and cash implications of such a decision. I make it clear that child minders and other carers should not, in any circumstances, smack, slap or shake children. We should not abuse our children in any way. I have managed to bring up two children—both of whom are now more than 30 years old—without finding it necessary to smack, slap or shake them.
Sutton council refused to register Mrs. Davis as an official child minder because she refused to sign an undertaking not to use corporal punishment, which tells us a great deal. Recently there have been a number of tragedies involving children: three children died in Peterlee and there was the famous case of Maria Calwell.
I deal now with schoolteachers. It is crazy that an unqualified child minder is able to smack a child but a qualified schoolteacher in county Durham, for example—my education authority—could and would be dismissed if he or she smacked a child. I believe that that is right and that the other course of action is wrong.
6.45 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), given his experience before coming to the House, speaks with great authority on the topic of child abuse. He is also correct to draw our attention to the anomalies which the recent judgment creates. I am sure that the House will have to return to this matter.
If, in their drive to amalgamate Departments, the Government decide to amalgamate the Department of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Department of Transport, the Leader of the House will be able to pass the job of replying to debates of this sort to the new joint Secretary of State, because almost all the matters that have been raised in our three-hour debate relate either to foreign affairs or to transport.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) was joined by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) in praising the Foreign Secretary for the leadership qualities that he is displaying, especially when standing up to the shortcomings of the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to list
1066
his criticisms of the European Union and to offer helpful advice to the parliamentary Labour party on how we should be probing European institutions. It is a debating device of long standing that those who wish to criticise the stance of their own party challenge the opposing party for not making the same criticisms effectively enough. The right hon. Gentleman gave the game away a little when he felt it necessary to make special mention of a point on which he agreed with the Prime Minister.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Moms), not only rightly but movingly, drew the House's attention to the plight of people in receipt of war pensions and war widows' pensions who will be affected by the Government's proposed changes. I hope that the Leader of the House, who is very knowledgeable on the subject, will be able to say something to set at rest the minds of those who are currently in receipt of such pensions, particularly those who were unfortunately tortured in captivity during the second world war. Those who managed to survive the cruel circumstances of far eastern prison camps, in particular, and who are now of pensionable age deserve to be at the forefront of the House's consideration. My right hon. Friend was quite right to refer to their plight, and I hope that the Leader of the House will say something to meet his concern.
My right hon. Friend also raised the question of our having a Minister in the Ministry of Defence to deal specifically with veterans' affairs and to co-ordinate the work of various Departments. This matter has been dealt with on previous occasions and is certainly worthy of consideration.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) called for help for the elderly. He outlined some of the problems that such people face and some of the things that the Government are doing to help. The assistance that pensioners are being given to enable them to carry the extra burden represented by VAT on fuel bills, while welcome as far as it goes, is not adequate compensation. The average pensioner household will still be £1 a week short. That may not sound like a lot of money, but it is a great deal for pensioners on small and relatively fixed incomes.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies had a look at the changes in the distribution of the tax burden for the period 1985–95 and found that the very wealthiest were better off but that everybody else was paying more, largely as a result of the shift from direct taxation to indirect taxation. Those with family responsibilities and the very poor were particularly hard hit. The poorest decile and the second poorest, into which most pensioners fall, were also hit particularly hard.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) drew attention—slightly implausibly, I thought—to the Government's record on crime. He failed to make any proper analysis of the growth of crime or to offer any genuine means of dealing with it, apart from his call for more police on the beat. Many of us think that the rather woolly liberalism that the hon. Gentleman seems to represent has contributed to the problem rather than provided a solution to it. [Interruption.] Well, that is my view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) struck a seasonal note as we move towards the holiday period. He raised the important question of coach safety and seat belts. If it is true that 12 per cent. of deaths

1067
resulting from coach accidents could be prevented through the use of seat belts, such devices will have to be fitted, and funds will have to be provided for the purpose.
Time does not allow me to deal adequately with all the matters raised crisply—as always on these occasions—by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr.Amess). The hon. Gentleman, as he often does, denounced Essex county council for being a rotten socialist body, citing in evidence of socialist repression the removal of the lollipop lady. That does not seem to me such a dreadful act of socialist tyranny. Certainly foreign countries have provided more ferocious examples in the past. Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman offered to do the job himself. Given the fact that his seat is a marginal one, although he has held on to it so far, and given the Government's current lack of popularity, I understand why he should be looking around. I wish him well in his future career, for which he is adequately qualified.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) restated his case on events in Northern Ireland. I do not feel qualified to make a full and comprehensive response. However, I can say that we all listened with respect and understanding.
That is more than I can say for the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who drew a parallel between the revolting apartheid regime in South Africa and the refusal of some schools in Cleveland to play football with a team from a city technology college. I hope that hon. Members will understand when I say that the two issues are not the same—not in proportion, and not even in theme. After all, city technology colleges were intended to be divisive, and the hon. Gentleman should not be surprised if those who attend other academic institutions are resentful. That is clearly what is happening in Cleveland.
Drawing a parallel between apartheid and the question whether schools play football with each other is a wrongful statement of the case, but it is also particularly rich when it comes from: Langbaurgh. Like the hon. Gentleman, I remember the Langbaurgh by-election. I went down to help my friend Ashok Kumar, who won the by-election but, unfortunately, did not retain the seat at the general election. Those of us who took part in that by-election know that racism did raise its ugly head and that certain people encouraged it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman invites me to join him in condemnation. I am happy to do so. I condemn racism, I condemn those who incite it, and I condemn those who benefit from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) presented an impressive defence of the Commonwealth Institute. He was right to ask whether the Government have thought this issue through. Closure of the institute—this is what the Government seem to be moving towards—could cost rather than save public money. It seems to me that that would be a ridiculous state of affairs.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) added to the speech that he made in the debate when we last discussed an Adjournment motion by telling us of a concession that he had received from the Department of Transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) returned to the question of foreign affairs with a very powerful speech in defence of human rights in the Punjab. He was quite right to put his speech in the context of our relationship with India, with which we have historic connections and very friendly ties and commercial
1068
arrangements. He cited the Amnesty International report and condemned the disappearance of militants. It was very interesting to hear him make that point. However, he balanced his comments with references to the Indian judiciary and press and to the role that they can play in restoring government of a type that we should like to see—democratic rather than authoritarian.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke for all of us who have to travel to this building when he referred to the frustration involved in getting through the traffic in London. Who is in charge? Who plans the various works? It is clear that the lack of an overall authority is disrupting the city. I know that the Lord President thinks himself fortunate that my hon. Friend defends Ministers when, travelling in cabs, he explains these matters to enraged taxi drivers. I am sure that he is a powerful advocate.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), having read the document "Roads to Prosperity", hoped that it would not apply to his own constituency. He called for peace of mind for the next general election. I expect that the Lord President will be able to give him some assurance.
I should like the Lord President to provide me with some peace of mind in respect of the Swan Hunter shipyard in my constituency. It is in dire circumstances. It is in the hands of receivers and could close, with the loss of all jobs. Some 2,000 direct employees and 2,000 people indirectly employed have already gone. There are only 600 manual workers left, but it is possible that at least their jobs can be saved if the Ministry of Defence commits a medium-sized order now. There is such an order in prospect, and it would certainly be the most welcome news for Tyneside if an announcement were to be made before we adjourned for the Easter recess.
6.58 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I was put in mind, during the speech of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I am mispronouncing part of the name of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I shall avoid referring to it and stick simply to "Clydebank".
Mr. Tom Clarke: It is the Tory bit that the right hon. Gentleman is avoiding.
Mr. Newton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that was accidental.
The reference to the Commonwealth Institute put me in mind of the fact that, only yesterday, I spent a very pleasant hour with a large number of parliamentarians who are here under the banner of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
My task was to talk about the job of being Leader of the House. I ventured into most of the details, such as the business statement, the occasional difficulties of having to stand in for the Prime Minister at Question Time, the business of planning the legislative programme and all the rest, but I did not venture into trying to explain the arcane mysteries of the occasional debates in which the Leader of the House, having proposed that the House should have a holiday, sits here for three hours listening to hon. Members expressing, apparently with great passion, their desire not to have a holiday until a certain matter has been discussed.

1069
The Leader of the House then watches the shiver of apprehension that goes around the Chamber when anyone suggests that he might accept those blandishments and withdraw his motion. Indeed, a distinct frisson passed over the face of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) when he heard an hon. Member say, "If we have a recess" rather than, "before we have a recess." I noted that carefully.
Many subjects were raised during the debate. Manifestly, I shall not have time to respond to them all. Where I am not able to respond fully, I shall ensure that the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friends is drawn to what has been said, and they will reply in other ways, as may be appropriate.
I am especially conscious of that difficulty because several Essex issues have been raised both by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), with whom I share some concerns, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who mentioned some educational problems that are of concern in my constituency, too. To my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford I merely say delicately that I understand why he raised those matters, and that I have no doubt that many of my constituents in the Chelmsford part of my constituency would have wished to echo what he said—and also some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon on education and other matters.
Let me now, in as good order as I can, deal with the speeches in the order in which they were made. I fully understand the reasons for the speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the importance that they attach to expressing their backing for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am sure that he, and indeed all of us, are grateful for that. However, I hope that they will understand that, after the exchanges during Prime Minister's questions and the remarks that I made during business questions both this week and last week, and as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in the midst of the negotiations, there is not a great deal that I can now add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have already said.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), in his capacity as parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion, raised two points, one about the recent changes in the war pensions scheme concerning deaths caused by smoking-related diseases or by alcohol-related diseases—it is perhaps important that that should be registered. Some of the same things could be said about alcohol. The right hon. Gentleman's second argument was about the legion's wish to have what he described as a sub-department of ex-service affairs.
On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I must emphasise that the legislation has been changed to ensure that the law reflects the long-standing policy of successive Governments that smoking should be regarded as attributable to service only where a disabling mental condition, itself attributable to service, renders an individual incapable of exercising personal choice.
The Government made some changes in consultation on the detail of the proposals, and I acknowledge that there is scope for some argument about how precisely the aim is
1070
best achieved. However, I believe that people in general would accept that no service man was ever required to smoke, and I do not believe that any Government ever intended to compensate for the effects of a habit such as smoking, in the way that at one time I thought that the right hon. Gentleman suggested—although I accept that that was probably not what he intended to do.
As for a sub-department of ex-service affairs, the right hon. Gentleman will know of the Government's general view that it is right for important services connected with people who have been in the armed forces to be a significant matter for every Government Department, and taken into account in the policies of every Department. We believe that that is best achieved within each Department rather than through the kind of co-ordinating system that the right hon. Gentleman implicitly suggested.
The right hon. Gentleman will recognise a development with which I am glad to say I had something to do when I was Secretary of State for Social Security. In my judgment at least, the creation of the War Pensions Agency has materially improved the effectiveness of one vital part of the services that we provide for ex-service people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) made an impressive speech about the problems and interests of retired people. I cannot possibly comment on the very many subjects that he raised, but I shall ensure that what he said is studied with care.
The same goes for the speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), about rural policing, about which I could make one or two comments. I shall, of course, bring the speech to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, observing wryly in passing, however, that I now understand why the hon. Gentleman did not respond when he was asked to tell the House what had happened to crime in Northumbria—because that would not fit in with his speech. I understand that crime in Northumbria fell by 2 per cent. in the 12 months to June 1993—[Interruption.] Crime fell in Northumbria as a whole. As I have been reminded, there is a joint force.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), with characteristic courtesy—I am sorry that I was not able to be in the Chamber while he was speaking—said that he did not expect me to be able to answer all his questions, but hoped that they would be answered in some other form at a later stage. I shall do my best to ensure that that happens.
I have already made some comments about the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I hope that he will forgive me if in the circumstances, especially as there will be further debate on railway matters later tonight, I do not at this stage attempt to respond to everything that he said. I take on board what he said, and note especially what he said about hospital radio—a matter in which I also have a significant interest.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made some significant comments that I took to represent the position of his party and not merely his personal position on matters in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will have been reassured by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) on Tuesday and assured him that nothing done or said by the IRA and its apologists would deflect the Government from our chosen course, and that the Government would continue to pursue a lasting political settlement through the three-stranded talks process.

1071
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh made some comments that struck me forcefully, and I had much sympathy with them. The hon. Member for Clydebank—and that other place that I find difficult to pronounce—made some comments about the Commonwealth Institute, which I shall pass on, as I shall the remarks about the high-speed link.
Lastly, I come to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—I nearly always almost miss him. We all understand his frustration about street works in various places. Things sound even worse in his constituency than they are in mine. Perhaps he should change his Member of Parliament—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic Adjournments).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 31st March, do adjourn until Tuesday 12th April and, at its rising on Friday 29th April, do adjourn until Tuesday 3rd May.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

BOVINE SOMATOTROPHIN
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8757/93 and 10761/93, relating to bovine somatotrophin (BST), and of the recommendation to prohibit the marketing and use of BST for the duration of milk quotas; and supports the subsequent Council Decision for a continuation of the existing moratorium until 31st December 1994, linked to a declaration that the Council uses this period to consider the implications of long-term prohibition and, in particular, experience of its use in the United States.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4911/92, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 4th February 1994, relating to common rules for the internal market in electricity and natural gas; supports the Government's view that the Commission's proposals are the minimum acceptable as the second phase of the establishment of the internal energy market; and endorses the Government's objective of progressing to full liberalisation as rapidly as possible.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 40.

Division No. 170]

[7.09 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Bowis, John

Alexander, Richard

Brandreth, Gyles

Amess, David

Brazier, Julian

Ancram, Michael

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Arbuthnot, James

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Burns, Simon

Aspinwall, Jack

Burt, Alistair

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Butler, Peter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Butterfill, John

Baldry, Tony

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Carrington, Matthew

Bates, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clappison, James

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Boswell, Tim

Coe, Sebastian

1072

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Madel, Sir David

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Couchman, James

Malone, Gerald

Cran, James

Mans, Keith

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

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Merchant, Piers

Dover, Den

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Duncan, Alan

Monro, Sir Hector

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Nelson, Anthony

Dunn, Bob

Neubert, Sir Michael

Durant, Sir Anthony

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Eggar, Tim

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Elletson, Harold

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Page, Richard

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Faber, David

Rathbone, Tim

Fabricant, Michael

Rendel, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Forman, Nigel

Richards, Rod

Foster, Don (Bath)

Riddick, Graham

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

French, Douglas

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Gale, Roger

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Gallie, Phil

Sackville, Tom

Gardiner, Sir George

Shaw, David (Dover)

Gillan, Cheryl

Sims, Roger

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Soames, Nicholas

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Hague, William

Spink, Dr Robert

Hanley, Jeremy

Spring, Richard

Hannam, Sir John

Sproat, Iain

Haselhurst, Alan

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Hayes, Jerry

Stephen, Michael

Heald, Oliver

Stem, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Stewart, Allan

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Sweeney, Walter

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

Sykes, John

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Thomason, Roy

Hunter, Andrew

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Jenkin, Bernard

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Jessel, Toby

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

Kilfedder, Sir James

Tredinnick, David

King, Rt Hon Tom

Trend, Michael

Kirkhope, Timothy

Twinn, Dr Ian

Kirkwood, Archy

Viggers, Peter

Knapman, Roger

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Waterson, Nigel

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Watts, John

Knox, Sir David

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Whittingdale, John

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Legg, Barry

Wood, Timothy

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Lidington, David

Lightbown, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Michael Brown.

MacKay, Andrew

Maddock, Mrs Diana

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Cummings, John

Allen, Graham

Dalyell, Tam

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

Barnes, Harry

Dixon, Don

Betts, Clive

Dowd, Jim

Boyes, Roland

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Chisholm, Malcolm

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Connarty, Michael

Foulkes, George

Corbyn, Jeremy

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

1073

Hall, Mike

Mahon, Alice

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Home Robertson, John

Pike, Peter L.

Hoon, Geoffrey

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Illsley, Eric

Simpson, Alan

Ingram, Adam

Spearing, Nigel

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Spellar, John

Keen, Alan

Worthington, Tony

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

McCartney, Ian

Tellers for the Noes:

Mackinlay, Andrew

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

McMaster, Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

  Cancer
  7.19 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Some weeks ago I received a letter from one of my constituents who had been diagnosed as suffering from breast cancer. She said that, once the diagnosis was finally established, she had received both the best of treatment and the best of support services from the national health service. However, she wanted to make a very important point. She detailed the length of time that her diagnosis had taken and pointed out that she had had considerable difficulty in getting some sort of treatment at an early stage as a result of problems of diagnosis and referral.
  My constituent said that it seemed to her that Members of Parliament were concerned about matters that she regarded as not life-threatening, but when it came to something like the death of a woman from cancer—something which is, unfortunately, not altogether unusual—it was difficult to get Members of Parliament to take an interest in the difficulties that women face every day in trying to receive help. I thought that that must be wrong, so I sought the help of the Secretary of State for Health.
  I told the Secretary of State the problem. I sent her the letter from my constituent. For reasons of confidentiality, I did not choose to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. I received a reply which is becoming almost standard from the Government. It was the equivalent of, "Don't call me, I'll call you." It said that the treatment of that particular patient was the responsibility of a particular trust and that was all there was to it. I received no explanation of the Government's views. I received simply a bald statement of what had happened in the case of that patient, and the Secretary of State's referral back to the health trust involved.
  My constituent was extremely distressed by the letter because, as she pointed out to me, her letter was not a complaint about a particular NHS trust. She had undertaken that task. She had dealt with the NHS trust and had received a reply of sorts. She either accepted or did not accept what it said. The point that she made over and over again to the Department of Health and to Members of Parliament was that what was important was early treatment, diagnosis and referral of cancer. She had received neither an adequate response nor any idea of what the Government intended to do about any of those problems.

  1075
  Therefore, I went to the Table Office and tabled a series of questions. discovered that the Joint Council for Clinical Oncology had drawn up a series of sensible guidelines because it was so worried about the whole question of treatment. I asked
  "the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hospitals comply with the target of radical radiotherapy involving complex treatment planning within two weeks laid down in the guidelines…(2) how many hospitals comply with the target of urgent palliative radiotherapy within 48 hours laid down in the guidelines … (3) how many hospitals comply with the target of urgent radiotherapy or chemotherapy within 24 hours laid down in the guidelines…(4) how many hospitals comply with the target of intensive chemotherapy within one week laid down in the guidelines".
  I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) the reply that
  "This information is not held centrally."—[Official Report, 7 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 83.]
  That is outrageous. What is happening to the Government? Are they deliberately seeking to fragment the prevention and treatment of cancer by splitting up the market into individual small pieces? Are they seeking to hide the information that we need about the delays faced by those in need of cancer treatment? Are they prepared at least to comment on the targets that have been set for treatment waiting times? Or are they prepared to say, as it appears from the reply that I received, "This is really not a matter for Her Majesty's Government because the information is not held centrally"?
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the hon. Lady agree that, in respect of the health service, the Government should be accountable at the end of the day to the House? If the Government have delegated responsibility to the National Health Service Management Executive, as they clearly have, surely it would not be too difficult for my hon. Friend the Minister to obtain a reply from the executive in response to the valid and important questions posed by the hon. Lady. If the Management Executive does not provide such information, it fails entirely to do the job for which it was set up, and the House clearly cannot represent the best interests of the people of Britain.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman, who was a most distinguished Chairman of the Health Select Committee, not only understands the subject well but is committed to improving health care in the national health service. I am afraid that he sets out exactly what the Government ought to do. The alternative is the type of comment that we saw in the Health Service Journal of 16 September 1993, which read:
  "People with cancer are having to wait eight weeks or more for treatment in some cancer centres, a report from the Joint Council for Clinical Oncology reveals. In new guidelines the council suggests urgent radiotherapy or chemotherapy should usually begin within 24 hours of seeing a specialist."
  It is worth examining those guidelines carefully, because they highlight exactly what is wrong. The report is headed "Reducing delays in cancer treatment". The joint council deliberately highlighted the problems it saw, because it believed that
  "Delay in treating cancer is unacceptable. Its natural history is to spread locally and metastasise distantly. Whilst the reduction in cure rate caused by delay is difficult to quantify, the known biology of cancer and the published differences in cure rate…makes it evident that delay adversely affects cure."
  That was said by people dealing with the problems of cancer patients every day.
  1076
  In case the Government find it difficult to understand, the council has also laid out what sort of delays can get in the way of starting treatment. It says that sometimes there are delays in recognising symptoms of cancer. It says that, therefore, it is tremendously important that there should be better public education and more rapid referrals to specialist units. It says that there can be delays in progress through primary care to hospital. It says that the efficiency of administrative arrangements, including waiting times for out-patient appointments and investigations, must be reviewed regularly. Continuing medical education to ensure appropriate and timely referrals must be encouraged and, where necessary, improved. It says that delays in hospital before specialist referral to an oncology unit also contribute to the problems.
  Already, within the NHS trust which particularly concerns me, we see clear signs that referrals to radiotherapy departments are taking longer and longer. I am convinced that the split into provider services and the purchaser theory, which is so relevant to, and redolent of, incompetence, is having a direct effect on the provision of treatment. Those waiting times are not even chronicled by the Department of Health and they are not available to individual Members of Parliament. Once upon a time, we would simply have tabled questions and asked how long people normally had to wait before they got an appointment. Such information is now hidden. We are told that it is a matter for the individual trust.
  In 1992, the Royal College of Radiologists received a number of reports about delays in starting treatment that had been advised at the initial oncology consultation. Its faculty of clinical oncology carried out a survey of oncology centres in the United Kingdom and received 29 replies, in which 14 centres reported waiting times for radiotherapy of four weeks or longer. In several of those, the delay was of seven or eight weeks. Those delays were after a clinical oncologist had seen the patient and advised radiotherapy, so it was not that people did not know what treatment was required—the patient had been seen and referred by a specialist.
  The report states:
  "Whilst there are recognised emergencies in cancer therapy"—
  it mentions spinal cord compression—
  "the majority of cancer patients do not need to begin their definitive treatment within hours. The clinical situation, including severity of symptoms and the anxiety of the patient, should properly determine the arrangements made. In some patients a `fast track' to treatment will be needed with waiting times shorter than the targets"
  which the joint council set out. I shall place those targets on the record because I want some publicity on the matter. I want some action.
  The joint council recommends waiting time targets from the date of the first consultation to the start of radiotherapy or chemotherapy. For urgent radiotherapy or chemotherapy, good practice is within 24 hours, and the maximum acceptable is 48 hours. For palliative radiotherapy, according to the severity of the symptoms, good practice is defined as 48 hours, and the maximum acceptable period is two weeks. For radical radiotherapy involving complex treatment planning, good practice is defined as two weeks, and the maximum acceptable period is four weeks. For intensive chemotherapy, good practice is defined as one week, and the maximum acceptable waiting time is three weeks. Those targets arose because the joint council had been told that people were waiting anything up to eight weeks.

  1077
  I began to inquire into not only obvious cancer figures but cancers generally. Of course one is concerned about cancers that particularly affect females. The numbers of registered deaths from breast cancer in the UK were: in 1990, 114 men and 15,179 women; in 1991, 90 men and 15,403 women; in 1992, 98 men and 15,221 women.
  The figures on deaths from other cancers show that the changes have not been remarkable. Despite changes in treatment and advances in medical care, the number of people dying has not altered a great deal. Even in my region, where there are considerable problems with industrial and lung cancers, one only has to consider the figures on prostate cancer to see what is happening to men.
  The information given in a written answer in Hansard, at column 43 on 7 February 1994 shows that in 1988, 7,458 men died of cancer of the prostate and in 1992, 8,735 men died of that disease. In my region of Mersey, the number of deaths from cancer of the trachea, bronchus and lung in 1992 was 1,198 for men and 700 for women.
  In what other situation could one imagine a House of Commons treating those consistent figures as a matter of little concern? What other disease or set of circumstances that killed that number of the population would be treated with that sort of superficial response? It would be difficult to find any other set of circumstances where the House of Commons would accept deaths in those numbers without taking urgent and immediate action.
  It is clear that problems arise not only with breast cancer and breast cancer screening. A variety of screening methods can pick up cases of prostatic cancer much earlier. Does the Department intend to take any steps to develop a screening programme? There should be more fast tracking of patients with suspected cancers. The waiting list initiative which, whatever the Minister says, has distorted clinical priorities, could well interfere with the fast access that patients should have to screening facilities. There is no reason why general practitioners should not have much better access to screening facilities, such as ultrasound and CT scans. As far one can see, however, none of that is happening.
  The House faces a Government who have adopted an accepting attitude. They seem to say, "Here is a major disease; we have done a certain amount, we have cervical screening and a certain amount of publicity. Of course, it is true that we do not spend anything like the amount on cancer education that we spend on glossy reports for NHS trusts or individual publicity campaigns for the Department of Health, but that should not matter to us because, after all, the people of Britain will not be particularly put out if more and more of them are faced with this problem in the coming years and nothing is done to assist them."
  We should be concerned, and not just that my constituent has to write to me asking, "Why cannot I get a Minister to take seriously what I am saying?" We should ask ourselves why other constituents who have not written to hon. Members, but who are fighting fear and illness and, in many cases, major problems caused by poverty and illness, have not been given the voice they need on the Floor of the House. The Department of Health has not shown anything like the vigour and the campaigning in the treatment of cancer that has been shown in highlighting other diseases.
  1078
  Why does the Secretary of State for Health, who appears to refuse absolutely to push hard for the banning of tobacco products, not do something to monitor the rate of response of doctors to the needs of those who are suffering from carcinoma? At what point will we receive accurate information? We do not want the answer, "Write individually to each health care trust and if you are lucky you can put all the bits together. If you go to the Library, someone else might do it for you." We want accurate information on how long people have to wait before they are referred for their first appointment, what sort of treatment they receive and how long they have to wait for it after their first appointment with a consultant and what sort of general support services are available.
  I was impressed when I telephoned the service of the British Association of Cancer United Patients—a service which is run mainly by the nurses of St. Bartholomew's hospital to help people who may have been diagnosed, or think they may have been diagnosed, as suffering from cancers. The response was helpful, civilised and informative. It gave exactly the type of support that one would need if one was very frightened.
  The word "cancer" terrifies people, especially women. They are terrified if they think that they might have something that needs treatment. Many of them are still not confident enough to come forward at an early stage because they are terrified. If an unnecessary barrier is put in their way, such as the need to wait for an appointment or the failure of the system to refer them to a specialist early enough, they will give up or, in some cases, decide that they ought to try to obtain some other treatment.
  If one were a private patient, one would not have to wait for a suitable appointment in a radiotherapy department or with a consultant oncologist. The response would be rapid. Indeed, one might be offered a series of appointments. What does one do if one cannot, or will not, go to a private doctor? What does one do if one lacks the money or the back-up to go outside the national health service and demand some immediate care pattern? One worries oneself into a state of collapse before there is any sign of suitable treatment, whatever it is and whenever it happens.
  I believe that the Government are determined to wreck preventive health altogether by the way in which they have split the national health service, so one should not be astonished by their response on that subject. However, some people demand that we force the Department to give us some answers—instead of allowing it to reply to five or six questions in the House, tabled correctly, with a reply about whether the information is "available". It does not say, "We cannot collect it." It does not say that it is too expensive. It does not even say, "We are terribly sorry; we used to do that; now we do not." It simply says:
  "This information is not held centrally."—[Official Report, 7 March 1994; Vol. 23, c. 83.]
  The lack of information has one immediate effect. It means that no one realises the extent of the emergency, no one puts pressure on the Ministers and no one does anything other than treat the matter individually at every level.
  Before I give the Minister the chance to read his usual anodyne series of unrelated statistics, I shall read another letter to the House, which sums up some of the difficulties. It is about a disease which, oddly enough, is not capable of responding to early treatment. It was sent to the Speaker and I have her permission to quote from it because it is of importance to the debate.

  1079
  The gentleman who wrote the letter asked the Speaker to send his letter on to Members of Parliament, and especially the women Members of Parliament. He says:
  "Right Honourable and Honourable Ladies,
  I approach you in this way respectfully but unashamedly for the manner of the approach.
  I wish to bring to your attention a situation that potentially affects all ladies…
  At 4.45am just before dawn on Wednesday 22nd September 1993 my gentle, caring wife became a little known statistic.
  She was one of ten that day, one of nearly 4000 women in the year, to die from ovarian cancer.
  She died after a five month illness.
  This cancer is lethal and this year more than twice as many women will die from it than cervical cancer.
  Over 75 per cent. of these women will have gone to their doctors when the disease has spread outside the ovary—it is then already too late.
  More than 72 per cent. will die within 5 years compared with 38 per cent. and 42 per cent. with cancer of the breast and cervix respectively.
  If detected in its early stages, ovarian cancer, limited to the ovary itself, can be treated by surgery and over 90 per cent."
  thus treated
  "will survive 5 years.
  For those of you who think 5 years is a short time then think of my wife and I who only had 5 months to say the things we needed to say and say goodbye with as much dignity as we could.
  Incidences of this horrendous disease is limited of course to women ….
  If the deaths had…been clue to say, influenza, with its 134 deaths in a month of this years outbreak then there would be an outcry against the Health Service and dark tales of epidemics and shortage of vaccines.
  It is almost inconceivable that there is not a national outcry against this cancer, sometimes called, even by the normally stoical medical profession, 'The Silent Killer.'
  The Silent Killer is not detectable in early stages with present day medical techniques…It is undetectable until it is too late…
  I would be made a leper of society if I were to go out into the outside world today and denigrated women as second class citizens. Yet this is what this disease does. Deaths"
  in
  "this particular branch of…cancer go unreported, unnoticed and it seems only the immediate families care how the loved one became a victim."
  He goes on to say that there is one chance, and one research unit. There is no clear sign that there will be sufficient funding even to start the research work at the Royal London hospital, which could make it possible to save many more women. He finishes:
  "I am not appealing on behalf of any charity. I did this simply for ladies everywhere and for the memory of my wife. I know I may have been unethical in my approach; respectfully I apologise for that but not for the content of the letter…read this and"
  I will know that you care.
  We need a series of targets; we need action from the Department of Health; we need to take the work that is being done and to say how many departments throughout the United Kingdom do their job properly. We should not leave it to individual Members or individual doctors. We should act on behalf of the people who need our support.
  No other group of people would be allowed to suffer as women are being allowed to suffer and it is an added disgrace that a female Secretary of State for Health has done nothing—nothing—to change the situation.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), not only on being lucky in the draw, but on the way in which she decided to present to the House the issue of early treatment of cancer. Each year, 16,000
  1080
  women die of breast cancer. In this country each and every year, there are more than 110,000 cancer-related deaths because of tobacco consumption. However, I want to debate not tobacco consumption but the three areas of cancer and prevention strategies. My hon. Friend has covered some of it eloquently. There are other areas which she has highlighted.
  It is necessary for the Government to give clear and precise answers about their strategic approach in relation to the early diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Only improved diagnostic skills, with improvements in screening, will determine whether the outcome for the sufferer is a period of progress and health or one waiting for a slow, lingering death.
  The profile of cancer prevention has never been higher because of the debate in relation to the banning of advertisements of tobacco products. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) has assiduously asked the Minister questions about the cost-effectiveness of screening and early detection.
  The Minister would see an immediate return in one area without one extra penny having to be spent. Professor Smee's report on the banning of tobacco advertising shows that by that measure alone, 5,000 lives a year would be saved. The lives of 5,000 of our fellow citizens would be saved without an extra penny being spent on the national health service. Some £95 million of immoral earnings goes to the Treasury through the tax yield from children's purchases of cigarettes; yet only £5 million of that—5 per cent.—is reinvested in prevention programmes. That is an obscene set of priorities for a Health Minister.
  I should like the Minister to turn his mind to three areas. I will give only a snapshot of the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich to illustrate the way in which the Government fund, manage, resource and plan the national health service. I shall refer to prostate cancer, bowel cancer and primary liver cancer.
  The incidence of prostate cancer has risen by 19 per cent. in five years, from 9,127 a year to 10,837. Death rates are up 17 per cent. in five years, from 7,458 to 8,735. In the past five years, 40,722 men have died from prostate cancer. It is the most common cancer affecting men over 60 in the United Kingdom. It is a silent killer; post mortem investigations prove that 10 to 30 per cent. of men between 50 and 60 and 60 per cent. of those between 70 and 80 have silent prostate cancers—undetected cancers—at the time of death.
  Using those figures, at least 20 male Members of Parliament currently have an undetected, silent prostate cancer. Yet with screening methods, 15 to 18 of us would be identified early enough to survive. The survival rates are good if the cancer is detected early. Some 43 per cent. of those whose cancer is detected early are alive five years after diagnosis. In 1990, the British Medical Association's "Family Health Encyclopedia" said of the outcome of this very dangerous cancer:
  "When the growth is discovered at an early stage, the outlook is very good. However, if the cancer has spread outside the prostate gland and does not respond to hormone treatment, the prognosis is poor."
  Despite that, the Government remain stubbornly opposed to the introduction of a screening programme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) recently asked the Under-Secretary of State for health what was his policy for the screening of this cancer. He replied:

  1081
  "The key to any screening programme must be to secure a demonstrable improvement in health by increasing length of life and enhancing quality of life. There is, as yet, no evidence to suggest that this would be achieved in relation to prostate cancer. The Department of Health is pursuing research in screening through its own centrally commissioned programme and through the national health service research and development programme. A copy of the Chief Medical Officer's speech to a recent 'British medical Journal' conference setting out current policy implementation issues for screening in the NHS will be placed in the Library."—[Official Report, 3 February 1994; Vol. 236, c.855.]
  In 1992, the disease claimed 9,396 mens' lives; that is four times the number of deaths from cervical cancer. There are rightly screening programmes in place for cervical cancer, yet the Government will still not introduce screening devices for men in relation to a killer disease. As I have said, the figures are alarming. Yet the prostate gland is an accessible piece of the anatomy for clinicians to reach. New scanning techniques, such as ultrasound, can detect prostate cancer. There are a number of proven treatments, such as radiology, chemotherapy, hormone therapy and, if necessary, surgery. With the use of those proven treatments, survival rates are good.
  It was left to Doctor Thomas Stuttaford, writing in The Times on 6 March 1992, to put the matter into perspective. He spoke for many colleagues in the medical profession in advocating the institution of a screening programme. He said:
  "If the tumour is localised, early surgery gives a 65 per cent. chance of surviving for ten years. As well as saving lives, a screening programme would reduce the number of men condemned to suffer lingering ill-health, and pain, for years."
  However, among the Department of Health advisers and among the medical establishment, there is a group of people who discriminate ideologically against men in relation to prostate cancer. Many say that the cancer is part of the aging process and that it is not, therefore, cost-effective to screen men. They say that we should simply leave growing percentages of men, as they age, to be susceptible to the disease. Intellectually, that is an unacceptable and unsustainable argument.
  If Department of Health officials are saying that they will intervene only at the point at which the individual concerned has a cancer and is unable to maintain his fitness, they are treating only to die and not to live. If that is not the Department's position on men and prostate cancer, the only option is to treat to live. To treat to live, there must be the option of screening, because without screening there is no early detection. Without early detection, it is difficult to sustain life after the operation, but with early detection, as Doctor Stuttaford has shown, there is a 65 per cent. chance of life after 10 years.
  The Department and those in the medical establishment who advise the Department must come clean on the issue. Why are they discriminating against such a large proportion of the male population? Why should men simply have to accept that in the aging process, between 55 and 70, a growing proportion of us will have prostate cancer? As there is no screening, we shall have to accept that a growing proportion of us will die even if we have expensive and intensive treatment. That is nonsense in medical terms and in moral terms, but it is what the Government offer middle-aged men.
  The argument for screening is overwhelming. Let us consider the evidence in the United States and in Germany,
  1082
  where all men over the age of 45 are advised to undergo an annual screening test—a prostate-specific antigen or PSA blood test. If the Government are in the business of preventive medicine, it is inconceivable that they can hold out much longer in such discrimination against so many men. If we accept the concept and principle of screening to prevent cervical cancer among women, how can we refuse to accept the concept of prostate cancer screening for men when the death rate from prostate cancer among men is four times as high as the death rate from the deadly disease of cervical cancer among women?
  Some 22,000 of our fellow citizens die each year of cancer of the colon and rectum. Survival rates are poor even when it is detected, at 30 per cent. after five years. Yet in the specific area of colorectal cancer, which causes 17,500 deaths a year, early detection increases survival rates dramatically. With detection through early screening and the work done by consultants concerned, 80 per cent. of people survive.
  The two cardinal symptoms of the disease are a change in bowel habits and rectal bleeding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, because of the lack of coherence, the failure to identify the disease through screening, the lack of patient involvement in preventive health care, and the lack of significant effort being made to give general practitioners and practice nurses better training and information, a growing number of men and women are having those cancers identified too late. If treatment took place, their life expectancy would improve dramatically.
  We therefore need to take a number of steps. We must improve general health education, with information for patients and patients groups and work done at GP level. We must improve education and training for doctors and nurses, particularly general practitioners and practice nurses. We need a technique to improve screening methods.
  Screening does not necessarily mean blood tests, urine tests and samples on every occasion. It means introducing into the NHS a preventive strategy whereby, on a regular basis at community and primary health care level, people susceptible to those diseases are seen regularly by GPs and practice nurses, who discuss with them whether the pattern of their bowel habits has changed or there is rectal bleeding. That general approach would significantly improve the identification of the disease and thus the survival rate once treatment has been implemented.
  In a written question on 27 May 1993, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South asked the Secretary of State for Health:
  "what plans she has to publish guidance to doctors in relation to screening for occult blood."
  That important test can determine at an early stage whether someone is likely to be suffering from the consequences of bowel cancer. Yet the Under-Secretary replied:
  "We have no plans to issue guidance at this time."—[Official Report, 27 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 668.]
  So the Government have no plans to notify or explain to GPs that that screening method is one of the most effective ways to identify the disease at an early stage.
  Where is the Government's strategy for prevention? Where is the Minister's concern and interest? He is not even prepared to send a letter to tell GPs that the introduction of an occult blood test would assist greatly in identifying cancer in so many of their patients. He should

  1083
  not forget that that cancer causes 17,500 deaths a year. The stakes are high. He could at least send a letter to GPs about the matter.
  Tests and procedural advice would help greatly in ensuring that GPs did not misread the symptoms of colorectal cancer as haemorrhoids. A constituent of mine is now terminally ill because such advice was not given to his general practitioner, who misread his symptoms. My constituent's symptoms went unchecked for more than 12 months. When that gentleman was admitted in an emergency to a local district hospital, sadly, he had a tumour in his colon bigger than the palm of the surgeon's hand. That is no exaggeration—it is in the discharge notes written by the surgeon, who said that on carrying out surgery to save my constituent's life he was appalled to find an inoperable tumour that was larger than the palm of his hand.
  My constituent had consistently been to his general practitioner with symptoms which could have shown that he was suffering from cancer of the colon. If the Secretary of State had given that general practitioner the advice sought in the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, the general practitioner and his colleagues in the medical profession would have been more aware that symptoms suggesting haemorrhoids could also be symptoms of cancer of the colon and rectum.
  Primary liver cancer is the most common in the world. Its main cause is the hepatitis B virus. Thankfully, a large proportion of this country's population are not infected by that virus and deaths from that common cancer so far are relatively low compared with other forms of cancer that have been outlined. However, this debate is about early detection and prevention. The World Health Organisation wrote to the Government, along with other Governments, advising them that, for a variety of reasons, the spread of hepatitis B in the developed world poses a potential threat to future and current young generations. The World Health Organisation could not have given a clearer message that there has been arid will continue to be a spread of hepatitis B in communities such as the developed industrial society in which we live.
  Until now, it has been a disease of the third world and the developed world has ignored it, as we have ignored the spread of tuberculosis, which is the world's largest killer. We have turned a blind eye to it because deaths from it have been mainly in the third world. We have therefore failed to recognise the growth of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom and have at the same time allowed health authorities to ignore screening and vaccination programmes for the first time since the introduction of such programmes in our society. That short-termism will undermine the community's long-term health and well-being.
  Despite the increase in tuberculosis, the Government have so far ignored the World Health Organisation's warnings about the spread of hepatitis B in our society. The World Health Organisation has come back to the Government and recommended that we should put into place by 1997 a hepatitis B preventive vaccination programme which should target not only children in socially deprived communities but all children in the UK. Why do the Government refuse to comply?
  I am talking about a vaccination to prevent cancer. The hepatitis B virus is the most common factor in the development of primary cancer of the liver; yet the western world faces now the possibility of our young people being
  1084
  put at risk because the hepatitis B virus is becoming more widespread. In later years, therefore, there is likely to be a significant increase in primary liver cancer. Medical science has given us a vaccination which can prevent the onset of this cancer, but the Government refuse to take the advice offered by the World Health Organisation.
  The Government are penny wise and pound foolish. They allow health authorities to spend millions on BMWs, Jaguars and Range Rovers for executives while denying our children access to preventive strategies against hepatitis B. In some areas our children are not being vaccinated against the onset of tuberculosis either. That shows that the Government are not interested in preventive strategies or in a co-ordinated approach to the prevention and treatment of disease.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich I shall end by reading out a letter. It is typical of the letters that I receive in my role as shadow spokesperson on health. I could have brought a hundred similar letters sent to the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State for Health or the shadow Minister for Health. All those hundreds of letters offer poignant proof of the Government's failure to introduce the right surveillance programmes to deal with many of the cancers that threaten our society. The Government's failure has led and will continue to lead to thousands of needless deaths.
  Not only will middle-aged men die needlessly: they are being discriminated against in terms of access to the health care that they need. What is the Government's position? When are they likely to make an announcement about the right of men to screening for prostate cancer? Do they intend to continue to discriminate against men? With detection, there is an excellent chance of successful treatment and longevity.
  The following letter was sent to me by a lady about her husband:
  "For a period of time my husband complained of backache. There was early diagnosis by his GP of rheumatism. At his most recent check in February 1992 he was informed that things would be okay. To the horror of his family when he could not stand the pain any longer in June 1992 he was diagnosed as having cancer of the prostate. No screening in the intervening period was ever provided, yet I understand that this disease, if screened, can be successfully treated.
  I believe this is one of the major causes of death among men, yet there is a simple blood test that can detect whether the prostate gland is working correctly. All the time we are hearing of the need for better preventive medicine.
  The result of all that was that my daughter had to leave her home and her work and for six months help me to nurse the unfortunate victim, my husband, who died in agony on 14 July 1993.
  It seems unbelievable that much of the expenditure which ensued as a result of his illness could have been prevented had this type of cancer been detected early enough."
  The lady is saying, poignantly, that her husband was treated to die, not to live. If only a small proportion of the NHS resources that are used to prolong life after diagnosis had been used to screen this man, he would have been saved. Screening is therefore cost-effective, not just for the Exchequer but for that priceless thing, family life. I am talking about love, togetherness, and the ability of families to live together for life, all of which can be torn to shreds in a matter of months because of the failure of the system to intervene early enough to treat positively gentlemen such as the one mentioned in the letter.
  The lady continued:
  "As there was no alternative offered in relation to nursing my husband at home we had no option but to sacrifice everything to nurse him through his final months. As a result we, his carers, are

  1085
  still suffering the effects of the trauma we had to go through. For many months we were on duty 24 hours a day nursing, with little or no room for improvement. We were supplied with seven extra hours help per week, and it needs to be remembered that patients are ill 24 hours a day, seven days a week—including weekends and bank holidays.
  Vast amounts of NHS money have been used to supply drugs, sometimes up to 10 different types, visits to specialists and regular hospital check-ups. Some of the most distressing experiences we had were too extensive to write to you in this letter, but we feel it will draw your attention to some of the matters which have caused great concern to us."
  The irony is that when the NHS was asked to intervene with all the resources at its command—primary and secondary care, consultants, drugs—one vital ingredient was missing, and the treatment came too late.
  I urge the Under-Secretary of State to respond tonight to the issues that I and my hon. Friend have raised, and to respond positively. For every positive action that the Minister takes, some family in Britain in the weeks, months and years ahead will be spared the trauma undergone by the woman who wrote to me and by the woman who wrote to my hon. Friend. Every week, thousands of families in this country lose a loved one prematurely because of treatable, curable cancers.
  8.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): There is no disagreement between us about the fact that cancer is a terrible scourge which kills many people prematurely in a most distressing way, or about the fact that we must make every effort to deal with it.
  Controlling cancer forms an enormous part of the NHS's work. It consumes nearly one tenth of the total NHS budget. Probably one in three people will be treated by the NHS for cancer at some time in their lifetime. Some 200,000 cases are diagnosed in England and Wales each year. There is no disagreement on the seriousness of the issue, although we could argue about the technicalities and the efficacy of certain screening programmes. However, I shall return to that later.
  First, in response to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), obviously we have been at pains over the past few years, and particularly over the past two years, to bring down waiting times. Although more people are waiting for treatment on the NHS, the average time they wait has fallen considerably in recent months and years. That is good, although we must make further progress.
  It is particularly important, however, that urgent cases—which must include cancer cases—for whom delay in investigation or treatment would pose an unacceptable risk, are treated promptly. That is why we wrote last month to remind all those involved in the NHS of the need to ensure proper clinical priorities—that is, giving priority to those patients who have an urgent need to be seen or treated and ensuring that GPs and everyone else concerned makes that distinction.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Does setting clinical priorities also include closing specialist hospitals such as the Royal Marsden, or is that simply a by-product of the policy?
  Mr. Sackville: As the hon. Lady knows, it was agreed in February that the Royal Marsden would be an NHS trust.
  1086
  Whatever happens, I can assure her that there will be a proper network of cancer centres in London, as elsewhere. I have no knowledge of what she says about closing the Royal Marsden. If she has some information that I do not, perhaps she would let me know.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Secretary of State told the Select Committee that funding would be guaranteed only for 12 months. Of course, purchasers could withdraw contracts and put them somewhere cheaper, so the market could close the Royal Marsden very quickly.
  Mr. Sackville: Any unit within the NHS has to have the appropriate demand for its services. Health authorities have to make decisions about how they use their funds. If we did not adhere to that principle, we would be running an extraordinarily inefficient health service and we would be spending money on buildings instead of patients.
  We cannot guarantee funding any particular unit. The health authorities have to make decisions to spend the resources available to them with particular units.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister could save us all a lot of time and he could certainly save me a lot of blood pressure. Does he not understand that if no long-term support is promised to a very specialised unit such as the Royal Marsden, he will be negating everything he has said about the necessity of setting up specialist units elsewhere or making information available to people throughout the United Kingdom? The existing market will destroy those specialised units, because the money will not be there to maintain them for a long time. Why does he not admit that that is one of his objectives? Why does he not stop treating Members of the House of Commons as if we were incapable of understanding that reading out long lists does not constitute a health policy?
  Mr. Sackville: I was not aware that I had read out any lists. There is no hidden agenda against specialist centres. There is a place in treating cancer for specialist centres, district general hospitals and the community; it is diverse and will remain so.
  Obviously, cancer must be treated promptly and sympathetically. Delays must be reduced to an absolute minimum. We all know that to wait, whether for the result of tests, for diagnosis or for treatment, is agony for anyone. People are understandably scared of cancer; they are terrified and we have to recognise that fact in anything we do. Clearly, long waits, such as those the hon. Lady mentioned, for radiotherapy or chemotherapy are unacceptable, and we have to make sure that they do not happen.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: How would the Minister know?
  Mr. Sackville: The hon. Lady must let me get on to the questions that she asked. She wanted to know how many hospitals met the standards set by the report of the Joint Council for Clinical Oncology. I said that we did not collect that information. That was a factual statement.
  The NHS does not exist to collect information, but primarily but to treat people. We have to take decisions on how many civil servants, officials and administrators to employ—the people that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) talks about; the men in grey suits who simply collect numbers from units. We have to accept that

  1087
  every extra employee in the NHS who carries out that task is consuming NHS resources which should be used for treating patients.
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous when he links the so-called men in grey suits with the use of information as a diagnostic tool to identify what is going on in our health care system. My hon. Friend is trying to find out from Minister why, when cancer levels continue to be high—both the incidence of cancer and the deaths from cancer—the system fails to take account of the issues raised because the Government will not examine the available information.
  Why can the Minister not keep the information for which my hon. Friend asks, when he can tell me how many cars executives have? It is matter of priorities. If he can tell me how many cars national health service executives have, he can provide the information we require.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions should be short and on one specific point.
  Mr. Sackville: We have to consider carefully how many resources we spend on administrators and people who process returns from hospitals. It is true that we have an overall figure for the leasing expenses of cars used in the NHS. We certainly do not have a figure for how many are driven by managers or anyone else, but we know that in most trusts three quarters of cars are driven by community midwives, nurses, doctors and people visiting patients. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should admit that.
  We are all aware that bodies such as the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, which represents the medical royal colleges, has issued guidance on the clinical management of cancer on lung cancer and ovarian cancer in recent years. I must make it plain that we are also conscious that there is carefully considered clinical advice prepared by the experts in the professions which is not always put into practice. The treatment of cancer is probably a good example in many cases.
  For that reason, the Department launched last year a major new initiative to see better use made of research-based evidence of clinical effectiveness. Good practice guidance has been issued to all health authorities, last year and this year, about the management of cancer in detection and treatment.
  We have helped to make a growing body of information available to the NHS. For example, last year we issued as part of the "Health of the Nation" programme a handbook to help health authorities draw up plans precisely for reducing mortality and morbidity from cancers. We commissioned work, which will be published shortly, on the needs of populations for the management and care of patients with cancer of the lung and lower bowel. A series of effective health care bulletins have been issued; we are currently considering a further one on breast cancer. That, principally, is what we are doing on treatment.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to the Joint Council for Clinical Oncology, which set targets for reducing delays in cancer treatment. That is just one of the pieces of data that we are using.
  Early detection is enormously important and was covered at some length by the hon. Member for Makerfield. We must ensure that patients receive early treatment for cancer. To do that, we must detect it at the earliest possible stage. That is why we have established
  1088
  national screening programmes for breast and cervical cancer. We lead Europe in having established national screening programmes for those cancers.
  Between 1987 and 1990, some £70 million was allocated to set up and run the breast screening programme, which is extremely successful, because we know that some 70 per cent. of women invited for screening are accepting the invitations. We are also the first country in the EC to have a comprehensive cervical screening service based on computerised call and recall. We did not hear much about that from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: I will carry on, because the hon. Gentleman spoke at some length.
  GPs' contracts have been designed to encourage all GPs to improve the take-up of cervical screening among eligible women. Nearly 97 per cent. of GPs achieved one of the targets. The screening programme will undoubtedly save lives and make a major contribution to the health of women in this country.
  Before one embarks on a national screening programme, one must be absolutely sure that there is unequivocal evidence of the efficacy, that one will not have a system that will unnecessarily spread alarm, which would lead to a great many false diagnoses and to a great many operations and not achieve an overall improvement in health and longer life. It is too simple for the hon. Gentleman to say "Let us have a letter to GPs about faecal blood, and a screening system." It is more complicated than that.
  It is not necessarily feasible to say that we can have a screening system for colorectal cancer based merely on occult faecal blood. That might mean that, to be effective, we would have to invite all men of a certain age for a fairly unpleasant investigation such as flexible colonoscopy. We might find fairly great resistance to such a screening programme among people who are healthy and who feel healthy. We must think carefully before we commit ourselves to any new screening programmes, although several are definitely currently under review.
  The chief medical officer, who is a cancer specialist, has established an expert advisory group that will look carefully at the whole question of cancer services in this country. Its first task will be to advise health authorities on how to improve their services, from primary care right the way through to palliative care.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: I will carry on, if I may, because I have a few more things to say.
  I am certain that, within the system that we have, there are problems and instances of lack of co-ordination. There are gaps. I think that the hon. Lady talked about people having a series of appointments. That is precisely the sort of problem that we need to address. We need a better co-ordinated approach to cancer services in this country. People can get lost between the primary care system and the hospital system, or lost or delayed between different parts of the hospital system—for example, between radiography and different consultants. That is precisely the sort of advice that we need and which the chief medical officer's advisory group seeks to introduce.
  The chief medical officer must also decide with his colleagues the general shape of cancer treatment in this

  1089
  country. It is divided between specialist cancer centres, district hospitals and the community. Perhaps we shall see more instances of cancer treatment being delivered at the primary care level. But the claim that patients do better in specialist cancer centres is unproven except, perhaps, in very rare conditions such as eye cancers, bone tumours and particularly in children's cancers.
  We cannot just say that it is all about specialist cancer centres or that everyone should be treated in cancer departments in district general hospitals. The evidence on the more common cancers is currently being reviewed by the chief medical officer's expert advisory group and will need to be updated regularly.
  We are also concerned that patient services may suffer because of outdated radiotherapy and other specialist equipment. That is why we have made £15 million available centrally over the three years as part of a rolling programme to help replace equipment. That includes linear accelerators, scanners and mammography equipment. Some equipment is old and is being replaced. We must have the highest standards of quality of treatment and we intend soon to issue, for example, model guidance on quality assurance in radiotherapy.
  Cancer is a common disease and is a large part of the whole NHS effort, which is measured by what is done or by total spending. There are no easy answers that suggest to us that we should immediately move to a whole series of further screening programmes, although, as I have said, several are potential. If we have absolute evidence of the efficacy of calling for a national screening programme a particular group, whether it be of men or women of a particular age group, we will do that.
  Cancer is a disease of the elderly. Clearly, with a larger aged population we will see more cancers. We must work harder to ensure that we have better detection and treatment to prevent the alarming figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred from going further.
  We take seriously cancer and the need to improve its detection and treatment. I take it seriously. I lost a close relative in the past few weeks from a long undiagnosed cancer and know well precisely what it can do to individuals and families. I assure the House that we intend to ensure that we have the best services possible in this country for the detection and treatment and cancer.
  In accordance with Mr. Speaker's Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

  Air Traffic (Liberalisation)
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: For several reasons, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. It is probably eight or nine years ago that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and I debated these matters in Committee; we are doing so again now, and—as I shall try to demonstrate—events have not moved on much in the intervening time.
  Let me explain my reasons for raising this issue. First, civil aviation is an industry in which Britain excels: in Europe, it is without peer. Britain has 13 scheduled airlines—excluding three Hong Kong-based airlines, one of which is extremely important—and 19 charter airlines, many operating from the world's busiest and fifth busiest international airports. Each year, 47.6 million people travel through Heathrow, and 20 million travel through Gatwick, bringing those airports revenues of £527 million and £200 million respectively.
  Mr. Bill Walker: First, let me apologise for having to dash upstairs at 9 pm. I am not being rude to my hon. Friend; I am on a Standing Committee, so I shall have to leave.
  May I draw attention to one of the tragedies of Europe? When my hon. Friend was a Minister, I badgered him about this; and if I had the opportunity, I would badger the present Minister tonight. The United Kingdom excels in aviation, but we are told that we are not good Europeans because we complain about the fact that Europe will not deregulate in the way we want. Surely that is what the Common Market was meant to be about.
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend has made the speech that I wanted to make. Perhaps I should sit down, and save the House a lot of time. I could not agree more—and the same is true of other areas in which we excel.
  Not only have we successful national airports in areas such as London; we also have successful international airports in cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow and Bristol. As my hon. Friend has implied, Britain has enormous scope in the success of European air travel.
  My second reason for raising the issue is that it provides a perfect example of rhetoric and aspiration for free trade in Europe that is unmatched in practice. For that purpose, I could just as easily have chosen the energy or financial sectors: Britain excels in those respects as well, and is still frustrated by restrictive European practices.
  In aviation, the formal position is now relatively satisfactory. It has taken a long time; indeed, we must go back to the days—now deeply shrouded in the mists of time—when I was Minister for Aviation. The process began seriously in 1984, with the European Commission's rather weak second memorandum. In 1985, I had the honour of signing the first really liberal air service agreements with the Benelux countries, which began to bring down fares and introduce a modicum of competition. At least there was a model—a model that was formalised in 1986, with the first package of liberalisation, introduced by the British presidency.
  It was not until June 1992, however, that the third package came into limited effect, a process that was completed on 1 January 1993. It will be fully effective on 1 April 1997, four years after the single market was meant

  1091
  to be in existence. By that time, airlines will be able to fly freely between and within European Union countries, charging whatever fares they wish—as long as they are economic, and subject to safety and noise restrictions and ground and air space availability.
  That is the theory. What about the practice? As is so often the case in the European Union, when it comes to trade matters, as opposed to restrictive regulations—many of which are concerned with standardisation, and therefore actually antithetical to free trade—practice does not match up to the law. Furthermore, in the case of trade liberalisation—certainly with respect to civil aviation—the Commission is consistently slow to enforce the law.
  Two matters are currently of particular interest, and especially at stake. The first concerns state aid. Perhaps I may quote from a definitive work on the matter, my own book "A Treaty Too Far". On page 69, I say:
  "Almost on the same day that the third package Air Services Regulation was signed by the governments of the EEC"—
  as it was then called—
  "the state-owned Banque de Paris injected £128 million of cash into Air France in what it said was a 'normal' financial transaction. Normality in this context is open to several different interpretations. It may be standard practice in France for one state enterprise to give to another large sums of money when one of them is in financial trouble; but it is doubtful whether private undertakings would have considered this particular transaction as 'normal'.
  It took place immediately after Air France had turned in a loss of 685 million francs. From the airline's point of view, the gift (disguised as an 8.8 per cent. investment stake by BNP) could therefore not have been more conveniently timed. Not only did it meet the airline's; losses without the latter suffering any real penalty, but it enabled it to pursue its plans to take a 6 billion franc … shareholding in … Sabena, which was in an equally parlous … state."
  Since I wrote that, some months ago, the full picture has begun to emerge. Let me give the House some figures. In the case of Air France, since 1991 the EC has approved state aids to the tune of £800 million. There is some doubt and controversy—to which I shall return—about whether such aid, given through the Banque de Paris, or in the form of so-called investment or soft loans, constitutes state aid; but, in any event, £800 million of French taxpayers' money has, in effect, gone into Air France.
  In the case of Iberia, the figure is £667 million; as it happens, it is the same for Sabena. For Aer Lingus, it is £167 million—that was subject to a great court case; for TAP Air Portugal, it is £133 million. Those are large sums going into state airlines.
  Far from being coy about all this, Air France—perhaps sensing the Commission's basic good will—is, in a literal sense, going for broke. Rather than backing off or being shy, it has now put in for the astronomical figure of £2.47 billion in subsidy—a staggering sum in the circumstances.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The sheer volume of those figures is very disturbing. Moreover, British Midland, British Airways and all the other British airlines are having to compete—in a so-called open market—with airlines that are being heavily subsidised. Our airlines are making profits. Does that not tell us something?
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is on tremendous form tonight. He is absolutely right. In a moment I shall deal in specific terms with the question how that affects our airlines.
  I want to give the House two other figures. Having had £133 million over the past few years, TAP has now upped the ante to £607 million of subsidy. Olympic, which is a
  1092
  tiny airline in comparison with ours, is putting in for £1.5 billion of subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North is on to a strong point when he compares that with what is happening in the United Kingdom.
  Part of the problem is that the institutions of the European Union, notably the Commission, wrongly tend to treat support for state industries in a different light from support for private industries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North has implied, all United Kingdom airlines are private and all the major continental European airlines are, to varying degrees, state-owned. Again, the analogy could be applied to many other industries. For example, there would be the same phenomenon in the energy industry.
  The airlines on the continent are state-owned and, particularly in France, they are greatly supported and highly restrictive. That means that the major continental airlines have, in large measure, been supported by being able to attract to themselves new capital on terms and conditions that would simply not have been available to them had they been in the private sector. If they had been in the private sector, four of the seven major national carriers would have had to go into liquidation. There is not much doubt about that. By common consent, Air France would have gone into liquidation some time ago, as would Iberia, Aer Lingus and Sabena.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I do not fully understand the position that my hon. Friend is describing. If the funds were given to private companies that were competing in the market to enable them to survive, surely they would be regarded as subsidies. Therefore, should not the public funds that have been paid to those public companies be regarded as illegal subsidies, and should not the businesses involved be fined by the Commission? Why does not the Commission impose fines?
  Mr. Spicer: In fairness to the Commission, it has at last, to use an expression, got off its butt and started to become interested in this matter. It is bringing Air France to court. The question is how the British Government will assist the legal process to reach the conclusion mentioned, correctly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), which is that we are talking about subsidies. The fact that they are given to state industries is neither here nor there. One hopes that the matter will be sorted out by the courts.
  So far, when the matter has been brought before the courts, the airlines have got off lightly. Aer Lingus in particular got off very lightly. The European institutions, especially the Commission, have been slow to move and the courts have allowed the practice to continue by letting the airlines off lightly. As I have said, they are all coming back to their Governments with their snouts in the trough for more subsidies.
  Even more pernicious than the straightforward handover of cash is the fact that the state-owned and protected industries are able to borrow new capital on terms and conditions that would not be available in the private sector. Also, in the past the French have tried to disguise subsidies by calling them, not even loans, but investments and getting away with it. In the case of Air France, money from the state-owned Banque Nationale de Paris was called an investment. That has occurred within the state sector.

  1093
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, said, that must be contrasted with happens in the United Kingdom. When British Airways found itself financially threatened, it had to shed 20,000 jobs and radically improve its efficiency. For the continental airlines, it was loss-making business as usual and, with support, the continental airlines were able to continue to compete in a predatory manner against companies that have made themselves efficient without any state aid.
  The Commission has hardly turned a hair in recent years until—this deals with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North—Air France made its most recent outrageous cash demand of £2.4 billion. The Commission is bringing Air France to court. On the basis of precedent, the effect of that is doubtful.
  It is clear that it is essential that our Government give as much encouragement and support to our airline industry in the legal battle against Air France as the French Government will, on the basis of precedent, give to their industry and as the Irish Government gave to Aer Lingus when it was battling to defend its subsidies some years ago. It is especially important that Air France should be made to comply with the disciplines of the marketplace by being made to stop subsidised predatory pricing and to close loss-making routes.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again. The so-called British Airways dirty tricks campaign has created a lot of interest in the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that we could have shown over many years how all those airlines have been carrying out similar passenger poaching with the pricing policies and practices and the interlining which have distorted the market tremendously?
  Mr. Spicer: Yes, without a doubt. My hon. Friend is extremely knowledgeable on these matters, and if he says that other national carriers are involved in such practices, I am sure that there is much factual evidence to support him. Because they are state-owned, they are protected by their Governments. There is one law for the state sector and another for the private sector. We saw the way in which British Steel was clobbered for what it was doing in the private sector. That contrasts with the way in which state-owned airlines are treated, particularly Air France, but I could name many others which are engaged in cross-subsidies and all sorts of doubtful practices. I hope that, in reply, my hon. Friend the Minister will address his mind to state aids.
  The second distortive effect in the practice of the European aviation market, as against the concept of it, has been protectionist countries' exploitation of the conditions attached to free trade in air travel, especially conditions of air space and airport capacity. For example, the French Government have refused British Airways and the French Airline, TAT, in which British Airways has a 49 per cent. stake, certain landing rights at Orly airport.
  That stake is quite significant because, although there is already meant to be free flow of investment within the European Union, I am told that British Airways has been advised that it cannot increase its stake to 51 per cent. because the French Government will not allow it to do so until 1997. British Airways sees no point in pursuing the matter in the courts, but again we are already seeing a
  1094
  practice—in this instance, the free flow of capital—being frustrated. TAT is being prohibited from having certain landing rights at Orly airport, which is clearly a restrictive practice under the conditions that are attached to the free trade market, to undermine the concept of free trade.
  A similar point can be made about the Italian Government with respect to Linate airport at Milan. There are other examples where phoney air traffic and capacity restrictions are being imposed specifically to restrict free trade and the operations of what in formal terms is already meant to be a single market.
  Mr. Jenkin: And at Athens.
  Mr. Spicer: I suspect that my hon. Friend is right about that.
  This all shows that much remains to be done before we shall establish a true common market in aviation. Air fares are still two or three times as high as those in the United States.
  I shall not trouble the House with the further point that the establishment of a true free trade area in Europe should take precedence over extending the powers of the European Union's central institutions into other matters of policy. That point has been made before, and I am sure that it will be made again.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I should perhaps have guessed that this would not be a particularly wide-ranging debate. It has centred on unfair competition, as alleged by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer). We are grateful to him for initiating the debate and for giving us an opportunity to discuss these issues, but I almost feel that I am intruding on the private grief of the Conservative party, as this is almost the battle of the skies chapter in the on-going war between the anti-Europeans and the Government, as represented by the Minister.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Everything that I have been saying is pro-European and aimed at achieving a proper single common market, which is the key objective. I am trying to say that we need an active free market for our airlines in Europe. That was the thrust of my speech.
  Mr. Wilson: I recognise the semantic trap. Anti-Community Members invariably describe themselves as pro-European. I recognise the distinction between Europe and the European Union as it has developed. I was trying to avoid the word "sceptic", because the Tory argument on Europe is giving sceptics a bad name. It is not a particularly accurate description, either. Tonight's debate is a dimension of the dispute that is flourishing on the Conservative Benches, although there are serious issues and major British interests at stake.
  I react a little against the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a drive towards privatisation is synonymous with good policy in Europe. It is not part of the job of the House or of the European Union to pressurise other Governments into taking privatisation decisions simply because our Government have, or to hold up the success, real or imagined, of privatised industries in this country as a model for every other member of the European Union to follow.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has suddenly become anti-Europe. The Commission's advisory panel has just

  1095
  decided to advise the Commission that it should encourage all the other airlines in Europe to become privatised. If the hon. Gentleman is criticising the Commission for being pro-privatisation, I suppose that he is about as anti-Europe as we are.
  Mr. Wilson: I detect a slight difference between the views of the panel and those of the Commission. Of course, the Commission's views can be argued about—they are not set in tablets of stone. In some cases, I might disagree with the Commission's view on privatisation, but my point was that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South seems to regard it as axiomatic that privatisation was "a good thing" and that other Governments were obliged to follow that course.
  Mr. Jenkin: It is a good thing.
  Mr. Wilson: I shall not be tempted into an analysis of that argument, which seems to be a minority view that is losing support rapidly.
  The decision of other Governments to maintain state airlines is entirely a matter for them. The question is whether they are operating within the rules of the Commission and the European Union. If they are not, the mechanisms exist with which to pursue them.
  On the issue of French subsidy and any illegal subsidy in contravention of the treaty of Rome, the European Commission is due to recommend a policy on state aid to airlines. It is clearly investigating the issue, just as it investigated the allegations against Britain in other spheres.
  I now quote Air France's defence, as reported in the Financial Times. I am not advocating it, but a defence exists about which we have heard nothing tonight. That defence is Air France's claim that
  "the FFr1.5bn injection involved convertible bonds and other paper issued under normal market conditions. It also stated that the earlier FFr5.84bn it had received involved FFr2bn in a government capital injection approved by the EU as not consisting of a state subsidy, with the remainder raised on the French financial market."
  It is that defence, as opposed to the indictment served by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, that will be the substance of the investigation by the European Commission and the courts into the reality—or otherwise—of state aid. They are the forums in which those issues should be discussed. The idea that one should throw out the whole policy on the basis of the untested assertion that everyone else is cheating while Britain, uniquely, is playing by the rules, shows the anti-EC, or anti-EU, attitudes of one section of the Conservative party.
  The wider issue is whether Britain would be in a better position to pursue its strategic interests and press its case within these forums by adopting the negative attitude that we have seen this week or by being a full partner in the European Union. What we have heard tonight is a microcosm of the debate about whether we would get more out of the European Union by being a full and enthusiastic player or by always working on the assumption that everyone is out of step but Britain and that it is all some sort of conspiracy to do us down.
  We believe that the balance that we must seek is between the market and regulation. In setting out the criteria for the "third package", Commissioner Karel van Miert made it clear that it was not to be.regarded as a simplistic move towards an unregulated free market. On the contrary, he set out a complex range of objectives. For
  1096
  example, he accepted the need for public service obligations in respect of services to less-developed peripheral regions and stressed that air links should be viewed as part of a network if trade and tourism were to be properly served.
  The Commissioner highlighted the interests of the consumer but did not overlook those of people living near airports or of airline employees. He felt that the future regime should have a modicum of competition but recognised the importance of the Community's industry being competitive on a worldwide scale. That is a fair balance of the interests for any European airline policy to pursue. The approach of the third package aims to reconcile some highly complex considerations and, as part of that, clearly implies the aim of securing a reasonable balance between British interests and those of the social partners.
  There is an argument that the forces of competition alone will bring down fares. However, it is worth recalling the fact that our own Civil Aviation Authority has pointed
  out:
  "the removal of bilateral restrictions will create the opportunity for more widespread and vigorous competition between the major EC airlines, but there seems little prospect that this will actually occur."
  Therefore, the case is made that regulation as well as the market have a role to play. There is a fear that, if competition fails to emerge naturally, there will be a temptation to go further by sponsoring a type of new entrant that is unlikely to operate according to the principle of the social charter. In extreme form, that may result in "flag of convenience" airlines. In our view, Community air transport has no place for that concept.
  The opening up of intra-Community routes in 1997 to the carriers of any member country may be the next logical step, but it is important to stress that individual Governments should be able to place rather more weight on certain domestic policy objectives—for example, the nurturing of regional lifelines, the maintenance of long-term obligations to the public and the pursuit of multi-modal transport integration. It should be specifically accepted that such objectives are legitimate and that they do not simply belong in some transitional or residual category.
  Consistent with the development of Community policy, the real issue is how to open up the operation of such services to the airlines of member states, without discrimination. That is one example of a number of areas where there is a potentially important role for regulation at Commission level. The right of establishment implies that the ownership of airlines based in any member country and the opportunity for such airlines to fly each and every intra-Community route must be opened up to all EC citizens. However, if that is to be realistically workable, each member state must apply identical licensing criteria to would-be new entrants to the industry within its own frontiers. This proposal would thus affect a state's national designation policy.
  In the absence of a Communitywide licensing authority, the best approach is to lay down harmonised rules relating to the technical and economic fitness of airlines. Differing criteria could seriously hamper other member states' airlines in operating on what the latter would consider to be a fair and equal basis.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilson: No. I am winding up. [Interruption.] There is not exactly a mass turn-out of hon. Members to whom to give way.
  We support the broad thrust of Community policy on air transport, with the safeguards, controls and regulation to which I have referred. Reliance solely on market forces to secure lower fares and wider consumer choice will lead to disappointment. We should frankly accept that, although there will be considerable liberalisation, logic points clearly towards a regulated regime.
  9.12 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) for raising this important subject. United Kingdom airlines and airports do indeed play a leading role in international air transport services, both within the European Union and beyond. My hon. Friend was, of course, right in saying that the United Kingdom excels. He said that the rhetoric and the aspiration are unmatched by the practice. I fear that here too he was right. On this issue, there is not a chink of light between us.
  The British Government support our industry. Indeed, we believe that the way in which we have done so over the past decade and more is one of the many reasons for our having an industry that is perhaps the most efficient in the world and, indeed, the most popular with customers. Because of our island status, good air links with Europe are essential if we are to foster trade, in terms of both goods and passenger services, with the Community, but this is essential worldwide too. It is essential not just for the airports in the south-east of the country, but for the regional airports, which are flourishing so well under the regime that we have been pursuing all these years.
  We have long argued for liberalisation of air services within the Community as essential to the completion of the single market. The benefits are self-evident. More competition leads to more frequent and better services at more competitive prices. That is good for the consumer and for the industry. That is why the United Kingdom was at the forefront of efforts to bring about liberalisation of air services within Europe.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to deal with one of the more fatuous points made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who spoke for the Opposition? He said that air transport liberalisation and privatisation would lead to the collapse of minor services in the further extremes of Europe. Are not the services in the highlands and islands, all privately owned and virtually unsubsidised, an excellent repudiation of that nonsense?
  Mr. Key: I am sure that, in his heart of hearts, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) knows that that is true. After all, he is the founding editor of the West Highland Free Press and must know the benefits that liberalised air services and privatisation have brought to the airlines in that part of our wonderful United Kingdom.
  Mr. Wilson: Unfortunately, I have already sent my notes to Hansard, but the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has completely misrepresented what I said. I pointed out—I should have thought that he and the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), from
  1098
  their "anti-European" standpoint, would agree—that national Governments must maintain the right to incorporate into their policies the defence of their interests.
  Although the British Airways highland division operates profitably, there are always question marks over some of the routes. The island of Skye, on which the newspaper that the Minister was kind enough to mention is based, lost its service some years ago and now has no direct service because the market could not sustain one when the subsidy was taken away.
  I should not have thought that there was more than a debating point between us. I believe that, if there is a social case for doing so, national Governments should have the right to subsidise services where the market cannot provide them.
  Mr. Key: That need not necessarily divide us. Incidentally, what a pleasure it is when the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and the Minister can present a balanced transport policy. The House is familiar with hearing the hon. Member for Cunninghame North speak about railways and me speak about roads, but here we are both speaking about airways.
  However, if we are to talk about Skye, perhaps we had better not talk about bridges. I have looked across at the isle of Skye over many years from the island of Raasay, where my family used to go on holiday. Raasay has never aspired to an airline, but I recall the campaigns that the hon. Gentleman led against a Dr. Green.
  Mr. Wilson: Did we agree on those?
  Mr. Key: I had better not pry into that territory, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's love for that part of the United Kingdom. I count myself lucky to have tramped up and down the isle of Raasay, sailed round it and fished off it—but I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are beginning to think that I may be wandering from the point, so I had better return to the subject of liberalisation.
  Liberalisation has now been achieved, in the form of the third package of measures that came into effect on 1 January last year. That provides uniform criteria for the licensing of air carriers to be adopted by all member states when granting licences to Community carriers. Restrictions on cross-border investment have been removed—I shall deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South said about TAT later. Member states are no longer able to favour national flag carriers by issuing licences on a discretionary basis.
  Access to routes within the Community has also been opened up by ending the previous arrangements for sharing capacity. The only remaining restrictions on the provision of domestic services will be removed in April 1997. Carriers are now free to set fares according to their commercial judgment. That has been a long time coming, but I believe that there is evidence that it is already operating to the benefit of the consumer.
  The benefits of the changes are beginning to show as airlines offer new and innovative fares packages and introduce services that would not have been possible in the past. For example, British Airways has introduced a new service between Hanover and Leipzig as an extension of its London-Hanover service, and British Midland's introduction of its Diamond Euroclass service resulted in reductions in business class fares on a number of European services, including Heathrow to Amsterdam and Heathrow to Paris.

  1099
  Some commentators have claimed that the single market in air transport is not working because fares have not fallen significantly across the board. Apart from the fact that the single market is not exclusively concerned with fares, and some fares have come down, that misses the fundamental point that we have created the necessary conditions for airlines to compete. It is a matter for them, based on their commercial judgment, how they respond to the new opportunities and freedoms.
  Looking to the wider Europe, we have strongly supported the extension of the third package of liberalisation measures to other European countries so that the benefits are more widely available. That has already been achieved in the case of Norway and Sweden where the measures have been in force since August 1993 and, under the European economic area agreement, Iceland, Finland and Austria are also expected to join in the third package arrangements during 1994. So far, so good. The priority now for the United Kingdom is to ensure that the single market is fully implemented throughout the Community and, in future, throughout all the EEA countries.
  In the past year there have been calls from some member states and from their nationalised carriers for measures that 'will slow down or go back on the liberalisation measures, on the grounds that they were, in some way, responsible for an alleged crisis in the aviation industry. We have resisted such calls as unfounded and a thinly veiled attempt to return to the old days of protection for state-owned carriers which would seriously undermine the benefits of the single market.
  In response to this, the European Commission set up a committee of wise men to assess the situation and to report with recommendations on the future of the industry. I am pleased to say that when the committee reported its findings earlier this year, it supported what we had said all along, that the real problem facing some, though not all, European airlines is that of low productivity, which is a matter for airline management to tackle.
  The wise men's report also fully supported our argument that there should be no going back on the single market in air transport and that the internal market must be made to operate properly if the full benefits are to be realised by consumers and industry alike. There was welcome emphasis in the report on the need to reduce Government intervention in the industry and to allow the industry the commercial freedom to adapt to the challenges of a global and competitive industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South mentioned one or two points, in particular, about the funding of state airlines and private airlines. If I may, I will quote what the wise men said about state aid on page 21 of their report:
  "In a competitive market, access to finance means should be equitable, it should not be based on ownership. This principle applies both ways. A state which owns an airline should neither privilege the carrier against privately owned companies nor disadvantage its carrier by failing to assume the responsibilities of a commercially oriented shareholder. This principle of equal treatment irrespective of ownership requires a very sophisticated policy on the broader issue of financial relations between slates and publicly owned carriers. It requires a clear separation between the normal commercial operations of a shareholder and state aids granted under articles 92 and 93 of the EC treaty."
  That is extremely significant in view of what my hon. Friend went on to say.
  Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts that the Government made to help the Commission along to that particular point. Have we not, however, witnessed up to now a serious institutional failing in the political partiality of the European Court in that it has made judgments on a political and partial basis which have not led to the single market that we thought we had already legislated for and that should be enforced by the court even-handedly?
  Mr. Key: My hon. Friend describes the case very well in his own words. What I said earlier was that I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South when he spoke about rhetoric and aspirations being unmatched by practice. That is exactly the sort of subject that I think he was referring to.
  Mr. Jenkin: This is a failing that seems endemic to the institutional structure. What are the policies of the Government towards reforming those institutions to make them more even-handed, less political and more impartial in the way that they enforce the policy that has been agreed between member states?
  Mr. Key: I feel a touch of Maastricht coming on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you will not thank me for introducing that line. I am about to come to the specific point of what we are going to do next, particularly about Air France.
  Mr. Wilson: I wanted to help the Minister out when he felt that he was coming to Maastricht. He can recover his ground. Does he agree that an air of unreality was setting in, with his hon. Friends attacking the European Court, the European Commission and every other Government? The conflict is presented as one of public versus private, yet within Britain we have dog fights between the privatised British Airways and other British private operators. We seem capable of producing our own intense conflicts of interest and dirty tricks without attributing everything to a Britain-versus-the-foreigner category or public-versusprivate category.
  Mr. Key: I would far rather have a lively and responsive private sector than the fossilised system that we see too often in our European neighbours' airlines.
  We firmly believe that state aid to airlines serves to hinder the industry by shoring up inefficient companies and limiting consumer choice. We should talk not only about the structure of the airlines but about the services rendered to the customers of those airlines. That is why we have pressed the commission to take action on the issue and called for a thorough, independent investigation of the recent announcement by the French Government of their plans to inject up to FF20 billion—about £2.3 billion—into Air France.
  We had been expecting the announcement of a restructuring plan for Air France for some time, since the debacle that accompanied last October's attempt at restructuring. Even so, I am astonished by the scale of the aid package involved: £2.3 billion is an unprecedented amount of state aid. It could have a seriously detrimental effect on competition throughout the European market. As such, it is entirely contradictory to the principles of the single market.
  We called on the Commission to freeze the aid pending a thorough independent investigation of the case. It is vital that there should be parity of treatment througout the

  1101
  Community. It is simply not acceptable that some airlines have to make investment from their own resources or go to their banks and shareholders while others can simply go to their Government and receive funds at no cost or at repayment levels significantly below those which the private sector would charge. Why should British carriers that have ensured their financial viability through efficient commercial practices and without money from the British Government have to compete with a monolithic flag carrier propped up by money from the French Government?
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Was my hon. Friend shocked that, despite all the head-down mumbling into some brief throughout his speech and his refusal to take interventions and debate his position properly, the Opposition spokesman had nothing to say about Air France? He seemed to be on the side of the French. He seemed to encourage the subventions and so on against our airlines. Was that the feeling that my hon. Friend got from the speech that we heard from the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Key: I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman was not more forthcoming and more grateful for the way in which the airlines responded to the new markets developing north of the border, for example, and in other peripheral areas of the United Kingdom, including the Isles of Scilly and the south-west, including Newquay St. Mawgan and Plymouth as well as Exeter.
  Mr. Wilson: I do not want to cause any problems in the internal conflict, but the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South berated me for something different that the Minister may have failed to pick up. I said that, if the rules had been broken, judgment should be made accordingly. This is not the place in which to hang, draw and quarter Air France and the French Government, attractive as the prospect might be to two thirds of the Conservative Members present tonight. If there were a two-thirds majority, the French would probably be in trouble tonight. I am not prepared to engage in the vacuous tub-thumping that we heard from the Minister before he got on to the Isles of Scilly. It is completely at odds with what his hon. Friends asked for earlier.
  Mr. Key: I am talking not about hanging, drawing and quartering, but about the guillotine.
  The United Kingdom is not alone in its view about the antics of Air France and the French Government. The wise men's report argued strongly against the granting of state aids on the basis that they lead to unfair and unacceptable distortions of competition. They concluded:
  "capital injections and state aids have severely contributed to overcapacity and uneconomic pricing",
  which represent a potential distortion of competition between state-owned and privately-owned airlines.
  True, they accepted that there might be a need for "one last chance" transitional aids to restore carriers to financial viability, if only for political reasons, but where is the evidence that this is the last time that Air France will turn to the French Government for handouts? It has already received three capital injections since 1991 totalling some £670 million and a further case, involving a £170 million bond issue, is currently under investigation by the Commission. Moreover, the details of the restructuring
  1102
  plan that we have seen so far make no reference to reducing dependency on the state by attracting private sector investment, let alone by moving towards privatisation.
  There is also little evidence that the programme is severe enough to address the fundamental problems facing Air France, it envisages no real reductions in capacity and it is far from clear how the proposed cost reductions will be achieved. That is why we called on the Commission to instigate an independent investigation of the latest aid and to open consultation on it in accordance with the treaty of Rome. That will enable the UK, other member states and the airlines affected to submit comments on the case. We shall use that opportunity to argue forcefully against the aid and to seek to ensure that, if the Commission decides to approve the aid, it is accompanied by stringent conditions.
  In particular, those conditions should include the requirement that the aid should not be used in a way that would distort competition with other Community carriers, through expansion of capacity or expansion on to new routes—indeed, if anything, there should be capacity reductions—and there should be a categorical assurance that this will be the last time that the French Government bale out Air France.
  Incidentally, the Air France case is not the only state aid case under consideration at the moment, although it is by far the largest and most important to the operation of the single market. The Commission announced last week the instigation of investigations into state aids for Olympic Airways, involving about £950 million, and TAP Air Portugal, involving about £690 million, plus Government guarantees for future borrowing. When commenting on those cases, the UK will similarly argue against the granting of state aid and press for rigorous conditions to be attached to any aid that the Commission approves.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South mentioned the case of Orly airport.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: We have established that the Opposition have nothing to say in defence of British interests in this sector. I could not hear what the Opposition spokesman said. Are the Opposition trying to set up Europe as some total licensing authority, which will debate as a European authority against, principally, the United States authority? Does my hon. Friend's research into Labour party policy confirm that it is moving in that worrying direction? I sensed that that was the case from the mumbles of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) before he sat down.
  Mr. Key: While my hon. Friend spoke, I looked in vain at the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North for nods or shakes of the head, but none did I see. I am sure, however, that he will make the position clear.
  Mr. Jenkin: Was it not obvious that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North was reading an old Commission brief and that it is Labour party policy to lie down in front of Europe and let itself be run over? If the electorate recognises that in the forthcoming European elections, there might be some hope of our doing better than people expect.
  Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right, and if anyone tries to run me over, they will find me fairly immovable.
  The French do not allow air services between London and Orly airport by any carrier, whether French or British owned. We have raised that matter with the Commission

  1103
  not only on behalf of TAT, but on behalf of other UK airlines that wish to provide services to Orly. We understand that the Commission is on the point of making a decision requiring the French Government to allow services to Orly in a non-discriminatory way. We would welcome that decision.
  As for the question of limits on British Airways' investment in TAT, there is nothing in Community law to prevent British Airways increasing its investment in TAT to 100 per cent. I understand that British Airways has an option to increase its investment, but if there is a problem with the French Government I am willing to inquire into it and take it up with the French and with the Commission if I receive evidence of it.
  This has been a helpful debate. I hope that it has been especially helpful to British airlines and the British interest in the aviation industry. In conclusion, I reiterate the Government's commitment to the liberalisation of air transport services, both in the Community and more widely throughout Europe. I believe that that offers the best way forward in the interests of passengers as well as the air transport industry.

  Child Support Agency
  9.35 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: When I speak about maintenance or the Child Support Agency, I start from the position that the welfare of children should be put first. Children are a very precious asset and I support the principle that parents, absent or otherwise, have a financial responsibility for their children. However, I believe that that principle must be put into practice in a way that creates a fair and effective system of child maintenance, and which benefits all the children concerned.
  Unlike the Under-Secretary of State, I do not believe that we can rank children in priority order. I found his statement extraordinary when he said that one of the principles of the Child Support Act 1991 was
  "the principle that a natural child should have first call on a parent's income."—[Official Report, 2 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 945.]
  The implication of that statement is that stepchildren are less deserving; their needs matter less. I do not agree with that principle.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who put it very forcefully:
  "The stepchildren are regarded as 'unnatural' children. The Under-Secretary of State talked about 'natural' children and refused to take the cost of parenting stepchildren into account. The concept of deserving and undeserving children is disgusting; yet that is what the Conservative party is introducing into family life and it will cause more family breakdowns."—[Official Report, 10 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 516.]
  I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston was right. The children of second marriages are equally precious. The sentiments expressed by the Minister were disgusting and the 1991 Act and its agency are seriously damaging second marriages and the children of those marriages.
  On 17 December, as I am sure that the Minister will remember, he responded to complaints that I made to him about the Child Support Agency in a letter by saying:
  "We believe the basic structure of the formula is sound, and that the basic principles of the scheme stand up to scrutiny and are supported by the vast majority of people in this country."
  By 22 December, the Secretary of State for Social Security wrote to all hon. Members, telling them that he intended to make changes to the Child Support Agency.
  I predict that the Secretary of State will appear before the House in the not-too-distant future, bringing forward further changes to the 1991 Act. I think that he will have to accept that the Child Support Agency is not supported by the vast majority of the people in the country, and that it is doing incalculable harm to countless children and families. I have had many cases where the payment has been increased by the Child Support Agency far beyond the amount that the individual can afford to pay, and I do not think that I am unique in saying that all the cases that I have on file at the moment have been from so-called "absent parents" who were accepting responsibility and were already paying. I do not have a single case where the absent parent was not paying—talking to many of my hon. Friends suggests that that is the pattern.
  Some people have made a clean break settlement and are still paying a fair amount in maintenance and court orders. The changes to the formula for child maintenance assessment forced on the Secretary of State by the Select Committee report are simply piecemeal changes to a draconian formula. They do not constitute a fundamental

  1105
  change to the Child Support Agency and the way in which it operates. The changes have not made much difference to how much many of my constituents pay.
  One of my constituents was ordered to pay £80 from a take-home pay of just over £200 a week. His payments have been reduced to £73—a grand £7 reduction. Another constituent made a clean break settlement—something which the Government have stubbornly refused to take into account. Clean break settlements are often arranged amicably between partners, to the benefit of both. My constituent paid what I thought to be too low a figure of maintenance. However, the sum was agreed by the court and by the constituent's ex-wife. He has remarried and has two children by his second wife. He is not a highly paid worker, although he is a skilled man who has done up two homes beautifully so that they are now worth a lot more than when he bought them. The Child Support Agency has demanded £75 a week from my constituent even though he is not well paid. That payment means that he could be in serious danger of losing his new house.
  My constituent's ex-wife was on invalidity benefit and will lose £48, plus free school meals, housing benefit and, I believe, free swimming lessons for her child who has extra tuition. None of the absent parent's contact costs has been taken into account. My constituent and both his families—his ex-family and his current family—are worse off because of the intervention of the Child Support Agency. The Minister must justify that position. The Minister regularly stands at the Dispatch Box and says that the agency has benefited women. The two women that I have mentioned have not benefited, but have been heavy losers.
  Dramatic mistakes occur. Last week, I received a phone call from a constituent who woke up on a Monday morning to find his wife with a letter from the Child Support Agency accusing the man of having an ex-wife and three children. The man has been happily married for 10 years and has one child of his own. Clearly, a mistake had been made. To his credit, the man rang the Child Support Agency and suggested that he was probably the victim of an administrative mistake. He did not want to become too uptight about the issue, but his word was not accepted. He was told that he had to fill in the forms.
  He said that he was staggered at the response that he received, which was, "You would say that wouldn't you—they all say that." I intervened and the man and his wife have received an apology. I do not think that such a response is good enough. I do not see why innocent people who have clearly been the victim of a mistake should have to fill in any forms. I want the Minister to consider that.
  More seriously, three women in my constituency have told me that they are not co-operating with the Child Support Agency because they do not wish to have any further contact with their former partners who were violent. They are willing to pay the fine which is, I think, £8.50 a week, from their meagre benefit rather than be exposed to further violence. The Child Support Agency has not yet come back to the three women on that issue. It seems to be taking a long time to make a decision on whether or not to fine them. I should give the Minister the opportunity tonight to remove once and for all the punitive
  1106
  ploy to punish those who need our help and support. It should never have been included in the Act in the first place; it is disgraceful.
  The Minister and the Government must accept some responsibility for the break-up of second marriages. We pass all our letters on to the Minister; I am not naming names tonight, because the Minister has had copies of every case. If there are a couple of letters that he has not got yet, they are certainly in the post.
  A constituent of mine formed a second relationship with a divorced man. She, her new partner and two children were low-paid, but perfectly happy, until the Child Support Agency, chasing his former wife who was on benefit, gave the man such a high assessment that he could not pay. The ensuing pressure and stress led to the second relationship breaking down. That trend is on the increase. Both women and the children, even more tragically, lost out in this case. Who does the Minister think has been helped in that case? Nobody in that case has come out of it better off; they have all suffered.
  I highlight another case of a father who was paying under a court order and who had to travel to see his child. The high maintenance that he now has to pay has put a limit on the visits. In a recent letter to me, he says:
  "The Child Support Agency have ruined my life. As a result of their actions I am now receiving counselling as I am unable to sleep at night and my work is suffering as a result. This is dangerous to other people who have to work with me because my mind is on other things. I am unable to cope with the simplest of problems and I feel as though I have had enough.
  I see no hope for the future. Thank you for asking me if there was anything that you could do to help me. What I would ask is what else can I do?"
  There is despair in that letter. Sadly, I have other letters that are just as desperate.
  There is another case of a man who cannot and does not think that he should pay the large increase in maintenance. He is denying paternity of his 15-year-old son. One can imagine what will happen if the son gets to know about that. At the moment, the man's ex-partner has kept that from the son. One can imagine the hurt that will be caused all round for that family.
  I have another case which I passed on to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who chairs the Select Committee on Social Security which produced the report. It is the case of a man who, because his wife left him, took responsibility of his little girl from birth until she was eight years old. He has received no maintenance and he does not want any because he wants to keep the bond between the mother and daughter—the daughter goes to the mother's every weekend.
  The mother has now put it into the child's head that, if she goes to live with her, she can get £100 a week from the father. She has said that they could have a good time spending £100 a week. That is a serious and unusual case. This monster—this Child Support Agency—throws up such cases every now and then. I am sure that other hon. Members have similar experiences.
  The recent changes were an admission by the Government that the original child maintenance formula was unfair, yet the Government are not prepared to repay any money taken under the original formula. The Minister said:
  "any absent parent who will benefit from the new phasing arrangements will get their full phasing entitlement but from a forward date."
  Although everybody's payments have been reassessed from 7 February, those who had the misfortune to be first

  1107
  through the system have ended up paying more. The feelings of injustice expressed to me by those who were already paying is beyond description. It seems to them like a double punishment. I do not believe the Government when they tell us that two thirds of the absent parents contacted were paying no regular maintenance. My experience in Halifax is not unique, as other hon. Members relate the same experience.
  When Ros Hepplewhite gave evidence to the Social Security Select Committee, she admitted that, when dealing with a caring parent on benefit, the agency would deal first with the absent parents who were paying maintenance under previous agreements. She said:
  "We are taking payers first."
  That is reflected in my constituency cases. I emphasise that none of the absent parents who have contacted me—we have now reached 63—paid nothing before the introduction of the Child Support Agency. They had taken responsibility for their children. There may be an argument that, in some cases, that payment needed to be raised, but they had all taken responsibility.
  The reason for taking payers first is obviously so that the Child Support Agency's financial targets are met. It is extremely distasteful that the chief executive of the agency is on performance-related pay. As a result, those who have suffered financially, rather than those who have shirked their responsibility, are being caught up in that nightmare.
  I remind the House that £480 million of the £530 million that the Child Support Agency is to raise in its first year will go to the Treasury. I have said all along that it is a tax. It is not about helping children; it is about benefiting the Exchequer. The Minister has said that the formula-based scheme would provide consistent and predictable results. The results have certainly been consistent and predictable, in that they are placing both parents with care and absent parents in the poverty trap.
  The Minister said that Ros Hepplewhite's performance-related bonus would be based on arrangements of maintenance for people with the care of children keeping to the agency's agreed budget, the achievement of the specified level of benefit savings and the level of claimed satisfaction. That is a particularly cruel statement to make because of the misery which the agency is causing.
  My colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), believes that the Child Support Agency should be fundamentally reformed. I think that we should scrap it and start again.
  Absent parents have a duty to support their children. I agree that the old court system did not work, but it could have been made to work for a fraction of the cost of setting up the Child Support Agency—or should I say the Treasury Support Agency? A system could have been devised to pursue defaulters and enforce payments. Had it been done that way, we would not have been pursuing those already paying but tackling some of those who are getting away scot free and still not paying a penny because we are concentrating on the soft targets.
  At least the courts would have had discretion. They could have assessed all the valid factors, including children of second marriages, who should not be considered to be less deserving than children of first marriages.
  How much has the reassessment of payments cost taxpayers? That question has been raised previously, but I do not know whether it has been answered. Has the Minister apologised for the many mistakes that have been made, particularly to the family that I mentioned? That
  1108
  case was outrageous. Will the payments be backdated? Treatment has been particularly unfair for those caught in the trap first.
  The Child Support Agency is causing great harm to many families. I believe that the weight of public opinion will force the Government into major changes sooner rather than later. The agency is divisive, unfair and damaging to family life. Sooner or later, the Government will have to listen to the opposition to it. It might be a shout at the moment; it is going to develop into a roar that will engulf the Government, just as the poll tax did.
  9.54 pm
  Mr. John Spellar: I did not vote for the Act that set up this agency, for the simple reason that I was not in the House at the time. [Interruption.] I am explaining my own position: others will have to speak for themselves. If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way to him.
  I first became aware of the operation of the agency last September when a couple of policemen came to see me about problems that they were having with their assessments. They also drew my attention to problems that a number of their colleagues in the station were experiencing. As a result, when we reassembled here I tabled an early-day motion which attracted a small amount of press interest. I was astounded by the ensuing overwhelming explosion of letters from people all across the country describing the problems that they were facing with the Child Support Agency.
  The phrase that struck me most often in those letters was, "Our world has been turned upside down." That is a heartfelt cry from people who had carefully built up their lives or who often had rebuilt them and then found that everything was to be put at risk by a drastic and dramatic change in their circumstances.
  Perhaps it would have been better if Ministers had looked at the world upside down, by which I mean that they should have carefully scrutinised what has happened in Australia. Australia has a Child Support Act that seems to be working fairly successfully. The Australians do not face the problems that we are facing or the enormous degree of upset in this country. Many of us have attended mass meetings around the country where we have heard about that upset. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) has, with some of his colleagues, organised two or three extremely successful meetings in recent months, the last only a couple of weeks ago. At these meetings we have met irate, indignant and desperate families.
  None of this is happening in Australia. The fundamental difference is that the Australian scheme is not retrospective.
  Mr. Mike Hall: In the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill, one of the main criticisms levelled at a particular clause by Conservative Members was the fact that it was retrospective. Retrospective taxation makes it difficult for people to adjust their financial circumstances. Exactly the same applies to the CSA. The retrospective nature of the Act has meant that it is impossible for families to adjust their finances to accommodate the massive increases forced on them by the agency.
  Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend. He reminds us of a number of occasions when Conservative Members have been extremely concerned about retrospection. It has generally been a principle of legislation that it should not be made retrospective. That applies particularly to financial legislation. I am sure that colleagues recall the successful attempt to remove penalties for councillors who had fallen foul of housing legislation. That retrospection caused uproar among Conservative Members.
  Unfortunately, the CSA operates retrospection with a vengeance. People have made choices in arriving at their settlements with their partners—sensible settlements based on the law at the time. They were given advice on the best ways of resolving their differences so as to ensure that their children could remain in the family home in the same neighbourhood and attend the same schools. They wanted to make sure that their children's standard of living was maintained. Usually the wife stayed in the family home, debts were covered by the husband and he moved off to set up a new home. That was their legal and sometimes financial advice at the time and they made prudent and sensible decisions.
  Now, that is all being torn up; they are told that it is irrelevant and counts for nothing. All those arrangements have become meaningless and they will be assessed merely on their income. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South said, they suffer dramatic and drastic changes in their circumstances.
  In other circumstances, such as when the Government introduced the council tax, and in other areas of taxation—even in national taxation as introduced by the Chancellor—transitional arrangements were introduced. Obviously, when people are facing a change in local taxation and the results will be dramatic, especially if that occurs around the time of local government elections in the London boroughs, transitional arrangements are made to soften the blow. There is no such softening for those who are hit by the Child Support Agency. They get hit by the full amount right away from day one. They sometimes face a doubling, trebling or quadrupling of the amount they pay.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said that some people were paying too little, although when one looks at all the surrounding circumstances, things are not always as they seem. An increase in taxation of £50, £60 or £70 a week is drastic and dramatic and can have a devastating effect on people's standards of living, way of life and security.
  The decision is in the Government's hands. Quite simply, 90 per cent. of the money that is recovered goes directly to the Government. That is partly due to the take-up strategy. It was clear from the Select Committee report that the first groups to be targeted were those where the parent with care was on income support and the absent parent was already paying maintenance. Those groups are the prime targets and 90 per cent. of the money recovered from them goes directly to the Treasury.
  When that point was made in previous debates, the Minister's reply has been that moving away from that would mean increasing public borrowing. I caution the Minister against using that argument tonight. If he does, he is admitting that the Child Support Agency is a tax—a tax that falls directly and particularly on certain limited groups in society: divorced and separated people. It is a divorced and separated tax.
  If he is suggesting that people should have to change the arrangements they make for their children, it is legitimate
  1110
  to do that over time. The evidence from Australia is that the percentage of parents with care on income support and other benefits is falling—but steadily, not dramatically and drastically. That is the Government's problem. The financial bind that they are in means that they cannot take the matter slowly and steadily and in an acceptable manner; they have to rush to get the money all in one go. That is the fundamental difficulty at the root of the problem.
  I shall address some of the detailed problems that are arising. They may be details, but for many individuals they are enormously important and cause immense difficulty and heartache. One example that has been raised by a number of Conservative Members, particularly those representing towns some distance from London but dependent on the London travel-to-work area, involves travel costs.
  Workers in central London receive higher incomes in recognition of the fact that they experience higher travel costs. Unfortunately for them, however, the higher income is included in the assessment, but travel costs are not offset against it. Although that has been the main problem raised, it is not unique in this country. A considerable number of construction workers and long-distance lorry drivers throughout the country experience significant travel costs, and that is recognised in their remuneration. The problem is that their remuneration counts; the other is not offset.
  On the issue of retrospection, problems are also being experienced throughout the country, as I can see from my mailbag, by those who build up huge debts between the initial letter and the assessment. Considerable delays occur, even in straightforward cases, and people then build up 10 or 12 weeks quite normally, and longer periods in many cases. That means that they then face debts of £1,000 to £2,000. That is quite dramatic.
  We all know the problems of people once they are in debt: they fall into the debt trap and start to borrow from high-cost areas, not pay off their visa and access accounts and are then juggling between their various accounts and starting to pay a lot more money. Those problems have arisen not, I would argue, because people have been evading or avoiding answering the form, but in this instance merely because of the amount of work that the CSA has taken on and the delays in the system.
  We must also be concerned at the errors in the system. A new problem that I have found, which has not been mentioned in debates on this matter before, is where an assessment is agreed, the DSS is notified of the amount of the assessment, which is then deducted from benefit and, for one reason or another, the money is not then paid to the parent with care.
  Sometimes that can be because perhaps the money is not paid in, but one woman who came to see me was concerned about her daughter's welfare as she had been losing a considerable sum of money. The mother had seen her daughter's ex-husband's paying-in book and he had been paying for the past 13 weeks. Unfortunately, the money was not coming across. It is all very well to say that there will be administrative problems in every system, but the difficulty is that in such an unresponsive system people then find that they are short of money week after week and get into increasingly desperate circumstances.
  I am sure that we have all seen people whose assessment was based on the amount of overtime that they were paid, or the amount of holiday pay that they received. They have

  1111
  a high assessment, but are now on basic time and find again that they are desperately short of money and cannot make ends meet.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most frustrating aspects for hon. Members when raising these cases is that no matter how much detail we provide in our letters to the Minister, we are always sent a standard letter from the chief executive which does not deal with any aspect of the case until the second or third last paragraph, and even that is a standard paragraph?
  Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend had obviously been looking over my shoulder, because the next item in my notes was responsiveness. That problem is faced not only by us, but, of course, by our constituents as well. For them it is even worse. I will check with my colleagues on the time that it takes us to receive a reply, but it is usually between four and six weeks. I note my hon. Friend's comments on the nature of many of those replies.
  Many of our constituents are given telephone numbers to call, but they get answering machines; the telephones do not get answered personally. It takes them eight to 12 weeks to get a reply. Often those replies do not address the particular problems. The responses that they receive are often in computer-speak. It is almost as though standard paragraphs are built into the machine and those replies come out. They cannot find any way of getting a response from the system to their questions. That is immensely frustrating, particularly because, under the scheme, the money keeps clocking up. It applies from the time when the first assessment was set up.
  I referred earlier to the take-on strategy. We should urge the Minister tonight to look at a new take-on strategy of saying that the legislation should be changed so that we take out the retrospective element. That would remove a huge amount of 'work from the system; it would mean that the agency would be able to concentrate on new cases and therefore be able to take into account many of the factors that we have outlined so that people could deal properly and responsibly with the maintenance of their children, but without being forced into desperation and bankruptcy and being put in the position, as some of them are, of having to decide whether it is worth staying in work.
  We are already encountering cases of people giving up work. I am told by shop stewards in the midlands that union members are approaching them and saying, "Next time redundancies arise, put me down on the list; I shall be unemployed, but at least I shall be able to draw benefit." If those workers left their jobs early, they would not be able to draw that benefit; if they take redundancy, two families will be on benefit, rather than only one being on a lesser benefit.
  The CSA and the Department must get to grips with the problems that people face out there in the real world. I congratulate the Minister on meeting parents from the north-west recently. On that occasion, he experienced the sheer frustration and anger that they are experiencing.
  Some may say that people do not like paying more money. I am sure that that is true, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about people who are desperate—whose world is being turned upside down, and whose lives and second families are being threatened by the changes. Some of the stories are heartrending: couples are having to decide whether to embark on a second
  1112
  marriage, and whether they can afford to have a child. I have had two letters saying that a second wife or fiancee is pregnant, and is having to decide whether to go through with the pregnancy. We can all imagine the traumas that that is inflicting on people.
  I do not think that the CSA and the Department have assessed the difficulties being caused throughout the country. It is time to step back and examine the details, particularly the fundamental problem of the legislation—its retrospective nature.
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I apologise to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for having missed her opening speech. Only in the last few minutes was I released from a Standing Committee, and I came straight to the Chamber to try to catch part of her speech. I did, however, listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), and I have great sympathy with almost everything he said.
  Perhaps inevitably, one hon. Member after another will refer to the particularly harrowing cases that have been brought to them. Earlier this week, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister how many letters on the subject he had received so far from hon. Members. The answer was 5,089. I must be responsible for some 70 or 80 of those letters, on behalf of my constituents, and I suspect that other hon. Members who are present have been bombarded with letters from people suffering the effects of the legislation.
  Like the hon. Member for Warley, West, I must begin with the question of retrospection, which is a killer for too many families. Let me give the House a small example from my postbag. A couple in a second marriage waited to have their first child until the one child of the first marriage had passed the age of 16: that was the age at which the court order applying to the couple had said that maintenance would end.
  Thirteen months after the child turned 16, the CSA decided—retrospectively—to insist that maintenance should have continued at the higher level. The couple were therefore faced with 13 months of retrospective maintenance payments. They have no means to pay that, particularly as they have started a second family and face all the bills associated with a young child. I fear that the same circumstances have hit young and less well-off families up and down the country in a horrible way.
  Second on what I would regard as the short list of problems caused by the Child Support Agency must be the failure to take into account existing binding, legal, financial commitments such as loans that people take out to improve their lives. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not do so, but it would be easy for him and the agency to say that people should have thought of that. How could they have thought of that when they had no idea that a ton of bricks was about to descend on their heads? It is fine that we take into account the mortgage and the council tax, but if we do not take into account major financial commitments, whether it be a loan for a car or for home improvement or whatever, we deliver to those people something from which they cannot recover and with which they cannot cope.
  Third on the list is the problem of the tightness of resources with which couples are left as a result of the assessment that they have received. There is simply not enough money for them to continue to care for their

  1113
  children on a part-time basis. Many fathers with a second wife are happy to take the children of the first marriage over a weekend—it may be one weekend in three or one in four. That has stopped in at least five cases that have been brought to my attention because there is no longer the money to go and pick up the children, bring them home, feed them and look after them over the weekend. It cannot be right that we are driving children away from their fathers when the fathers are anxious to play at least some part in looking after them.
  Fourth on the list is the problem of wrong assessments. That may be caused by bureaucratic error, but it may be caused because the income of the father or the couple has changed. Income may change because of shift work or overtime, where payments change from week to week. A particularly high figure may have been used in the assessment, but that may become rapidly out of date. There may be a loss of income—not a loss of job—and there is then the question of how long it takes for a fresh assessment to be made. In the meantime, the debt continues to mount month after month. That is the sort of problem that is drawn to my attention.
  Mr. Harold Elletson: Is not the essence of the problem the rigidity and vindictiveness of the system? There is an insistence on total rigidity and a refusal to understand individual circumstances and to take into account changed circumstances, such as travelling expenses. Circumstances have changed for one of my constituents. His job has moved from Blackpool to Preston and he has increased travelling expenses. He has been clobbered by the Child Support Agency, which has increased his payment from £5 a week to £31 a week. He now has to maintain a car on top of that. The Child Support Agency totally refused to take that into account, because of its insistence on the bureaucratic procedures that it has set. That is what ordinary people find incomprehensible and iniquitous.
  Mr. Coombs: I suspect that officials at the Child Support Agency were only carrying out the rules with which they were confronted. I wish to say nothing in the House that in any way suggests criticism of the way in which officials are carrying out their duties on behalf of the agency. I am aware that there have been stories of that nature, but I do not want to dwell on that.
  Having heard that intervention, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on it. Clearly, that rule should be changed. If the Government are saying that people should not take a job if it means that their travelling expenses are increased so that they are no longer able to afford their maintenance payments, I hope that they will think again, because clearly that is wrong.
  I had high hopes for the Select Committee when I heard last year that it was going to look at this issue. Sadly, the Select Committee spent a short time taking relatively few accounts of the position and produced a report that did not go to the heart of the problem. I hope, however, that it will return to the issue as soon as possible. I asked the Clerk to the Select Committee today what were the chances of its doing so and was told that there was interest in pursuing the subject again but no fixed date had been given for an inquiry. I hope that the inquiry will begin soon. I have the highest regard for the Select Committee procedure, and if
  1114
  only the Committee would give weight of evidence to what hon. Members have said in this and previous debates, we might begin to make progress.
  On Sunday morning, I shall attend a meeting of 150 victims of the Child Support Agency. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something that I can pass on to them, rather than my simply saying sorry. Like the hon. Member for Warley, West, I was a Member of the House when the Child Support Bill was given an unopposed Third Reading. All of us who were Members of the last Parliament must accept some share of the responsibility.
  Mr. Andrew Ingram: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that Labour tabled a well-argued reasoned amendment on Second Reading—if he remains for the rest of the debate he may hear its exact terms—in support of which Labour Members expressed their opposition to the Government's proposals?
  Mr. Coombs: I am aware of that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain why the Opposition were prepared to give the Bill a Third Reading without a vote. I hope that he will not try to say that the agency is the responsibility of Conservative Members only. In the past few weeks, I have heard many of his colleagues accept that they did not fully appreciate what would develop, and I see the hon. Member for Halifax nodding. I am trying not to score a point but to say that none of us realised what would happen. I certainly did not, and all I shall be able to say to the meeting on Sunday is that I am sorry but that I shall go on trying to persuade Ministers to make the necessary changes.
  When I was in local government, there was a saying—other hon. Members will recognise this—that if one wanted a pedestrian crossing, one could go on hoping and hoping but, until somebody was injured, one would not get it. What will it take to change the rules under which the Child Support Agency works? Will it take defaulting on loans, which I see from my constituency case work is imminent? Will it take giving up jobs and going on the dole? Will it take the break-up of second marriages? Will it take even worse consequences than those before we say that enough is enough and that we cannot go on like this any longer? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer that question, as my constituents and, I suspect, those of other hon. Members present wish to know what the future holds.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I believe that the issue that we are debating is not about administration or a formula of Einsteinian complexity but about politics. To clarify that, I wish to say where I start from.
  We need simply to ask who has benefited from the introduction of the Child Support Agency and whether, on balance, it has benefited society more than harmed it. If we examine the costs and benefits, one beneficiary is immediately obvious. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said, it would be more appropriate to have called the Child Support Act 1991 the Treasury Support Act, because, of the £530 million targeted for the first year, almost £480 million is due to go to the Treasury. On that basis, the Treasury will do very well indeed, but that is not the only way in which the Government and the

  1115
  Treasury will benefit. There are hidden "benefits" that are as yet uncosted but have serious consequences for the rest of society.
  At some stage, someone will ask what is the cost of the "loss" of 11,000 women from the benefits system as a result of requiring them to name the father of their child or children. The disappearance of those women will also constitute financial savings for the Treasury.
  A further uncosted element is the loss of access to 'passported benefits' for some households. I am sure that I am not the only Member of Parliament whose constituents have complained that, as a result of the new formula imposed on them, they are poorer in terms of their net disposable assets. When we do the full accounting, we shall be surprised—some of us will be alarmed—by the full cost to society and the full benefit to the Treasury.
  Those are starting points, but it is worth going back to the notion of what propelled the House to believe that the previous arrangements needed to be changed. Three issues were at stake. The first was that, under the previous arrangements, children lost out. The second was that women lost out on maintenance payments under the separation and divorce arrangements, because the court system did not deliver a structured basis of family support from fathers who were in a position to pay for their children but were not doing so. The third was the notion that fathers should take responsibility for their children.
  I believe that the House shared those three important concepts but then reached some conclusions about which I can say only that, if I had been a Member at the time, I would not have dreamt of supporting them within the framework of the CSA. We have not stuck to the most important premise, which is that the child comes first.
  Under the Act, children do not come first and they are not treated equally. I shall run through some of the ways in which the Act is phenomenally divisive. Stepchildren are not treated as the equals of biological children. Households that were not previously divided are now divided by the Act. Children in the United Kingdom are not treated as the equals of those outside it. Many people with parenting responsibilities have sought, and continue to seek, to maintain children who are not in the United Kingdom, but the financial obligations that they seek to discharge are not recognised under the Act.
  I have already raised with the Minister the position of members of the armed forces serving in Germany who have second families with German citizens. For such people, those families are their permanent family, but they are not recognised for the purposes of maintenance. Such personnel have to ask themselves not merely whether they can afford to work but whether they can afford to serve their country and pay what is required under the Child Support Act. It is ludicrous that we have such an absurd disregard for the parenting obligations of fathers who currently maintain children outside the United Kingdom.
  The children of second relationships are not treated equally with those of first relationships. I know of cases in which the children of second relationships have been deeply disturbed by the fact that their bank accounts have to be examined when their stepfather's contributions to his first children have to be assessed. It was said that that would not be assessed, but it forms part of the presumption about the available income of the second family. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, the break-up of second families will be a dreadful
  1116
  consequence of the way in which the legislation has been working. We may well end up seeing more relationships destroyed than supported.
  Children in second relationships are also divided. When there are children conceived in a second relationship and children conceived in former relationships there is a new divide. One has to start thinking in terms of family activities that no longer take place on a unified basis, and about whether a father outside the family is willing to pay for a share of them. It seems to me that that division of children is a most cruel consequence of the way in which the Government have structured this system.
  As I have said, children who are no longer the beneficiaries of passported benefits lose out, as do those who are caught in conflict between separated parents. Some children are now the victims of fathers' having to make a choice between supporting them financially and seeing them. There are men who cannot afford the cost of seeing their children. The need to make provision for the development and maintenance of a relationship between a father and his children is not recognised in the formula. Those are the victims of the cruelty of an Act that does not treat children equally and does not start from the premise that we want to develop the best models of parenting, not the worst.
  What should we be doing to support the notion of better fathering? Well, we would not have begun with a premise that hits contributing fathers rather than those failing to contribute. But that is precisely where the Child Support Agency did begin. It has made no bones about the fact that it is the contributing father, rather than the one discharging no responsibilities and providing no financial support, who has been pursued. It has made parental contact more difficult and for growing numbers it has turned work into an uneconomic activity.
  As has been pointed out by my hon. Friends, a further cost will be the number of fathers who find that it is no longer cost-effective to work. What an absurdity it is that an Act should have that consequence. The system has turned civilised separations into civil wars, and the cost will be borne by society and will eventually fall into the lap of the House in the shape of additional demands on social services and local authority support services.
  To have a sensible starting point, we need a different set of principles. I should like to outline two things that must be done. First, we have to address the question of whose responsibility this society's children are. In other debates, Conservative Members have made the point not only that there should be direct parental responsibility for children but that, if the cost cannot be afforded by parents, we should turn to the grandparents for a contribution. That is an individual line of responsibility that fragments the notion of common and community responsibility for our children.
  It must be understood that we all have a common interest in the well-being of children. For the next 50 years at least, there will be an increasing proportion of retired people and an increasing dependency ratio. It is in the interests of all of us to have a well-brought-up, well-educated, well-trained set of generations of children, as they will be the wage earners and pension contributors on whom some of us will end up being dependent. We have a common interest in the parenting of children—not just a set of separate and individual interests.
  Secondly, we must ask ourselves what the models of "best parenting" are, and how a Bill that goes through the

  1117
  House can encourage them. I say to Ministers and to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that, if we want to put the child first, we should concentrate on payments that go directly to the child. We already have such an arrangement in child benefit. A doubling or more of that would be an extremely efficient way of delivering the money to the child. If the money is not to be delivered through child benefit, the litmus test of whether the method works is simple: does it benefit the child? The test is not whether the money goes to the Treasury but whether it reaches the child.
  The second question that we should ask ourselves about separation arrangements concerns family courts. We could learn a lot about those in other parts of the globe. There are family courts in Scotland and in Australia, and they address many of the shortcomings of the previous system in England. The notion behind them was to develop sensible and responsible separation arrangements, with enforceable maintenance payments.
  Thirdly, if we want to make adjustments, the best way is through the tax system. Some of the people who do not pay at the moment are those who cannot pay—irregular earners, and people who are in and out of work or whose hours of work are uncertain and unpredictable. Through the tax system, through the imposition of a higher tax coding, we could even out the payments without doing so at the expense of the child and of the parent with care.
  I believe that, in the end, the Act will be scrapped, as the poll tax was scrapped, because society and the public at large will not tolerate it. The cost that they know is being borne because of the divisiveness of the Act will force the Government to abandon the CSA. It will be replaced with arrangements that begin and end with the questions, how do we deliver support for the child, and how do we give children in this society the best experience of being parented, in whatever sort of household they happen to be brought up?
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Adam Ingram: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on obtaining the debate. As on every other occasion when we have debated the subject, it has provoked a wide range of criticisms and views of the Act that set up the Child Support Agency. I fully recognise my hon. Friend's strength of feeling on the subject; she made some extremely valid points. My hon. Friends the Members for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) added to her arguments and criticisms.
  Only one Conservative Member has spoken tonight, but contributions by Conservatives in previous debates on the subject have given the impression that the Child Support Act and the way in which it has been implemented have reached the same high level of parliamentary opprobrium that was accorded to the hated poll tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South made that analogy, too.
  It is now clear that the Government have badly misjudged the commitment of Conservative Members to a measure that cuts social security spending by imposing cash penalties on their constituents. They seem to say, "We agree with the principle of cutting social security spending,
  1118
  but do not visit the cost upon our constituents." That message is coming over in many of the debates on the subject.
  As each day passes, it becomes clearer to Conservative Members that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said, the Act is not really the Child Support Act but the Treasury Support Act, and it is a deeply flawed and socially damaging measure. We all know from our surgery cases the widespread anger and dismay felt by the many thousands of families whose lives have been affected by the Act. As more and more individuals are brought within its ambit, the number of those who oppose it has grown in direct proportion.
  As the Minister knows, the problem is not declining; nor will it go away. It will be with us until the Government act on it. I must remind him that many of the concerns now being raised and all the main criticisms now made of the Act were stated in June 1991 when, as a Bill, it received a Second Reading.
  It is salutary to look back at that debate and read what hon. Members said at the time. All the Opposition Members who spoke in the debate expressed serious reservations about the Bill. That was not matched by the contributions from Conservative Members. I have no doubt that Conservative Members who participated in the debate or who went into the Lobbies and voted for the Bill have changed their minds, now that they have seen the Act in operation. Much is made by Ministers and by Conservative Members of the Labour party's position on the Act, and we have had the same view expressed by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) tonight, as if, somehow or other, we have to be sucked into the consensus on the Act.
  It would be useful to put on the record the reasoned amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to the Child Support Bill when it was given its Second Reading. It read:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, while providing that absent parents should contribute to the support of their children, leaves lone parents on Income Support not one penny better off, makes lone parents worse off where they receive maintenance just above Income Support levels and thus lose access to passported benefits, allows maintenance payments to be disrupted if the absent parent defaults, does not take account of property settlements which could lead to an increase in orders for the home to be sold, leaves unclear in which cases the lone parents will be exempt from the requirement to help the agency trace the absent parent and therefore from the penalty of loss of benefit imposed on the caring parent, and does not tackle more serious problems facing lone parents and their children, notably the provision of better child care facilities.—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 194.]
  I know that the hon. Member for Swindon did not vote in that Division. He obviously had very good reasons for not being there. But for him to come along now and to accuse Labour Members of somehow being tied into the consensus on this legislation is a piece of genuine nonsense.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: It is very good of the hon. Gentleman to give way and I hope that, having had his moment on the reasoned amendment at Second Reading, he will turn his attention to the Third Reading and explain why Labour Members did not oppose the Bill then. It seems to me highly relevant. Before I give him that chance, let me say that I was not seeking to suck in the Labour party in a party political sense; I merely wanted to indicate that there were hon. Members on both sides who genuinely did not anticipate the effect that the legislation is having.
  Mr. Ingram: The usual way, if hon. Members have reservations and a reasoned amendment is put forward, is to vote for the amendment. If the hon. Member had been present—I accept that he had reasons for not being there; I do not know what they were—he could have come into the Lobby with us. Opposition Members made the very same points that he has made tonight, and the reasoned amendment set out their criticisms of the Bill. Hon. Members who shared those criticisms had the opportunity to express them in the Lobby, but they did not do so. I am pleased that they are now on our side, but, at every opportunity that we are given to vote to bring about a sensible change to the legislation, Conservative Members are noticeable by their absence from the Lobby for those voting against the Government. That is a very important point, which Conservative Members should note.
  The criticisms set out in the reasoned amendment are just as valid now as they were then. It must be a matter of regret to the 221 hon. Members who opposed the amendment and supported the Bill. They must feel, on second thoughts, that they should have done something different, in the same way as, on second thoughts, they approached the hated poll tax. If only the Government had not been so pig-headed and inflexible, and if only they had taken greater cognisance of the points made in the amendment and during the debate, perhaps they would not be in the mess that they are in with the Act.
  We now have the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security acting like King Canute, standing in the way of change as wave upon wave of mounting criticism threatens to overwhelm him. Not even the most insensitive of Ministers—I do not put the Under-Secretary in the bracket of insensitive Conservatives; indeed, I put him in the higher bracket of sensitive Ministers—could be impervious to the pressures that the Under-Secretary is under.
  We know that a case has been made time and again for the Government to undertake a fundamental review of the Act. We know that that demand has the support of many Conservative Members. We can hazard a guess that even the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Social Security, with his little hit list for attacking those in poverty, are perhaps secret supporters of the demand that changes should be made. If they take that view in secret, they perhaps do so only because they want to get themselves off the hook on which they are now impaled.
  The only message that we hear from the Minister time and again is that the Government have no current plans for further changes to the scheme. That message was stated as recently as 28 February by the Under-Secretary of State at column 643 of the Official Report. I could almost hear the groans of despair and howls of outrage of the tens of thousands of families and individuals affected by the Act when that message went out on 28 February. The one message that those who are affected by the Act do not want to hear from the Government is that there are no further plans for change. That is the message which the Minister is getting from his own Benches.
  I do not know how much credence can be given to press reports about people who have committed suicide as a result of the actions of the Child Support Agency. We can probably discount most, if not all, of those press reports. But I know that genuine hardship and misery have been visited on tens of thousands of hard-working citizens who have been caught in the trap of the Act.
  The Minister will argue that the Government have shown a willingness to listen and adapt. He will give the
  1120
  example of the changes in the regulations introduced in the House on 2 February. We all accept that those changes were welcome. At least they were an improvement on what was there before. They were an overall improvement and had to be welcomed. They certainly gave a measure of relief to certain categories of parents who had been asked to pay substantially increased maintenance.
  However, it was pointed out when the changes were introduced in the House that, as a side consequence, they had a deleterious effect on certain parents with care in receipt of family credit. Those who were paying maintenance benefited. Those who were supposed to receive the benefit were affected in a damaging way as a consequence. The Minister has claimed time and again that one of the purposes of the Act was to help parents who were left to bring up children on their own. Yet the Government have introduced changes to the regulations which achieve the very opposite.
  The effect of the changes on family credit recipients was pointed out to the Minister during the debate on 2 February, when the regulations were passed. On that occasion, I asked him to recognise the problem. It is interesting to note that if people have been paid too much family credit, the level of payment can be reduced by a reduced benefit direction from the appropriate Department of State. Yet if people have been paid too little family credit because of changes introduced by the Government, they have to wait six months before they can be given their full entitlement. Surely that cannot be right. The Minister has ignored the points made to him on 2 February and continues to penalise mothers in certain circumstances in receipt of family credit.
  In recent parliamentary answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), the Minister tried to play down the full effect of the regulations on those who receive family credit. The Minister tells us that he estimates that fewer than 1,000 families are affected and that the average loss per family will be less than £100 in total. Of course, that is an average figure and it means that some families will lose substantially more than £100.
  I said earlier that the Minister was a sensitive Minister. Surely, he must be aware that someone with limited resources who loses £100—£2 per week—from a very tight budget faces difficulties when trying to make ends meet. That has been the effect of the regulations—if only for 1,000 families—for those on family credit. The Government must have known that that would happen. They did not balance the figures and they did not take action to protect such parents with care.
  I should like to have raised a number of other issues in the debate. I am grateful that so many of my hon. Friends contributed to it. I want to give the Minister sufficient time to answer the questions raised so that we can have a proper debate on the subject. More important, tonight the Minister must take all the criticisms that have been repeatedly made inside and outside the Chamber, from many bodies, including the organisations that have been established to campaign specifically against the Act. He must take on board the arguments and undertake a fundamental review of the legislation. If he does not do so, like King Canute he may well drown.
  10.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): If I remember rightly, King Canute walked away from the beach at the end of the day, but we shall not worry too much about that.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on initiating the debate. I thank all hon. Members who have participated. I know the interest and close involvement shown in the subject by the hon. Members for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) and for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall). I noted what my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) had to say.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) introduced some philosophy into the debate by ranging slightly wider and considering the role of children generally, which I welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who was on the Front Bench earlier, has expressed his interest to me by way of letters. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) made a brief intervention.
  I also welcome the comments of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), with whom I have debated the subject before. I am grateful for his kind personal remarks, but he skipped daintily away from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon about Third Reading. I take what the hon. Member for East Kilbride said about Second Reading, but he managed to avoid the point about Third Reading. He also avoided the fact that, when we debated regulations on the Child Support Agency last year, the Opposition did not vote against them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon was not trying to make a party political point—I heard the bluster of the hon. Member for East Kilbride as he tried to introduce that aspect—but was expressing an honest view. I also noticed that the hon. Member for Halifax nodded her head when he said that some of the consequences of legislation are not always anticipated on either side of the House. I shall comment on that later.
  Amid all the complaints and criticisms levelled at the scheme, it is important not to lose sight of just how bad things were before, and why the legislation was necessary. Almost 1 million lone parents had become reliant on income support by 1992–93, with three quarters of them receiving no regular maintenance, which was wrong.
  Let us consider those figures. The vast majority of parents with care and their children were living at the basic level of income provided by income support. Meanwhile, many absent parents had been able to enjoy a higher standard of living—they were not on benefit. The new scheme was designed to go some way towards redressing the balance. The method chosen for achieving that—there was a measure of understanding of it in the House—was to move to a formula-based system that would produce a more equitable distribution of income in a reliable and consistent manner.
  It is true that a formulaic system is less flexible than one based on discretion, but there were far more inequities under the old system and far more people were disadvantaged. It has been easy to forget about that during the past nine months.
  The vast majority of parents had been reliant on income support. All absent parents, even the hardest cases, are protected from falling to that level of income under the new rules. Many absent parents are unhappy with the new
  1122
  demands. I recognise and understand that. Yes, it is difficult to adjust when maintenance bills are brought up to more realistic levels. That does not necessarily make it wrong or unfair.
  One of the problems of the old system was that its inequities had become accepted—even condoned. People who were disadvantaged by the system did not complain—or, if they did, no one listened. It is sometimes easy to forget that there were hard cases before. People walked out of divorce courts and ancillary proceedings, having been, and feeling, hard done by. When there are so many interests, it is not possible to create a situation in which everyone feels content and that all has been done.
  I make those comments to put all the criticisms of the Child Support Act 1991 into context. I am still convinced that the scheme that we have put in place is an improvement on the one that we left behind. I believe that, in spite of some of the comments made by hon. Members tonight, the House would not favour a return to that system.
  I cannot allow the basic principles that we have all stood for and the gains that we have already made to be undermined. Our response must be measured and, above all, it must ensure that the interests of all parties are recognised and taken into account.
  Mrs. Mahon: I deliberately outlined a number of cases. In every case the children are not better off and, in almost all the cases, nor are the women. So how can it be a better system?
  Mr. Burt: For two reasons. First, in many cases in the past, when maintenance had not even been thought of and was not being paid to the vast majority of women on income support, their situation would never improve. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Lady hold on? Most lone parents, as we know, do not want to remain on benefit for ever. They want to get back into work. It is of considerable advantage to them to have maintenance available in the medium and longer term. A recent report by the Policy Studies Institute said that that was very clear, and that to achieve maintenance early was probably the most important factor on its own for improving the position of single parents and encouraging them back into work.
  Even if maintenance does not mean a pound-for-pound increase, the fact that it will be available and will be there is an advantage. If people receive family credit, there is a maintenance disregard, and if they do a job where benefit is not involved they will notice an advantage. In those circumstances, they will be better off. The very fact of establishing maintenance is terribly important and in many cases in the past it was not there. That is a distinct advantage.
  Mr. Spellar rose—
  Mr. Burt: I will move on, because I have only until five minutes past eleven and I shall not cover the topics raised otherwise.
  Hon. Members are aware that we recently introduced a number of measures to ease the burdens of the absent parents who were most affected by the Child Support Act. Those measures were based on some of the Select Committee's recommendations. I feel that the Select Committee's report has been rather easily dismissed by colleagues on both sides of the Chamber.
  Mr. Ingram indicated dissent.
  Mr. Burt: It was. It was said that it did not go far enough and was not what people wanted. In fact, it was a considered report by a group of colleagues. We all have some time for most of them. The fact that the report did not necessarily come out with the answers that everyone wanted does not mean that it should be dismissed. It made some approaches to the questions and suggested some ideas for change that we accepted.
  We have made changes to include a substantial increase in the minimum amount of income that an absent parent would keep after meeting maintenance liability; a reduction in the additional element where there is a liability for only one or two children; a reduction in the amount included for the care needs of the children as they grow older; and an extension of the arrangements for phasing in the new amounts. Those are not minor tinkerings. They represent a substantial reduction in the amount that many absent parents will have to pay.
  Let us consider some of the effects of those changes. About 55,000 cases were reassessed as a result of the 7 February changes. Of those, 41,000 had a decrease of liability and about 14,000 had no change in liability. The fact that those changes have been made has meant something to people in receipt of those reductions. Moreover, they have been designed to be of most benefit to absent parents at the lower end of the income scale and those with second families.
  Those changes are proof of our commitment to keep the policy under review, and to make adjustments as the need arises. The fact that we acted so swiftly and decisively shows that our commitment to keep the scheme under review is not just empty rhetoric or a formula of words: we mean what we say. We remain true to our pledge, and to our determination to build a fair and just system for child maintenance that will be a cornerstone of United Kingdom family policy well into the next century. We must now allow the changes to feed through into the system. Once that has happened and we have fully evaluated the impact, we shall be able to judge whether further changes are necessary. That is the responsible way to deal with the matter.
  The hon. Member for Halifax raised points about good cause and co-operation. She will remember that the House spent considerable time on that in the run-up to the introduction of the agency. It was assumed by many colleagues to be the major issue that we would face. That turned out not to be the case—partly, I hope, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I, and the chief executive of the agency, put time and effort into ensuring that it would not be the case.
  Good cause has been investigated in 49,000 cases. That sounds a lot, but it is only 6 per cent. of the applications issued. Good cause has been accepted in 50 per cent. of those cases—24,760. In 11,570 cases, the parent with care has named the father because we have been able to reassure those parents that it is the right thing to do and that we would protect them if they feared any difficulty. That system is working well and it is right to keep it in place.
  If the hon. Lady persists in her view that we should not have that degree of incentive, I must tell her that I do not believe that the way in which the Act has worked has given her cause to feel that. It may be a philosophical objection on her part. I hope that she agrees that we have tried very genuinely to meet that worry and to provide that degree of care.
  A number of colleagues raised again the issue of the soft
  1124
  target—the idea that it is wrong to try to increase maintenance payments from those who are already paying, because that makes the CSA the Treasury Support Agency. There is a real divergence of opinion here between what Labour Members say and what the Select Committee says. I am not sure whether it would have formed part of Labour's approach to the issue if it had been in office. Again, I direct colleagues to paragraph 18 and the following paragraphs of the Select Committee report, which deal not only with the soft targets argument, but with retrospection. The hon. Lady many not agree, but many people do. The arguments are fair and genuine, partly because hon. Members of her own party signed up to them and must, therefore, have believed them.
  The Select Committee says straightforwardly:
  "A large part of the public debate about the Child Support Agency has centred on the accusation that it was picking unfairly on 'soft targets', that is, those absent parents who were already making maintenance payments. Behind this accusation has been an allegation that the Agency's work is governed by the requirement to make substantial sayings in the social security budget. We believe this objective to be an important one. The Committee believes that taxpayers have for too long been asked, in effect, to pick up maintenance bills that should have been met by absent parents."
  The House either agrees or disagrees. If Labour Front-Bench Members disagfee with that—if they do not believe that that is a legitimate aim and object of Government—I am happy for them to say so. I believe that it is a legitimate aim and that the way in which the Select Committee dealt with that point was important.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself to my point. The element of retrospection is driving many of my constituents deeper and deeper into debt and is destroying their happiness, their marriages and, perhaps, their lives. What message should I take to them when I meet them on Sunday morning?
  Mr. Burt: The first message is that the fact that previous settlements would be looked at was an implicit part of the Act, which my hon. Friend supported. Secondly, the changes we made on 7 February included some that were designed to ease that pressure because we had felt it necessary. The reason why previous settlements were looked at was to try to ensure that everyone would have the same base for maintenance in the future and to leave behind some settlements which, in the past, had left women with low levels of maintenance which they could not increase. The previous system gave some legitimacy to settlements in which taxpayers had borne the brunt of the burden because they were picking up housing costs and the like. That was the point specifically referred to by the Select Committee. To allow that position to have remained would have been unfair on everybody else. That is why those matters were considered.
  A variety of issues have been raised tonight, many of which, alas, we shall not have time to deal with. The question of the Australian system was raised again. It is fundamentally different from ours. It is very broad brush. It has no equivalent of protected income. It does not take housing costs and similar matters into account. The number of appeals is beginning to increase. So far, it has had 11,537 applications for review out of a total caseload of some 150,000. Of the finalised cases, 2,647 were successful, while 2,127 were unsuccessful. Some 46 per cent. of absent parents' appeals were allowed, while 54 per cent. were refused; 87 per cent. of parents with care were

  1125
  successful, with average increases of $36 a week. Obviously, an appeals system would have to work both ways.
  There is a lot of material here and I could happily speak for three quarters of an hour. I take seriously all the comments that hon. Members have raised, as they probably know, but I am in no position to say other than what I have previously said about the future: that we intend to keep the matter under review. I pray in aid of that statement the fact that, when changes were suggested to the Government before and we thought them right, we made those changes. I am true to the pledge to keep the system under review, as we want to make it right. We all have a vested interest in doing so. In the meantime, we shall look carefully at what hon. Members say—
  In accordance with Mr. Speaker's Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

  Northern Line
  11.5 pm
  Mr. John Marshall>: Having raised the subject of the Northern line more often than any other hon. Member, I do not apologise to the House for raising it yet again. Earlier this evening, someone told me that the answer to the Northern line's problems would be to steal some of the trains from the Central line and put them on the Northern line. I asked how that would be done and he said, "Well, you'd stop running trains to Epping." I said that that would not necessarily win the support of my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, as his constituency would be adversely affected.
  First, I thank the media for the publicity that they have given to this campaign, particularly the Evening Standard for its constant support of all campaigns to improve the quality of life of Londoners, especially those who travel on the Northern line. Although I thank the media for their support, their tactics in trying to doorstep the Chief Secretary may be slightly counter-productive. He should not be treated in the same way as Lady Buck or someone else who is frequently doorstepped.
  Everyone knows that the Northern line is characterised by a series of disasters. Many of the trains on the Northern line go back to 1959 and, therefore, are 35 years old. It is a sobering thought that the trains on the Northern line are older than certain Members of the House. That brings the problem home vividly. The track is literally crumbling; the signalling belongs to the dark ages rather than state-of-the-art technology; and the dot matrix system is certainly not infallible. The Northern line originates in the Victorian era and the quality of service today is inadequate for the last decade of the 20th century.
  The result of all that is that the service is inadequate and irregular and the trains are often graffiti-ridden and rather dirty. Although there has been some improvement in service recently, it is as much due to the recession as to anything else. The dangers inherent in the current state of the Northern line have been underlined by two recent events. Only the other day, one of the 1959 variety of trains was derailed at Edgware station. Previously, there had been no service for some days between Edgware and Colindale because the embankment had collapsed and the trains could not get by. A bus service had to replace the train service. How many more disasters must we have before the Treasury recognises that seeking to run trains that date from 1959 is not terribly sensible in 1994? Port dating back to 1959 may be all right, but 1959 trains are not suitable.
  The Northern line serves the City and the west end. The City was a victim of the recession but will clearly benefit from the continued upturn in the economy. A number of surveys have suggested that tens of thousands of jobs will be created in the City in the next few years. As the number of those jobs increases, so the pressure on the Northern line will become more severe. That serves to underline the need to improve the service.
  The Northern line is also an important service for tourists seeking to go to the west end and the south bank complex. In a few months' time tourists will be disgorged at Waterloo international station, having come through the channel tunnel and then up through Kent. They may need to take the Northern line for the last bit of their journeys. What sort of impression will they be left with if they make their first tube journey in a 1959 train on the Northern line?

  1127
  The issue facing the Government and London Transport is simple: the Northern line needs to be modernised, and quickly. Asea Broron Boveri has come up with a scheme that meets the needs of London Transport, and I believe that it is financially ingenious. Any business man would accept it. London Transport should not be allowed to founder on an unimaginative interpretation of Treasury rules. There is a rumour—perhaps the Minister will be able to comment on it—that the Treasury is saying that although the costs of the scheme will be spread over 20 years, and although the amount each year will not be large, the total cost must be charged against LT's external financing limit in the first year of the scheme.
  That is quite barmy; it is not how a business would operate. No private company going in for a long-term scheme would ask how the total cost compared with one year's depreciation charge. It would ask how the cost in any one year compared with the cash flow of the business in that year. At a time when we are trying to encourage private sector financial initiatives, I hope that the Government will look at the scheme in these more sensible terms, especially as it will be cash-positive within a short time. I hope that a Treasury ideology that seems designed to stop private sector involvement will not be pursued.
  In 1993, the Government agreed that ABB could build and lease 41 Networker express trains for the north Kent routes. The justification was that British Rail would be privatised, whereupon the obligation would be transferred from the public to the private sector. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is not so lacking in initiative or ambition that he tells us that the Northern line and London Transport will not be privatised in the next 20 years. That would be a fairly unambitious and unimaginative approach for any Minister in the Government to adopt.
  Surely the Minister will be able to say that the same rules as applied to Network SouthEast will apply to London Transport. I cannot understand a system that decrees that trains can be provided for the commuters of Kent but not for the commuters of London. There is no logic in that at all, and I hope that the Minister will confirm as much.
  The Treasury is full of men who are much cleverer than hon. Members—certainly cleverer than an hon. Member who wants to speak here at 11.15 in the evening. Those ingenious men, instead of saying non, nein or nyet, should set out to find a way of breaking the impasse and encouraging this proposal.
  The Government have rightly encouraged private financial initiatives. Sir Alastair Morton, after his success with Eurotunnel, has been encouraged to persuade the private sector to invest in public sector projects. The Opposition have decided to support some private sector financing of public sector projects.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell the House this evening whether Sir Alastair Morton approves of the ABB proposals. I suspect that he does, but my hon. Friend may be better able to inform the House about the position. ABB is willing to take part of the risk, but it is quite unrealistic for the Treasury to suggest that ABB should be asked to take a revenue risk.
  One factor in any revenue risk is the level of fares. We would not expect. ABB to have any influence over the fares charged on the Northern line. After all, a little word called politics can sometimes intervene in the fares charged on London Transport. We all remember what happened in 1981. The fares dropped dramatically when there was a
  1128
  change of control—until the law courts told the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that his policy was illegal, and the fares went up again.
  A private sector business providing trains could not be expected to run the risk created by future fare levels, over which it would have no influence or control and which might be determined by politics rather than business.
  I accept that ABB has produced an ingenious scheme, but it is equally fair to say that when a large sum of public money is involved, it would be quite wrong for one company automatically to get the contract. If the Government were even to promise ABB the project because it had been ingenious enough to think of it, and because it has the spare capacity and therefore would give them a better deal, they would be open to challenge from GEC, as a British company, and from other suppliers within the European Community. The challenge would go on for months.
  By far the quickest solution, as well as providing the best value for money for the taxpayer, would be to have an auction between ABB and GEC and whoever else seeks to bid for the contract. I believe that ABB would win that contractual auction, as it has delivered trains to the Central line and will run into a capacity problem later this year. GEC is in a different position. It still has to deliver the trains for the Jubilee line and does not have the under-utilisation that ABB will have in a few months' time. A competitive deal would almost certainly end up with ABB getting the contract and it would be perceived as providing value for money for the taxpayer within the rules of the European Community.
  There is an alternative—the "refurb" option. What does that do? It gets rid of the guards and costs £60 million. It would not improve the quality of trains; they would be increasingly unreliable and accident-prone, and breakdowns would become more frequent. Getting rid of the guards would simply ensure that there is one fewer person to whom customers can complain. That is not what the travellers on the Northern line want.
  If we do not accept the ABB option, and take the "refurb" option, there will be no new trains for the Northern line until 2009, when the present trains will be 50 years old. That is far too long to wait. There will be no signalling until 2010, which again is far too long to wait.
  The ABB proposal offers London the chance of new trains on the Northern line by Christmas. I promise my hon. Friend that, if we can have those new trains, I shall not call for another Christmas Adjournment debate. I can guarantee that he will then have an early night. My hon. Friend has been pestered; he had to come here in July at 3 o'clock in the morning and he has to stay up late tonight. But if he can be Father Christmas to London and give us an early train, he can have the night off.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman referred to Christmas Adjournment debates. Does he recall a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill shortly before Christmas, when, at about 6.15 in the morning, just before a debate on London Transport was due to begin, he acted to stop it taking place? Is he not somewhat hypocritical now to call for debates on this subject?
  Mr. Marshall: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I instigated an Adjournment debate in July that took place relatively late at night. I have instigated a number of

  1129
  Adjournment debates on London Transport and have raised the subject frequently at Question Time. If the hon. Gentleman compares the number of times that I have raised the matter with that of other hon. Members, the comment that I made at the beginning—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman goes back to the events of last December, he will remember that the Labour party, or a number of Labour Members—
  Mr. Raynsford: What about the debate on London Transport?
  Mr. Marshall: Let me finish.
  The hon. Gentleman will remember that many unnecessary Divisions were called, which cut into private Members' time. He will remember also that, on the previous Friday, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spied Strangers to stop my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) from having his private Member's debate. Quite frankly, the delaying tactics prevented an important debate from taking place later that night on the prosecution of City fraud.
  Since last December, the House has come back to its senses to some extent. It is much better to carry on in that frame of mind. What we discovered last December was that if one side spied Strangers, the other side would do so equally as effectively. If we have taught the House that lesson, we did some good last December.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has not.
  Mr. Marshall: Well, it is certainly true to say that the House has come back to its senses since last December in quite an effective way.
  Our choice is simple. If we support the ABB scheme, the Northern line could have 75 per cent. of the new trains by the end of 1997—within three years. The Northern line could have new signalling by 2000, and what a great bonus that would be to celebrate the millennium. The quality of service would improve. Journeys would be quicker. Trains would be more frequent, cleaner and better ventilated. There would be less disruption and an increase in peak capacity of 30 per cent.
  The Government have an opportunity to show that a private finance initiative can improve services in the public sector. They have an opportunity to show that they care about the infrastructure of London and that they listen to the concern of Londoners, who, I suspect, are more worried about public transport than about any other local issue. The ABB project is supported by London Transport, London First, the Financial Times and the Evening Standard.
  I have spoken this evening on behalf of the 400,000 people who use the Northern line every day. I have spoken on behalf of the residents of Barnet, Islington, Haringey, Morden, Westminster, Camden, Lambeth, Southwark and Wandsworth who use the Northern line every day. That underlines its importance for Londoners. I believe that what is proposed could be of great benefit not only to the residents of those boroughs but to the City of London as a whole, the people of London as a whole and the millions of people who use the Northern line throughout the year. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) is not here, because I was going to end by saying that that project managed to unite her and me. That is quite a rare event, but it may even have united
  1130
  me and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). If it has done that, it has achieved almost a miracle.
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Keith Hill: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on securing this important debate. I agreed with almost everything that he said. I was relaxed about his promise that London Underground would be privatised over the next 20 years, because, palpably, we shall not have a Conservative Government during that time.
  Notwithstanding that somewhat partisan shaft, let me declare at once that I speak as secretary to the all-party Northern line group, and also on behalf of thousands of my Balham and Clapham constituents who use the Northern line and endure its misery daily.
  I do not propose to detain the House for long, as the arguments are obvious. If all the usual economists' tools are used, the proposal to renew rolling stock on the Northern line shows a positive result. It shows a 3:1 benefit-to-cost ratio; it maximises passenger benefits; and it will start earning profits in the year 2000. The attraction of brand new rolling stock is equally obvious.
  I understand that there is a cheaper alternative—to which the hon. Member for Hendon, South has already referred—involving the refurbishment of the 1959 rolling stock, which is apparently being touted by some elements in the Treasury. The argument for that scheme, compared with the benefits of an entirely new build, do not stand up to scrutiny. The refurbishment will prolong the life of trains for a mere 10 years and will mean that the introduction of new trains will be deferred until the year 2009. It will even mean a delay of 10 years in the introduction of new signalling, to the year 2010.
  Moreover, the refurbishment will still mean a longer journey time for the passenger, more waiting time, more overcrowding and a less regular and reliable service. By contrast, the new rolling stock will mean faster journeys, reduced waiting times, less crowding and a vastly more reliable service. It will give the commuter better security, better passenger information, better ventilation and a smoother and less noisy ride. There really is no choice—and there ought to be no hesitation either. ABB has come up with a welcome and highly innovative lease-back scheme.
  I recognise the requirement for competitive tendering via the Official Journal of the European Communities, but the Government should get on with it now. It is preposterous that inappropriate Treasury rules should be invoked to stymie the scheme. Nowadays, there is consensus across all the parties on the virtues of such private-public initiatives. How will the Chancellor's own new and commendable commitment to projects of this kind ever get off the ground if such antiquated Treasury thinking is allowed to prevail? Are the rules made for men and women, or are men and women made for the rules?
  An ABB-style scheme will cost London Underground some £35 million a year. London Underground's annual capital programme is running at £450 million-plus—it ought to be more—and its revenue amounts to £1 billion a year. An extra £35 million a year is clearly manageable, against the background of that capital spend and revenue base, the Government's own total spending programme and the variations that inevitably occur each year in that

  1131
  spending total; indeed, it is hardly measurable. It would be ludicrous to allow short-term considerations about the control of public expenditure to undermine a project of such inestimable long-term value to the people and economy of London. With proper dispatch, the new trains could be on stream by December this year.
  The message to the Government is simple, urgent and clear. We want the tender in the Official Journal now; we want the leasing deal now; and we want the new trains now.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Richard Tracey>: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and, like the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), I wish to congratulate him on bringing this subject before the House. Unlike other hon Members in the Chamber, I do not have a constituency on the Northern line. I shall speak rather more generally. I am honoured to be the chairman of the London Conservative group of Members of Parliament.
  The Northern line is a disgraceful sore thumb in the overall underground railway structure of the capital city. There is no doubt that the underground service is critical to the commercial and tourist life of London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South pointed out, in the near future, tourists from Europe will come to Waterloo via the channel tunnel route. They will come off the trains and possibly continue their journeys to some other part of London by the Northern line. What an extraordinary and undesirable contrast that will be.
  To be fair to London Underground, a great part of its service is now to be commended. Management has taken a greater grip on affairs since the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of the early 1990s. I am told that in the past year 98 per cent. of scheduled trains were running in the peak period, and 92 per cent. of lifts were in service, as were 89 per cent. of escalators. I am not sure that 89 per cent. of escalators is quite the figure that I would wish to see, but things are improving greatly.
  In its report last year, the Health and Safety Executive talked of a "transformed" safety culture on the underground. That is something which we all welcome, particularly those who travel on the underground regularly. In 1992–93, the generous funding of the 1991 autumn statement allowed 60 underground stations to be refurbished, with 'work taking place on 40 more. The first new Central line train entered service in April 1993, and the reconstructed Angel station opened in September 1992.
  That is a fairly optimistic picture, and one which my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will be building on in his reply to the debate. However, alongside all that progress, which we welcome, there is the disgrace of the Northern line, which has been described graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and has been described for several weeks in the Evening Standard as the misery line. I commend the newspaper for that.
  Many of us are taking a message to our colleagues in the Government—my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and, through him, to our colleagues in the Treasury. We are approaching the time when we will see tourists coming in through the channel tunnel link and we must get to grips with the problems on the Northern line. How do we do it? There is no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is doing his best for the benefit
  1132
  of this country and the taxpayers to reduce the horrendous £50 billion deficit that confronts us. That is an essential task.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, the ABB company from the north midlands has put a business proposition to the Government. It has proposed a lease arrangement, with full service back-up, for Northern line trains that would ensure a good service for users of the line and, indeed, for my constituents who travel by British Rail to Waterloo and take the Northern line to other parts of London, and about whom I, as a London constituency Member, am concerned.
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is worried about the public sector borrowing deficit constantly creeping up. I do not dispute that whatever solution is found must be consistent with the sound management of the economy, but I call on him to put the brains of the Treasury to work to find a solution to the problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South mentioned the involvement of the private sector in the funding of British Rail trains. Why cannot the same solution be adopted for the underground? As we approach 11.40 pm, time is running out. The Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary must get to grips with the problem for the benefit not only of Londoners but of the commercial life of our capital city and of this country as a whole.
  11.36 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am here to complete the set. There are about 30 stations on the Northern line, which diverts into two branches at its northern end, loops around the middle of London and as one line almost goes off the edge of the planet—
  Mr. Tracey: Morden.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes—almost off the planet!
  The line is represented by a number of hon. Members, three of whom have spoken and many of whom represent the Conservative or Labour parties. By definition, not many London Liberal Democrat Members represent the Northern line: I encapsulate the lot of them, which is a modest honour.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for initiating the debate. He has raised the profile of the issue, backed by others who have signed on. He has had the support of the Evening Standard, which has adopted the line as its campaigning issue. It is all to the good if the only daily London newspaper can take on a key public sector infrastructure project and be willing to rehearse the argument.
  I wish to make three brief points. Some work has been done in recent years not on stock or vehicles but on the structure as a result of pressure within tight confines. I represent three stations—London Bridge, Borough and Elephant and Castle. Elephant and Castle was dire and Borough, which was dire, has been refurbished. London Bridge is in the process of wholesale revamping as a result of the work done after the King's Cross fire to make it safe and because it will intersect with the Jubilee line.
  Access and the entrance to London Bridge have been improved significantly, and they needed to be. It was bad enough having a grim set of rolling stock that might have appeared, full of people, or that might not have appeared at

  1133
  all, but it was even grimmer if one was on a terrible platform that was reached by a lift that often did not work or by stairs that were very deep.
  In addition, the entrance to London Bridge looked like a building site—it still does to a certain extent. There is a great wall which is just awaiting a wonderful mural, an idea which I hope to persuade London Transport to accept. At the moment, however, the wall is raw, unfinished concrete. For a long time, one had the impression of passing through a building site and into a half-finished building. That is not inviting and it certainly is not good public relations; nor does it encourage people to use the station or to feel comfortable and safe on it.
  Progress has been made, but, irrespective of rolling stock, it would be good if there were an early programme to finish the small amount of remaining work, which would not be costly, but would make the difference between stations being nearly finished—nearly adequate—and adequate.
  Secondly, I make the fairly obvious point that has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The Jubilee line extension will be very welcome—I, for one, will be able to step out of this building and arrive home in four stops. It will clearly be a well-used line, and the Minister for Transport in London knows that we have battled long and hard, especially about getting two stations in Southwark that we were not necessarily going to get. The Jubilee line extension and crossrail will be very useful, but, while we are thinking about or proceeding with new lines, we should not forget that the Northern line is a strategic through line, and therefore needs a continuing commitment of public investment.
  It is no good if, having inherited the Northern line as part of London Underground, we do not sustain regular investment to upgrade the line continuously. We need to upgrade the system of information to inform passengers when trains are due, how far away they are and so on to make it a line that people want to use. We do not have a straightforward underground system like that of some capital cities, but the Northern line is of central importance; it carries huge numbers of people. We have already debated how much the Government, and London Regional Transport, invest in the underground compared with what the Greater London council invested. Whatever is or has been invested, we need to catch up, because it has not been enough to keep pace with demand or need.
  My third point was reflected in the substantive part of the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South and in those of the hon. Members for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and for Streatham (Mr. Hill). What deal can be done this year, can it be achieved and is it desirable? The Minister has been kind enough to listen to representations, so he knows that there is very little dogma or prejudice about this issue in any of the parties. No one is saying that there is a categorical reason why there cannot be some sort of leasing agreement. As we understand it, the reality is that the problem is fitting common sense into the process of government; it is about making sure that what the Department of Transport and we who represent the users of the Northern line think could be a perfectly viable system can be processed quickly without running into any buffers, or Treasury rules.
  1134
  The Minister has heard this before, but it bears repeating: it is generally accepted that common sense dictates two things. We, of course, have to go through the process of ascertaining who might be the best tenderer for the deal. I accept that, but, if we bear in mind timetables and the date by which things need to be done, we must ensure that by the end of the year—comments were made about Christmas presents—the necessary commitment is made and, if necessary, Treasury rules can be modified to allow for flexibility of financial arrangements. The deadline must be the end of the year because it would allow the matter to be taken on board in the Government's public expenditure statement in the unified Budget in the autumn.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), on behalf of the Labour party, and others have long argued that we are prisoners of old accounting procedures in public and private sector financial partnerships. Such procedures are a barrier, not an advantage.
  I hope that the Minister understands that he will have no opposition from any part of the House. He will have the support of professionals in the transport industry and of politicians on all sides for any necessary effort to get the Treasury to be much more flexible than, traditionally, it has been. We understand why public sector controls have been put in place, but, rather than constituting an advantage, they may be standing in the way of a partnership and preventing money from being brought into the system.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to leave the debate having told us of his commitment—a commitment that I do not doubt—and with his hand strengthened so that, with our assistance, he can go to the Treasury and get a deal that moves quickly. I hope that, having grasped the nettle this year, we shall be able to come up with a solution. We believe that it is possible. It is a matter of political will. There would be no huge additional financial cost. We are not asking for billions of pounds; we are asking that we be provided with a system which works, and that the Treasury be accommodating.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson>: I congratulate the Evening Standard on its campaign in favour of Asea Brown Boveri's proposal, which was made in the 14 days since I first gave it the information. It has done an excellent job for Londoners. ABB's proposal is eminently sound and full of common sense. Consequently, it does not appeal to the Treasury. ABB recognises that if the Government will not find the money to upgrade any part of the Northern line—whether the permanent way, the signalling, the escalators or the lifts that do not work—they will not find money for new trains either.
  ABB—at least, this part of it—is a maker of trains. It is already making trains for the Central line, and it wants to keep its process going to produce similar trains for the Northern line. That makes eminently good industrial sense to ABB and to the skilled people working in Derby, who, when they complete the order for the Central line trains, will lose their jobs unless more work can be found for them. From an industrial point of view, therefore, it would be perfectly sensible to give them the job of providing new trains for the Northern line. If they do not get that job, it is likely that they will be out of work. Indeed, the production line may close altogether.

  1135
  If, for some bizarre reason, the Government decide to postpone the purchase of new trains for the Northern line, the works at Derby may go out of business, and when it is eventually decided to order new trains, they may very well have to be procured abroad. That would be economic lunacy, but it would be par for the course for the people currently at the Treasury.
  The proposition that ABB has put forward is that, instead of London Underground having to find the money to buy trains, it should lease them from ABB, which would maintain them at its own expense for the next 20 years. There is nothing novel about lease arrangements. I expect that even some Treasury mandarins and Ministers use this means of ensuring that they have up-to-date, working television sets. The proposition that has been put forward is as simple as that. If it is accepted, new trains should be running on the Northern line by about this time next year. All the rotten, stinking, rattling, clapped-out trains currently on the line could be replaced within about a couple of years. That would be good for London passengers, it would be good for ABB, and it would be good for Britain.
  We might therefore ask why the Treasury cannot see the sense of the proposal. The answer, apparently, lies in the Treasury rules. I must remind hon. Members that the Treasury rules were laid down, not when Gladstone was First Lord of the Treasury, but when Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was, was First Lord of the Treasury. There is nothing old about the present rules. They are stupid but they are modern. If they could be changed in the early 1980s, we should be able to change them in the early 1990s—indeed, we are approaching the mid-1990s. The rules are stupid and archaic, and they inhibit the development of our country. They need to be changed.
  It is worth reminding the House that even before they had the present set of rules the people at the Treasury were a backward-looking lot when it came to anything practical to do with British industry. Churchill once said that they were like inverted Micawbers, waiting for something to turn down. Nothing gives those people greater pleasure than turning down some practical proposition suggested by practical people to bring some practical help and benefit to others.
  We understand that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has announced that the plan would not be a good bargain for the taxpayer. Presumably he came to that conclusion. as he travelled about in his chauffeur-driven car, paid for by the self-same taxpayer. I should have thought that a perfect example of a bad bargain for the taxpayer was having to fund the transport arrangements of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman might have a different point of view if he had to travel to work on the clapped-out ruins that presently shuffle along the tunnels of the Northern line. He, like everyone else with a bit of common sense, might see that it should be a bargain to go ahead with the proposition.
  The Minister for Transport in London is an eminently talented chap. Before Christmas, in the space of one short winter's day, he told the journalists from the Evening Standard that the Government would privatise the underground, but before the afternoon was out he told the House of Commons that they would not. In view of the explanation recently given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the veracity of some of the statements
  1136
  made by Ministers at the Dispatch Box, we can probably assume that what the Minister told the Evening Standard was the truth. However, that does not change the position.
  The Minister is trying to do the same sort of double shuffle now. As I understand it, there is a sort of general responsibility; people who sit on what is called the Treasury Bench do what the Treasury tells them. In this case, that is to turn down ABB's proposal to get new trains on the Northern line. But apparently all that is being blamed on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and the Minister is letting it be known that he strongly supports the proposition. He had better sort himself out. He must either go to the Back Benches and support common sense, or stay on the Treasury Bench and stick with the Treasury rules. That is the choice that he must make.
  One or two more general points need to be made. The state of the London underground is deplorable. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) described the Northern line as though it were a swine among pearls. He implied that the rest of the system was pretty good, and that the Northern line alone was a mess. That is not how large numbers of travellers on the other lines regard their journey to and from work every day. Many of them are discontented. They use stations with lifts or escalators that do not work, suffer from signalling failures and so on.
  Just before Christmas we saw the virtual collapse of the whole tube system for a day or two because a 71-year-old cable on the Central line had burnt out. That is unacceptable. The present state of the underground system means that it teeters on the brink of collapse almost every day, and it fell over that brink not long before Christmas.
  A vast amount needs to be done to the underground, and one of the problems is that the Government's top priority for investment was not to get the existing system back into good nick so that it could provide a decent service; their topmost priority was to finance the extension of the Jubilee line, largely to bale out the banks which had taken such a caning over Canary wharf, and also because those self-same banks were finding £300 million towards the cost of the extension.
  I may add that when these geniuses, presumably presided over again by Treasury Ministers, negotiated the arrangement with the banks, they made no allowance for inflation, so that the famous £300 million is to be paid out by the banks in instalments over a period of 20 years and, on some of the projections that I have seen, it could cost them all of £19 million at the end of the process if inflation reaches certain levels. The reason why the Government decided to invest in that line was that it would help their friends who are now the newly enhanced speculators at Canary wharf and the small contribution that they were prepared to make.
  If the Minister had asked Londoners where the money should be invested, they would have told him to invest it in the Northern line and in the other lines which are already not working and which offer a lot of scope for investment. Even if the Government see sense, accept ABB's proposal and get these new trains on to the Northern line, it will not resolve all the Northern line's problems by any means. The track is in a terrible state. The signalling is in a terrible state. In my own constituency the French escalators at Kentish Town station have never worked properly for the past six years, and Mornington Crescent station is now closed indefinitely because they cannot afford to replace the lifts. Similar circumstances apply all the way down the line.

  1137
  This was one way forward, one way in which at least a good part of the investment for improving the Northern line could have been found. The Government could then have been left to find the rest of the money to improve the permanent way, the signalling, the electrics, the lifts, the escalators and the stations. That is what could be done if this is approved.
  It ought to be approved. It will be a disgrace if it is not approved. I do not think that in their present humour Londoners will forgive the Government if it is not approved. It makes sense for the travelling public. It ought to make sense for the Treasury. It certainly makes good sense for ABB, which is not some obscure outfit from Derby, after all, but one of Europe's most significant manufacturing companies, with a good track record all over Europe. They are not the sort of people to enter into fly-by-night arrangements with anybody.
  The Government ought to accept their proposition, and accept it now, for two reasons. First, the people who travel on the Northern line are entitled to a better deal. Secondly, we cannot allow the rundown of the manufacturing capacity at Derby to proceed much further, or a large number of the skilled work force will disappear to other places and we will never get them back.
  11.58 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): We have had a rather good debate. I join the many hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on securing it. I want to put it on the record that he is a tremendously assiduous campaigner for the Northern line. His assertion that he has probably asked more questions and instigated more debates on it than any other hon. Member is likely to be proved correct, and I congratulate him on his assiduity.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that the Evening Standard campaign on the Northern line has been an effective one. I share with him the observation that it illustrates more than anything else the good humour of our right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary who, I think, has dealt with the concentration of the Evening Standard on his personal role with his usual aplomb and with considerable panache.
  I am also pleased to see the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) here. I appreciated his speech. He has developed considerable expertise on transport issues. I have admired the work that he has done with the Select Committee. He knows the Northern line extremely well and he has devoted a great deal of attention to it. He is noted for knowing what he is talking about, like the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I am delighted to say. I am grateful to him for what he had to say.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), who is the chairman of the London group of Conservative Members of Parliament, made a powerful speech which, I am sure, will be noted in a number of quarters. He articulated sentiments which I know are widely shared across the Benches. I am sure that he was right to ensure that those sentiments were put on the record.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is an habitué of these late-night occasions. I did a brief calculation while he was speaking. As far as I can recall, there are 50 stations on the Northern line if one takes accounts of the bifurcations. As my hon. Friend the
  1138
  Member for Hendon, South said, 400,000 journeys are made every day on the line. That shows what a massive enterprise the Northern line is. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was right to say that there has been a refreshing lack of dogma about the debate about rolling stock, about which I hope to say some more in a moment.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley>: Before my hon. Friend goes, he ought also to pay a tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who was sitting here silently, and to our right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir George Young). Those who are not able to speak ought also to get their tributes from the Minister.
  Mr. Norris: It is characteristic of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that he should be kind enough to draw attention to those of our colleagues who are required to be silent. I entirely endorse his sentiments.
  I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) attend upon our proceedings. He is a Northern line Member. I am extraordinarily grateful to him for his advice on my career path. I shall probably be able to resist most of it. He reiterated some of the usual canards. He referred to the Central line failure. I hope that I am not stealing too much of London Transport's thunder, but Sir Wilfrid Newton has now completed the inquiry into that incident with his usual thoroughness and objectivity. He has made it clear and will shortly publish in terms that neither the age of the equipment nor any question of underfunding was related to that regrettable failure.
  The length of the failure was caused more than anything by the singularity of the fault. It was the type of fault that occurs literally on one in a thousand occasions. It was extraordinarily difficult to trace. Once it was traced, it was relatively simple to fix. That is worth putting on the record. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman might seek to have some fun with the idea that it was all down to underfunding and the age of the equipment. I know that the fact that that is not true is inconvenient from his point of view, but it happens to be the case.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that the bit of cable that conked out was 71 years old?
  Mr. Norris: No, I will not confirm that the piece of cable that conked out, as the hon. Member so elegantly puts it, was 71 years old. I will simply tell him that the whole report will be available for him to see. He will see that Sir Wilfrid has specifically made it clear in his conclusions that neither the age of the equipment nor any question of funding was related to the failure that he investigated. I hope that that is as clear as it possibly can be. The important thing is that the report will speak for itself.
  It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and his party chided me for months for not abandoning the idea of a private sector contribution to the Jubilee line extension and wanted me to pass the whole cost of the scheme on to the taxpayer. They said to me for months, "Get on with it. There is great regeneration potential south of the river and you must get on with it if you believe in regenerating London." Now the hon. Gentleman says that we did an extraordinarily tough deal with the creditors at Canary wharf.

  1139
  Incidentally, it is amusing that the hon. Gentleman has just woken up to the fact that the cash sum is to be discounted. If we are talking about Treasury theory and the brain that exists in the Treasury and if the hon. Gentleman hopes to be a member of a Government, I hope that he will be quicker on the mathematical uptake than he appears to be. Now that £400 million in cash has been taken from the group of banks that are creditors of Canary wharf, he has the temerity to suggest that those bankers deeply wanted and approved of the deal. The expression on some of their faces did not show the approbation that he ascribed to them.
  It was an extremely good deal for Londoners and an excellent deal for the taxpayer. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sticking out for the contribution that he insisted must come from those financial institutions, the taxpayer was saved £400 million in cash over more than 20 years.
  We are here tonight to talk about the Northern line, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South will forgive me for diverting slightly to deal with the wide-ranging speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I want to give the context of the proposal. The line has been a favourite butt of jokes—many of which were doubtless deserved.
  I completely accept that the line is in need of modernisation. As has been said, most of its trains and signalling need to be replaced. However, such a decision is ultimately for London Underground, which has to balance the books and live within the resources available. The line is next on the list for modernisation once the £750 million Central line project, which is currently under way, is completed next year.
  I want to pick up an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton. It is true that the line has shown great improvements in performance over the past few years, largely through the positive steps taken by the line's management. Indeed, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of 1991 on London Underground, with which hon. Members are reasonably familiar, singled out the Northern line for special praise. It stated:
  "the Northern Line management team has … achieved a remarkable improvement in performance, by management action to identify the causes of train cancellations and to tackle them directly. Staff absence has, in particular, been dramatically reduced."
  That was the clearest evidence that, if improvements in service are to be attained, investment has a place, but management also has its place. I am sure that the House would wish to place on the record its appreciation for the excellent work that successive managers of the Northern line have done to help transform its performance.
  The improvement has continued. In the current financial year, the average figure for scheduled Northern line trains in passenger service stands at about 98.6 per cent., making it one of the best performers on the system. The line is currently performing ahead of its target, in terms of both headways between trains and delays. If a "misery line" tag was once attached to the Northern line, it is not attached to it now.
  Having said all that, I am not suggesting that nothing needs to be done. I am as keen as anyone for an early start to be made on the wholesale modernisation of the line, but it is important to remember that there are other measures
  1140
  that London Underground has already taken, or is already planning to take, which are delivering improvements both to trains and stations on the line.
  The single most important scheme is the £72 million virtual reconstruction of Angel station. That was one of the biggest projects of its sort ever undertaken by London Underground and involved the replacement of the infamous single-island platform, which used to serve both northbound and southbound trains. That platform was replaced by the more conventional arrangement of two separate platforms for northbound and southbound traffic. It meant replacing those four aging lifts, which were the major means of access, with new banks of escalators. It meant constructing a brand new ticket hall. That station is now safer and less congested and provides a cleaner and more comfortable travelling environment. The escalators, after initial teething troubles, have worked extremely well.
  It cost £72 million to renovate one station. That is a vivid indication of the scale of costs that are involved when one takes on the tasks of reforming a major piece of infrastructure such as the Northern line.
  Other schemes are under way and there are programmes for the near future. They include the much-needed substantial remedial works to the 10 stations on the southern end of the line, to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred. He was right about that. I think that the hon. Member for Streatham knows the need all too well. I pass those stations every day on my way from Camberwell. I do not believe that they look satisfactory; I do not think that they operate satisfactorily. I am glad that London Underground's programme includes urgent remedial works to those stations.
  Let us now turn to the ABB proposal. The House knows that London Underground and ABB are pressing hard for a Government announcement on the project. I know that it has the support of many of my hon. Friends. Although the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras appears to be seeking to divide me and my colleagues in the Treasury, I believe that I would not be doing my job as Minister for Transport in London properly were I not an enthusiastic advocate of the idea that we should subject the deal to all the scrutiny necessary to see whether it can be available to the people who use the Northern line. That is straightforward.
  I have also said that that does not mean that we abandon financial prudence and throw all the rules of good housekeeping and husbandry out of the window—as I fear the Labour party would do, were it to be confronted with a decision. For the Labour party, "new sources of finance" means abandoning all the rules on expenditure controls. That is a seductive path to go down—there always are jolly good reasons why one should spend public money on all types of desirable schemes—but it is an invitation which I believe it is proper for the Treasury to remind all Governments they must resist unless they have been able to satisfy themselves that the important financial criteria involved have been satisfied.
  Simply because we have not yet reached a conclusion, 14 days may seem a long time to the Evening Standard between hearing of the proposal and concluding on it. It might appear that we have been sitting still, but I think that hon. Members recognise what an achievement it has been for us to have undertaken the intensive analysis of the financial technicalities of the proposal and several rounds of complex negotiations in the relatively short time in which the Department has been aware of the deal.

  1141
  I make it clear to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that I first became aware that this proposition was on the table in very general terms at around the turn of the year. I think that he knows from his experience of Government that it has been dealt with extraordinarily rapidly and urgently. Incidentally, that is also a reflection of the fact that the deal that we were originally offered was not in any sense a complete deal, as ABB will confirm.
  The deal started very much as a back-of-an-envelope suggestion, pretty much as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras outlined it. As I hope that other hon. Members and especially my hon. Friends will appreciate, one cannot do deals of that type involving £0.5 billion on the back of an envelope. They are immensely complex negotiations. They have been undertaken with goodwill and they are continuing.
  If I may recap, late last year ABB offered to supply London Underground with 100 seven-car trains similar to those currently being supplied for the Central line. The proposal was a form of sophisticated leasing over 20 years, and obviously it has taken some time for us to establish the exact details of the proposal and to evaluate it in its own right and against other options for the future of the Northern line's rolling stock.
  The hon. Member for Streatham referred to some of the available options. He said that he felt that this option was the most attractive; I understand that point of view. He was kind enough to recognise that it is not the only game in town and that we have to satisfy ourselves that it is, on every sensible criterion, the right deal. To try to come to that conclusion, our assessment has focused on two sets of issues: first, whether the deal would satisfy the Government's published criteria for such deals under the terms of the private finance initiative and secondly, whether it would offer value for money.
  The proposals are being considered under the terms of the PFI, whose object is to find new ways in which to mobilise the private sector to meet needs that have traditionally been met only by the public sector and to enable the private sector to provide facilities in addition to the existing public sector plans. The whole concept is to encourage a closer partnership between the public and private sectors; an essential plank of the initiative is that the private sector must genuinely assume much of the risk attached to such projects. I say that simply to underline a simple truth.
  If the only "advantage" of introducing private finance is that the taxpayer has the dubious privilege of paying finance house rates of interest rather than gilt rates of interest, there is, the House will recognise, little value in the proposition. Too often, leasing is seen simply as a way in which to circumvent inconvenient Treasury spending totals. Yet every Government, of whatever complexion and at whatever time in their life, need to set firm spending totals if they are to control overall Government economic growth. There is no difference between that proposition and the proposition that would be advanced if any other party in the House were sitting on the Government Benches.
  The reality is that we have to do a lot more than simply find someone who is prepared to lend the Government money. It is not difficult to find people who are prepared to lend the Government money, because the Government
  1142
  tend to be a fairly good risk. The important point is that, for the taxpayer to get a benefit out of taking on board private sector finance, there must be a genuine transfer of risk to the private sector so that the taxpayer's risk in the matter is defrayed to offset the increased cost of financing the project.
  The practical application of that policy to particular schemes is extremely complicated. However, I hasten to say that we endeavour to apply the conditions in a flexible and deal-driven manner. We do not seek to impose unnecessary constraints on private sector ventures by inventing a mechanism of arbitrary rules and we always welcome ideas such as those from private companies that are prepared to bring their enterprising approach to public sector projects.
  We have also sought the advice, as the House knows, of the private finance initiative panel, led by Sir Alastair Morton, which was recently formed for the purpose of assisting the Government to promote and appraise initiatives such as these. We are grateful to the panel for its helpful comments.
  Crucially, we must not lose sight of the need to ensure that whatever we do for the Northern line offers proper value for money to the fare payers who use the line and to the taxpayers who provide, and will continue to provide, substantial support to LT's services. We should remind ourselves that we do not want to jump into a deal, no matter how attractive it appears on the surface, if it leaves major risks and major costs for the public sector to face, whether this year, or in five, 10 or 20 years' time. That is the substantial obligation, and no Government should lightly undertake it.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that the Government have come to a leasing deal for the Networker trains for Kent? Will he also confirm that the Treasury is seeking harsher criteria for this new leasing proposition to satisfy—harsher than those that applied to the Networkers? Is that simply because they are obstructive, or is the Minister saying that the Networker leasing deal was a bad deal?
  Mr. Norris: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's two questions are yes and no. Yes, the Government are contemplating a leasing deal for Networker trains on Network SouthEast—[Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that we have done that. And no, the Government are not applying more rigid criteria to that proposition.
  Mr. Dobson: ABB says that the Government are.
  Mr. Norris: It may not understand, and clearly the hon. Gentleman does not understand, that the difference is that, now that the Railways Act 1993 is safely on the statute book, an aftermarket for rolling stock on the heavy railway is in prospect, allowing the Government to take the view that those trains will be hired by train-operating companies for a period and then transferred to new owners. That is the difference between an operating lease and this lease, which is for 20 years to a single lessee with, at this stage, no prospect whatever of an aftermarket—[Laughter.]
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras obviously finds all that terribly difficult to come to terms with. The hon. Member for Streatham is a bit brighter about those matters and has already overtaken the hon. Gentleman. He accepts that, if we are to introduce private

  1143
  sector capital into the system, one of the great advantages of a franchising concept is precisely that it allows us to contemplate the same kind of aftermarket as exists with BR.
  I suspect that the mirth of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras masks his embarrassment. Once one goes beyond the first chapter of the most elementary economics manual, the hon. Gentleman's ability to flap around and miss the point is legendary. Although I wish him well in his present position, if he seriously aspires to sit on the Government Benches he must do a lot better than simply laugh to drown out the common sense that he hears from these Benches, which is so massively inconvenient to him.
  Clearly, there is a tremendous advantage to the Government having decided to broaden the scope of investment in the railways—.
  Mr. Dobson: What broadening?
  Mr. Norris: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to ask that, because I was about to tell him. Broadening so that we look beyond merely the taxpayers and fare payers. They are ever the butt of the Opposition's ire and ever the easy target for those like the hon. Gentleman, whose sole answer to these issues is to shout, "Please write bigger cheques on the public purse," and to point to governmental meanness as the reason why those facilities are not available. We must look beyond that.
  The last Labour Government were pathetically inadequate in their funding of London Underground. When the hon. Gentleman was in the House, before the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) arrived, he was part of a Government whose annual funding—
  Mr. Dobson: I was not.
  Mr. Norris: Well, he supported that Government. I admit that, in those days, they had a few people bright enough to occupy their Front Bench, but things have moved on in the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman was here when his party was in office, and its funding of London Transport, at 1993–94 prices, was the princely sum of £120 million a year. If he cares to check the record, as I suspect he has done, he will see damn well that that is the case. He may like to have a bit of a laugh about that, because it contrasts embarrassingly with the £470 mill ion which the hon. Member for Streatham rightly said was the present funding level at 1993–94 prices, and the amount in excess of £1 billion a year this year, next year and the following year, which will be invested in the system as a whole.
  Mr. Dobson rose—
  Mr. Norris: If we are to argue about who is the better funder of the system, I shall take on the hon. Gentleman's arguments any day, as I am about to now.
  Mr. Dobson: I invite the House to attach as much credence to what the Minister has said about investment in London Transport as I attach to his recollections of my record as a Member of this House. I have never been a Member when there has been a Labour majority—I was elected in 1979—but I will be.
  Mr. Norris: It is a great tribute to the hon. Gentleman that I thought he had been here from the year dot. I readily accept that I was wrong. I hope that he will accept my apologies; I did not mean to misrepresent his length of
  1144
  service. Admittedly, very few people ever want to associate themselves with that Labour Government, but, given the disparity in funding levels under the two Governments, it comes ill from the hon. Gentleman to lecture me or the Government on the subject.
  The hon. Gentleman was, however, right about the two conclusions of the Select Committee, which were—in the first paragraph of its report on London—that the Government are spending record amounts on the system, and that they are still not enough. The legacy of half a century of underfunding will now have to be dealt with. This is a serious and good debate about how to augment the funding for the system. The answer of course is to bring in private capital. That does not mean accepting a cheque on any terms, however. We do not accept any deal merely because it is put to us. We have to be rigorous about ensuring that these private finance initiatives fit into a sensible financial matrix.
  Mr. John Marshall: It was perhaps too much to hope for that this debate could be conducted in non-partisan terms, given that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is taking part in it.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that the real locust years for LT followed 1981, when the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was in charge of the GLC and when the investment in London Transport was much lower than it is today?
  Mr. Norris: You might chide me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I strayed too far into the locust years. The idea might find more favour if there is a debate on agriculture later tonight.
  The House will have noted what my hon. Friend said. If we had a prolonged debate on the impact of the "Fares Fair" policy on London Transport, I would point out that, however well intentioned that proposition was—and it was—it was a disaster for London. The experience pointed up some uncomfortable lessons. I note the arrival of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Dowd), who I know takes an interest in these matters.
  One lesson was that a whole lot of additional journeys were generated, but they did not displace journeys made by private car; they were known as additional opportunity journeys. More costs are created for the system, but the revenues flowing into it are massively reduced. Reductions in ticket prices are not compensated for by increases in ridership—which was never more than 8 or 9 per cent. The result is a huge reduction in the net funding of the system—a gap that then has to be filled by the taxpayer. The gap was usually several hundred million pounds.
  A second false premise is that the only way to attract people to public transport is to lower its price. The fact is that we need to use both the carrot and the stick. We certainly have to make public transport more attractive. My own view is that fares are the last thing to look at. Londoners always say that they will regard the system as representing good value only provided that it works. That is the key: above all, we want a reliable system.
  Mr. Dobson: Just to get one or two facts straight, will the Minister confirm that the limit on capital investment in London Underground when it was the responsibility of the GLC was set by the Tory Government?
  Mr. Norris: So far as it goes, that is an accurate statement. However, I fear that the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman is asking the House to draw may not be what he suggests.
  That was not the only source of capital funding available to the GLC at that time. Had it wished to do so, it could have augmented the amount of capital spent. There is no evidence that the GLC wanted to do that. At the time, it thought, as so many Administrations, both Labour and Conservative, had thought over the previous half century, that one could simply postpone the necessary investment to the next year because the system would always last just a little longer.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and I agree that that is no longer acceptable. He and I and others in the House are responsible for dealing with that historic backlog of underinvestment. We have to be creative about how we address it.
  Having already spoken about the various strictures that apply to the financing of the deal, we must not neglect to ensure that the proposal represents good value for money when we compare it with other options such as refurbishment, option to which the hon. Member for Streatham referred. There are a variety of subsets of refurbishment from major refurbishment through to essential refurbishment, which provides one-person-operated trains and not much more.
  Whatever approach we take, we must always ensure that the proposition is exposed to sufficient competition so that we get the best deal available. I am grateful for the understanding of the hon. Member for Streatham and other hon. Gentlemen.
  Bearing in mind the perfectly sensible comments made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about employment prospects at ABB in Derby, if we decided that a scheme on the lines of the ABB proposal was worth taking forward, the next step would be for London Underground to invite proposals in open competition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, and the hon. Member for Streatham confirmed, in this day and age we want ultimately to ensure that the taxpayer gets good value for his or her investment in new rolling stock.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows from his previous incarnation, ABB, albeit an excellent manufacturer of trains, is not the only manufacturer of trains, and no doubt others in the Community will wish to know that the competition for the supply of trains on the terms ABB has proposed will be made available if the scheme goes ahead.
  I understand that a competition advertised in the Official Journal will be able to attract interest from the European Community. I also understand that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is fully signed up to the idea of Community participation, and I am sure that that does not cause him any grief.
  We fully recognise that much remains to be done, including rolling stock modernisation on the Northern line. We are considering the ABB proposal entirely on its merits against the criteria established by the private finance initiative and the need to demonstrate good value for money. We must not lose sight of the fact that very substantial amounts of public money are involved.
  I assure the House that we are evaluating this complex proposal as a matter of considerable urgency. We have reached the final stages of discussion, and I hope that the Government will announce its conclusions within the next few days.

  London (Government)
  12.33 am
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: Perhaps it would be appropriate to start by putting the debate in context. We are having the debate shortly after the Secretary of State issued a consultation paper last November with the setting up of London First and the London Forum. Of course, it is roughly 10 years since the abolition of the Greater London council and the loss of any strategic voice for London.
  I welcome the Government's belated recognition of the need to have a dialogue with Londoners and the consultation that is taking place. It is regrettable that the Secretary of State has made it clear already that he is not interested in responses that suggest a need for a strategic authority. If he is not prepared to listen to views that conflict with his on the structure of London government or the role of national government in London and the resource needs of London, the exercise that is being undertaken will remain fundamentally flawed.
  It is perhaps interesting to look back approximately 10 years to what was said at the time of the abolition of the GLC about what systems of government London would have and compare that with what is happening now, and where we stand. If we look back at the Department of the Environment paper entitled "Streamlining the Cities", we find statements such as:
  "The abolition of these upper-tier authorities"—
  of course, it was not just the GLC—
  "will streamline local government in the metropolitan areas."
  The paper goes on to say:
  "It will also provide a system which is simpler for the public to understand, in that responsibility for virtually all local services will rest with a single authority."
  The Department of the Environment paper entitled "After the GLC" says:
  "Local government should be as close as possible to local people if councils are to be properly accountable and to provide services local people want efficiently and economically."
  The question was asked in that same paper:
  "Will responsibility for GLC services be split up between a range of unaccountable organisations and 'quangos'? Is Whitehall taking over? No."
  If we compare that to where we are now in terms of who governs London and makes the critical decisions, the contrast is immediate. London now has a vast number of appointed unaccountable bodies, or bodies made up of representatives from the boroughs, usually one per borough. In many aspects of London services, we have government by appointment.
  I have seen estimates recently showing that more than 270 bodies or quangos spend money in London. The rights of people in London to question and to attend the meetings—even to know of the meetings of some of those bodies—are often virtually non-existent, yet huge amounts of public money are spent on services such as health, training, urban regeneration, further education, museums and transport, not all of which are post-GLC.
  The variety of services that are covered is growing all the time. I suggest that it would be appropriate to include, for instance, housing action trusts, one of which partly covers my constituency; its budget this year is some £34 million.
  On education and grant-maintained schools, a growing number of schools are moving out of local authority control. The list is enormous. It includes the London residuary body, further education colleges, which are

  1147
  funded directly from the Further Education Funding Council, training and enterprise councils, city challenge, London scientific services and the various bits of what used to be London Transport—London Buses Ltd., London Underground Ltd., LRT Bus Engineering, the London Docklands development corporation and the London pension fund authority. Many of those bodies, but not all, were set up to take over former GLC functions.
  There are also joint bodies, such as the London fire and civil defence authority, the organisation involved in the London boroughs grant scheme, the London waste regulation authority and the waste authorities that cover the various parts of London. We are dealing more and more often in those cases with a single-purpose appointed body.
  The behaviour of such bodies is governed by rules far less stringent than any applying to local authorities, on a range of issues. Local authorities must hold their meetings in public, for instance, but many quangos do not. How do the public obtain access to information? Again, there are statutory rules governing access to information in the local authority sector, but try to obtain information, as an ordinary member of the public, about what is happening in a hospital trust, on the governing body of a grant-maintained school or on the board of a housing action trust, and it is a very different matter.
  The audit arrangements also vary enormously. Can someone who feels aggrieved go to the ombudsman? What are the methods for obtaining redress? Experience in my surgeries tells me that, increasingly, people do not even know to whom they should complain, because it is so unclear who is responsible.
  These matters are important. As I said earlier, we are dealing with bodies that are spending public money. Several billion pounds are spent. It approaches the amounts spent by London boroughs. The figures can, of course, be added up in different ways, but, according to a conservative estimate, at least £6 billion was spent in 1992–93. I am trying to avoid double counting—counting regional and district health authorities, family health services authorities and hospital trusts twice. Often, the same money is being spent; money spent by a district health authority ends up with a hospital trust. Without that double counting, we are still looking at more than £6 billion.
  It is also interesting to consider the people who are spending that money, and what they are given. Local authority members are entitled to an attendance allowance, but I guess that few members of London authorities receive more than £3,000 or £5,000 a year, and many people receive less than that. Let us consider the position in the quangos. Virtually £1.25 million is spent on annual remunerations for chairs and directors of district health authorities; nearly £1 million is spent on the chairs and directors of NHS trusts in London; £145,000 is spent on the chair and directors of the London residuary body.
  By and large, the members of those bodies are appointed. There are no longer any councillors on regional or district health authorities. None is directly appointed to NHS trusts. There are no councillors on London Regional Transport or the London residuary body. On the bodies to which some councillors are appointed, the numbers are small. According to estimates that I have seen, about 1,700 people sit on the boards of the quangos across London whose spending adds up to £6 billion. Of those 1,700, perhaps 2 per cent. are elected councillors; the rest are appointed.
  1148
  In some areas, it is becoming more difficult to find people to take on such jobs. The grant-maintained schools are moving to virtual independence, but, even in locally managed schools, parent governors in particular are beginning to realise the amount of work involved, and the difficulties entailed in trying to assume financial responsibilities and manage budgets—a task for which they have had no training and been given virtually no support.
  It is not simply a question of financial probity and accounts; there is also the major question of public accountability. Regardless of whether a local authority's policies are acceptable to any individual, at least it has open procedures. Local authorities are accountable. Controlling parties can be voted out of office and people can and do take an interest in what their local authorities are doing and in their performance. More local factors are now coming into play in local elections than has happened for some years. It is good for people to take an interest and to use their votes to express that interest.
  In much of the system we are seeing fragmentation—fragmentation without accountability. The fragmentation into single-purpose, sometimes quite small, bodies means that there is also fragmentation of decision-making. Decisions that are essentially related are taken in isolation. There is a complete lack of public accountability and public influence. It does not matter how well intentioned the members of the quango boards are, the lack of accountability is an inevitable result of that sort of structure.
  The major problem that follows from that is a lack of co-ordination and clear strategy across London as a whole. Whatever arrangements are made for the bodies to co-ordinate their activities, none of them has an overview. None has the authority or the power to develop an overview and there is little incentive for them to do so, because they are responsible for only a single service in perhaps a small area. Contacts occur, often at officer level, but there is little overlapping membership between the various quangos. Therefore, real linkages often do not develop.
  The joint boards have one member from each borough and, on paper, they may seem to be accountable. However, I believe that similar problems often arise. I was a leader of a local authority in London before 1990 and we had to find people to go on the joint boards and we had to work through them. From that experience, I know that there are all sorts of problems.
  First, there is the problem of finding people to go on the boards. They must be local councillors who have the time to devote to organisations such as the London fire and civil defence authority, the London waste regulation authority or the local waste regulation authority. There are certainly difficulties with local authorities monitoring the activities of the joint boards. There is the problem of local authorities, acting as an authority, rather than as an individual who happens to be on the board, having a clear influence on decision-making.
  From all the fragmentation and lack of accountability there is a clear conclusion—there is a democratic deficit in London which can be remedied only by some form of Londonwide strategic authority. That can be seen by looking at service delivery, although I am not suggesting that we want a Londonwide authority that necessarily becomes involved in enormous amounts of service delivery.

  1149
  We have just had a debate on the Northern line. Transport is a perfect example of what is going wrong in London now. Earlier this afternoon, I happened to come across a diagram showing the organisation of transport in London and the various bodies involved in planning transport in London. I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you may not be able to see the diagram as you are too far away, but it resembles a tube map. There are so many different organisations and bodies involved in trying to plan transport in London. It is ludicrous.
  The 1984 Department of the Environment paper "After the GLC" described what was going to happen:
  "The Secretary of State will provide a framework of guidance on traffic matters … This, together with his oversight of British Rail, London Regional Transport, and their mutual co-operation of services, will ensure that a comprehensive and balanced approach is adopted towards transport to make it easier for people to move around London and to improve environmental and living conditions."
  I doubt whether many people who read the debate on the Northern line will agree that their ability to move around London easily has improved.
  London Underground's management have spoken of the lack of investment, yet, despite their protestations, last year's autumn statement cut investment in London transport by more than £200 million. Each of London's major transport infrastructure issues that have been debated frequently in the House in the past year or two—the channel tunnel link, crossrail, the Jubilee line extension and the proposed Hackney to Chelsea line—has been at the planning stage for years. Shifts of policy lead to uncertainties about whether private finance will contribute. Nobody is in control.
  Such problems apply equally to quite small matters. Quite a lot of local councils in London, of all political shades, have tried to make cycling a priority and have created cycling lanes to make life easier for cyclists. The London Cycling Campaign says that it is concerned about the confusing array of schemes that are created because of the lack of co-ordination between boroughs and the lack of a London-wide co-ordinating body.
  There is a consensus among people who use public transport and the roads that travelling in London is a nightmare and that it is getting worse, yet we have no long-term strategic planning authority to deal with transport in London.
  The problem does not apply only to transport. I am sure that no hon. Member can think of another capital city in Europe that must do without an elected citywide authority. Some hon. Members are aware of the difficulties that have arisen in recent years in trying to put together London bids on an individual borough basis for European money through the regional development fund and for assisted area status. Without a citywide authority, London is losing out and will continue to lose out on European initiatives. Some people believe that London would have done rather better in attracting the Olympic or Commonwealth games if it had had a citywide authority to put a bid together.
  Why should we have to rely on ad hoc arrangements between boroughs, the Association of London Authorities or the London Boroughs Association to co-ordinate bids for assistance? Why is there no London authority to offer significant assistance to local industry?
  1150
  There are no structural connections between the training and enterprise councils. Large-scale economic development work cannot be sensibly carried out on a single-borough basis. Why is there no one to take a Londonwide view of what should be done to deal with unemployment?
  With the best will in the world, such issues cannot be tackled with maximum efficiency at borough level or by joint bids or work between boroughs, however useful such work may be—and I am not decrying it at all. That is not happening at maximum efficiency. The ALA and the LBA do not have the powers to fill some of the gaps.
  We cannot afford to let the present drift continue. We need a new governing body for London—a view shared by the vast majority of Londoners. Recent polls found that four out of five Londoners believe that there should be a new Londonwide authority, one that will not get involved in service delivery on the ground but that will be concerned with the major strategic issues affecting the whole of London, such as economic reconstruction, improvements in public safety and rebuilding the national health service. The recent specialty reviews are a classic example of fragmented decision-making. There was a review of cancer and heart specialties, among others, but no one sat down and tried to co-ordinate what was happening across the board.
  We need a Londonwide authority with some responsibility for the fire and emergency services, the type of services that cannot conceivably be most efficiently planned borough by borough. We need a Londonwide authority for policing and for sport and the arts. There is lots of room for local initiative but there is no one to take the overall view.
  Apart from vast improvements in planning, the existence of such an authority would mean an increase in public involvement and in public accountability. Individuals could become involved and there could be regular consultation with both sides of industry. We do not need to set up a vast bureaucracy. But what we especially do not need is what we have now—government by quango.
  12.56 am
  Mr. Jim Dowd: I shall not detain the House for long—I am sure that everyone will be pleased to hear that—but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing this debate. It is very significant to Londoners and to the city itself, but I am sure that it also greatly irritates Ministers because it deals with an issue that will not go away, because a glaring injustice has been, and is being, perpetrated on the people of London by the Government. That will remain the case until the transparently obvious solution that the Government have been trying to avoid at all costs—the establishment of a strategic authority responsible for co-ordinating many of the services provided to the people who visit or live and work in London—is accepted.
  I believe that, in the fulness of time, this issue will come to resemble the history of the poll tax. Many of those who were enthusiastic about the abolition of the Londonwide authority were also enthusiastic about the poll tax. We were told that all that was required was time for it to settle down and that, once the initial hostility and misunderstandings had been dealt with, the poll tax would be established as what one Minister who represents a London constituency described as a "vote winner". Everyone

  1151
  knows what happened to the poll tax, and the truth that was staring the Government in the face ultimately overwhelmed them and, more particularly, the previous Prime Minister. If anything was responsible for her enforced and unwilling departure from office, it was the fact that members of the Conservative party realised that they could not win a general election while attempting to defend the poll tax. Therefore, the poll tax had to go.
  It is now clear that London and Londoners have lost out since the abolition of Londonwide bodies such as the Greater London council and the Inner London education authority. That is becoming ever more apparent to anyone who lives or works in London. It will be extremely entertaining to see how members of the Government manage to get out of the predicament that they have created for themselves and move back towards a co-ordinated strategic authority for London.
  Whenever that is suggested, it is said that we want the return of the Greater London council. People conjure up images of county hall filled again with public servants adjudicating and providing and administering services. Sadly, that is not likely. Indeed, it is not possible. I freely admit that in many cases it is probably not desirable.
  In the case of education, it would be fatuous to try to recreate the Inner London education authority. However, great harm was done by the abolition of that body. The figures relating to the education of the under-fives and the post-16s show that Londoners have lost many opportunities as a result.
  However, it would not be reasonable to assume that those services could be put back together under a single body. For good or ill, they are with the boroughs for the foreseeable future, if only because anything else would be far too disruptive and far too difficult for the people involved. We all know that some things, once broken, cannot be put back together. Sadly, the excellence that was ILEA has gone.
  But there are other issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow covered them in some detail in his quite compelling case. I refer, for example, to transport, the environment, the emergency services—including the provision, for the first time ever, of a Londonwide body for the police—matters relating to economic regeneration and, in particular, matters relating to health. The subject of health care provision in London is extremely instructive.
  In effect, the Tomlinson report represented the substitution of a Londonwide view of health and health requirements. The fact that the Government have drawn the conclusions that have been drawn is a different issue. That some of the finest centres of medical excellence in the world—not just in the country—are now threatened with closure, after centuries of service to the people of the capital, is a national disgrace. But this is in some respects a side issue. The main point is that Tomlinson gave the game away—that what was required was a Londonwide view of health provision.
  The Department of Health is now reorganising the regional health authorities. There are to be two instead of four. The existing bodies will be abolished from 1 April this year, and we shall have the South Thames and the North Thames regional authorities. This shows that the move towards a regional view of health provision in London is inexorable. What is being done is to some extent just a shamefaced halfway house to disguise the
  1152
  Government's embarrassment. There is no doubt that London needs health care, amongst other services, at a regional and strategic level.
  We have been presented with a consultation paper entitled "Making the Best Better". I wonder how long that slogan was sweated over and which consultancy was used to originate such a striking title. The very publication of that document is proof positive of the fact that even in the benighted ranks of the Department of the Environment there is understanding that the situation in London is untenable and must be addressed.
  The Secretary of State started to foam at the mouth, and steam came out of his ears, when, at the press conference, people asked, "Well, what about a Londonwide authority?" I am led to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was almost reduced to chewing the carpet, having said on three occasions that that was the one thing he did not want to consider. He did not want to know about any question of a Londonwide authority, despite the fact that it was quite clear that that was the one thing that almost everyone else did want to know about. Certainly it is what Londoners want to know about.
  I should not speak too unkindly about the Secretary of State, because he is a former Member of Parliament for Lewisham, West. He represented the constituency for one term but, without being too unkind, I must tell the House that the good citizens of Forest Hill, Sydenham and Catford decided that that was enough and dispensed with his services in 1974. None the less, the right hon. Gentleman is still remembered in that part of the world with what could be called a curious affection. However, I am not sure that his experience of representing a London constituency has not clouded his judgment, in that he has not forgiven the people of Lewisham, West for what they did in 1974, and now seeks to wreak revenge on them for their temerity.
  I hope that when the Minister replies he will mention the result of the consultation, which we await keenly. The last time that a question was asked about it, about 10,000 responses had been garnered from the 750,000 documents circulated, and we believe that the initial findings are due to be published about now. It would be interesting to know what is recommended or suggested.
  Some time ago I tabled an early-day motion—I also wrote to the Secretary of State asking for his views on the matter—suggesting a simple way of dealing with the question of a strategic authority for London. The opportunity arises once every four years. It will come round in a couple of months' time, and it would reduce all the arguments between the parties in the House. The solution would be simply to ask Londoners themselves whether they want a strategic authority.
  I refer, of course, to the borough council elections, which will take place in the first week in May. It would be the simplest thing in the world to include a single question on a ballot paper for the people who take part in the elections asking them whether they want the return—or rather, the establishment—of a strategic co-ordinated authority for London. I have no doubt that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, that would produce an overwhelming result in favour—and that is why the Government would not even attempt to carry it out. That exercise would dispense with all the questions.
  I notice that the Government Benches are conspicuously empty, but that is hardly surprising; the House is hardly brimful at the moment.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: There are more Members on the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Dowd: Indeed, but one would expect that; it is a matter of course when topics of great import are being discussed. I had half expected to see the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) in his place—although I realise that he had the previous debate. Clearly he put a lot of time and effort into that and has now gone to seek some deserved rest and solace.
  Whenever the idea of a Londonwide authority is mentioned, the hon. Member for Hendon, South usually jumps up to tell us about a zebra crossing in Ealing that was the cause of a tremendous dispute between Ealing borough council and the Greater London council in the late 1970s or early 1980s. That incident was such a formative experience in the hon. Gentleman's life, and provided him with such a scientific analysis of the dichotomy affecting the government of London, that he was persuaded that the abolition of the GLC was the only way to deal with the problem and to prevent any repetition of the trouble.
  People may often form their views as result of a strange array of reasons and experiences, but I have always felt that that story provides an extremely thin argument for abolishing the authority and doing away with a voice for London and Londoners. Of course there will be a problem of overlap between authorities, but that problem is happily faced elsewhere, not only in Britain but throughout Europe and the rest of the western world.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has already said, London is the only city in the western world that does not have a citywide authority, or a single voice to speak on behalf of the capital. London is being sold short, and Londoners know it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow gave what he said was a conservative estimate of £6 billion being spent through quangos in London. I did some calculations on this. I asked parliamentary questions, I asked questions through the Library and I put them to the various organisations involved. The figure we came to was something like £8.5 billion, rather higher than the £6 billion that my hon. Friend mentioned—and we had not even totted them all up at that stage. The money is public money, it is spent in London, and it is spent on behalf of Londoners, yet no one has any say in how it is spent.
  It is perfectly proper that public funds should always be subject to scrutiny and questioning. What accountability really means is not just that those who spend the money are called to account for what they do and are forced to explain how they are deploying public funds, to whose benefit and for what reasons. The ultimate value Of accountability is that it can and does exact the highest price and the most sacred element of a democracy: if we are unhappy with the explanations that we receive, we can remove people from office, from the place where the decisions are taken, and we can replace them with others.
  That is what democracy, at its highest, is about. That is what the quangocracy that has grown up, not just in London but throughout the country, more and more deprives us of the ability to do. Faceless, often nameless, people decide how billions of pounds of public money are spent on crucial public services. The people of London have no say in the decisions and no influence on them, and as often as not they do not even know who make them.
  The case for a Londonwide authority is compelling. It will continue to be compelling until such time as it is
  1154
  addressed and a Londonwide authority is re-established. My preference—and I will be perfectly frank about it, as I am something of a traditionalist—is for the return of the London county council. London enjoyed its greatest advances under the enlightened policies of the LCC, certainly after the war and until reorganisation in the 1960s. None the less, I must probably reconcile myself to the fact that it will not come to pass.
  There is a need for London to speak with one voice. London is far more than the sum of its individual parts. However hard the boroughs work in their own way to meet the needs of their communities—and, regardless of the political persuasion of any particular borough, the needs are met in a way that accords with the wishes of the local people—they will never be able to present London as an entity, projecting its full weight or focus on the value and potential that is currently wasted.
  I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. I imagine that we shall be given the customary response, that everything is so much better than it was, and we shall probably hear a raft of statistics to support it. The one thing that the Government cannot run away from is the fact that Londoners do not believe them.
  1.12 am
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on his good fortune in securing the debate and his good judgment in choosing this important subject. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) on his contribution. He made the extremely important point that London alone, of all the major western capital cities, has no citywide government. That observation of itself ought to give us pause for thought.
  Whatever one may think about the democratic implications, it ought to raise the question whether London is well served by the structure that has now been in place for eight years, with no democratic body responsible for citywide government. At the very least, we ought to compare London in that context with other cities that have the advantage of a citywide authority. When we make such a comparison, I regret to say that the results are not flattering to London.
  We have just had a debate about London transport, specifically on the Northern line. It is symptomatic of the decline of London transport, once the envy of Europe and the most efficient system for conveying people around a major capital city, that it is now sadly lagging in the slow lane in comparison with other European cities. Their rapid transport systems and modern metros make our system look more and more what it is—rundown, neglected, unreliable, uncomfortable and overcrowded. The Minister tried to get away from the name that the Evening Standard has rightly tagged to the Northern line—the misery line.
  That experience applies not only to the Northern line. It is one with which anyone who uses the other London Underground lines will be familiar, to his or her cost. People who use and depend on Network SouthEast and London's buses are also familiar with the problems stemming from under-investment and the failure to maintain an adequate transport system.
  Of course, it is not just a problem of transport. Across a range of services the same sad story repeats itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd)

  1155
  rightly highlighted some health issues. One sees the problems associated with a lack of coherent government, fragmentation, delegation of power to unelected quangos and the failure of our Government to run the services for which they have assumed responsibility.
  We have seen the tragic disaster that has befallen the London ambulance service in the past two years. It routinely fails on two out of five calls to meet its performance target of reaching the scene within 14 minutes of call-out. That disgraceful and shameful record is the consequence of taking away responsibility for that service from a democratically body and giving it to an unelected quango, supposedly answerable to Ministers.
  The right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who will wind up this debate, is responsible for housing. Sadly, we have to recognise that the symbol of housing in London in the 1990s has become the cardboard box. London still has the worst homelessness problem of any city in Britain. It still suffers a chronic shortage of affordable homes and is failing lamentably to generate the necessary supply of affordable rented homes for people in need.
  The most important service of all has to be the London economy. When we look at what has happened to the London economy, we see the sad truth. The city that was once the most prosperous in the world, the powerhouse of the whole United Kingdom economy, has become a city that boasts the dubious distinction of having the second highest unemployment rate of any of the regions in Britain and the city that is rapidly becoming the country's dole capital.
  All that hardly supports the case that London has benefited from not having a citywide government. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that it is not the Government's fault. Someone else is always to blame. I have no doubt that we shall he given excuses. The Minister will say that the problems are nothing to do with the abolition of the Greater London council, the burgeoning quangos or the Government's assuming responsibility for various services that used to be in the remit of democratically local authorities.
  I am sure that we shall also be told that other European cities have their problems, too. They certainly have. But with purposeful and, in many cases, powerful city governments to represent them, they are far better placed to respond to those problems and act to promote their interests. In an increasingly competitive world, where big cities increasingly compete against each other, I do not need to remind the House of the importance of London being able to fight for its interests and secure its advantage. We have to think only about the sad saga of London's failure to secure the European central bank to realise the risks that we run in this increasingly competitive world, if London is not able to pursue and promote its interests effectively.
  The document which the Government published a few months ago, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West referred, begins with some splendid rhetoric about how wonderful London is. It describes London as a
  "world class financial capital"
  and the
  "foremost European financial centre, way ahead of Paris and Frankfurt."
  Would that that were the case. But if it were, would there be any doubt that the European central bank would be
  1156
  coming to London rather than to Frankfurt? If such a service is supposed to be central to London's economy and we are supposed to lead the world in it, why did we fail to secure the European central bank?
  We must consider why London is failing to compete effectively in the European and international arena. Another example of where we failed was the Olympics. The city of Barcelona certainly has its problems, but it was able to host the Olympic games recently in a highly imaginative and succesful way.
  We can compare its success with London's sad failure even to become the British contender for the Commonwealth games. We could not even manage to achieve that. Despite Manchester's failure in the Olympics and despite the view that Manchester had had its chance, London was unable to mount a bid to make it the British contender for the Commonwealth games. That is a sad reflection on the ability of our capital city to fight for its interests and to secure a rightful role on the world stage.
  Let us consider what happened when London looked for funding from the European regional development fund under the objective 2 programme. Decisions were being made around Christmas, and there was no citywide authority in London to put together London's bid. There was no citywide authority to promote London in Brussels. Instead, it was left to the Minister for Industry to represent London's case in Brussels. There were problems because, inevitably, with no citywide authority to put the case, each individual local authority pushed for its maximum advantage. Therefore, the bid for London was far larger than was realistically feasible. Every borough rightly and properly pushed its own interests.
  There was no citywide authority to take the interests of London as a whole, to consider the competing claims and to reach a decision on an appropriate-sized bid for London, within the framework set by the European Union, that was likely to succeed. Instead, all the London borough bids were packaged together and the package was submitted to Brussels, which was told to make a decision. Of course, it did so—it was good news for part of London, the Lea valley, but extremely bad news for many other parts.
  I am thinking particularly of the east Thames corridor, a district that has suffered massively from the loss of manufacturing industry and from serious industrial decline and unemployment. It certainly qualified for objective 2 support, but failed to receive any. That is a further example of London's being unable to secure its best interests in the European context.
  That is one part of what has happened to London since the Greater London council was abolished. Central Government not only have taken over functions that should have been discharged by a democratically elected local authority but carry them out badly. The other side of the picture shows a proliferation of quangos, rightly referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, West and for Walthamstow.
  Wherever one looks around London one sees evidence of the growing power and influence of the unelected, unaccountable and profoundly unloved quango. The health service is overrun with quangos—there are managers, public relations staff, accountants, administrators, bureaucrats, the people who thrive under the new health service and buy cars for themselves when they are closing hospitals. That is evidence of the quangocracy of the health service in London.

  1157
  Quangos affect not just the health service but education, housing, training and urban development. In all services there are quangos: funding councils, training and enterprise councils, housing action trusts, urban development corporations, city challenge boards and many others that were named by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I see from a report by Professor John Stewart that it is estimated that there are about 272 such organisations in London, combining annual budgets estimated at between £6 billion and £8.5 billion of public expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West suggested that £8.5 billion might even be an underestimate, because he had lost count at that point of how many quangos had been taken into account and there remained others that had not been considered.
  Let us contrast that with the prospectus when the Greater London council was abolished—when the Government proposed the abolition of the GLC and when they carried it out. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has quoted, rightly, from "Streamlining the Cities", the White Paper that was issued to justify the GLC's abolition. He quoted, with appropriate irony, those comments about streamlining local government, removing sources of conflict and tension and providing systems that were simpler for the public to understand. They have a hollow ring.
  It is also worth remembering what Ministers said when they moved the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill which abolished the Greater London council. Moving the Second Reading of the Bill on 3 December 1984, the right hon. Lord Jenkin, formerly the Secretary of State for the Environment, said:
  "They say—"
  referring to us, the Opposition—
  "that, after abolition, Whitehall will take over. Wrong again. Only 5 per cent. of service spending in London, and virtually none outside London, will go outside local government."
  It gets better:
  "They say"—
  that is us—
  "that the abolition councils will be replaced by quangos. Wrong again. Only two permanent new appointed bodies will be created—the advisory London planning commission and the Merseyside museums trustee body."—[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 36.]
  I suppose that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would say, "You can't expect Ministers to tell the truth to Parliament all the time, can you?"
  The truth is that the Government were profoundly wrong when they used their majority in the House to force through the abolition of the Greater London council. They were wrong in their forecasts of what would happen. They were profoundly wrong to take away from the people of London their democratic right to choose who should govern them. It was a profoundly wrong decision and it has had disastrous consequences for London.
  The Government have been wrong in trying to hide themselves from the consequences of those actions. The most pathetic recent example has been the Government's glossy document "London: Making the Best Better", masquerading as a consultation paper, which, in 43 pages containing 53 glossy photographs and 63 itemised features on which Londoners were asked to comment, does not
  1158
  once mention the way in which the government of London is best organised—as though, by not being mentioned, that issue will miraculously go away.
  I have to ask the Minister, how many respondents who sent in their views on that consultation paper raised the issue that did not dare to speak its name? How many respondents, without prompting, without being invited to do so, told the Government that they believed that London should have a democratically elected organisation? Indeed, of those who referred to that issue, what proportion said that they supported a democratically elected body for London, and what proportion said that they opposed it? It would be interesting to have responses to those questions and I hope that the Minister will give them to us.
  The Government may try to run away from the issue, but they cannot hide from the electorate. The London electorate are poised to deliver a crushing verdict on the Government, not only in the forthcoming London borough elections but in the general election that will follow. When a Labour Government are returned to power—as they will be—we will restore to Londoners the basic democratic right to elect their own citywide government.
  Our commitment to London is to establish a democratically elected organisation, taking responsibility for strategic functions. It will be a streamlined body looking at matters such as planning, transportation, economic development and other London-wide functions, such as fire and civil defence. It will be a body able to speak for London and to represent it in the European and international arena. It will be able to represent London's interests and to secure London's advantage in a way that London has missed so badly in the past eight years.
  Our commitment to London is to give back to our capital city its self-respect and its own democratic institutions. In place of quangos, in place of Tory placemen and in place of Government mismanagement, we shall give back to Londoners a Greater London authority that will look after London's interests.
  1.29 am
  The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): I join other hon. Members in commending the good fortune of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) in being selected to initiate a debate on this topic. If I were being courteous, I would say that he made a thoughtful, if rather nostalgic, speech. If I were being more critical, I would say that it was resolutely backward-looking, devoid of new ideas, firmly committed to living in the past and refusing to recognise the reality of London today.
  I give one example of the hon. Gentleman's misguided analysis. He said quite a lot about quangos, and one of the quangos on which he touched was the housing action trust in the borough that he represents. He sought to portray the HAT as an undemocratic and unaccountable body. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that his constituents, the tenants of those estates, were given a choice in a ballot. They chose to leave the local authority and to move to a housing action trust. Some 75 per cent. of them turned out, and 81 per cent. of them voted to move to the housing action trust.
  Against that background, for the hon. Gentleman to say that there is something undemocratic and unaccountable about the decision to move to the housing action trust is to deceive the House. Once the housing action trust was set up, the tenants elected some of their fellows to represent

  1159
  them. The hon. Gentleman said that quangos involved no public accountability or public interest. Having visited one of the estates last week, I tell him that I saw much more interest in what happens to the estates on the part of the people who live there than there would ever have been if they had remained tenants of the local authority.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that if, by any chance, his party was returned to office the tenants who voted to come under a HAT would, against their wishes, be sent back to the London borough of Waltham Forest from which they had voluntarily decided to secede.
  Mr. Gerrard: The Minister knows well that the tenants voted to go for the HAT because that was the only thing that was on offer. It was the only conceivable way in which the work could have been done. If the local authority had been allowed the means to do the work—it was the local authority that developed the schemes and involved the tenants—it would have been far further down the road than it is now. When the HAT finishes, the tenants will, I hope, have the choice of where they go.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Of course the tenants had a choice. They could have voted no, as a number of tenants did when they were given precisely the choice that was given to the tenants of Waltham Forest. The hon. Gentleman's constituents voted for the HAT by a majority more substantial, I suspect, than that by which they voted for him. Against that background, for him to say that the system is undemocratic, unaccountable and run by a quango is to let down his constituents who are deeply committed to the concept of a housing action trust. When they read his speech, will they think that he is really representing their views?
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister said that the tenants in Waltham Forest had voted to leave the local authority and to go for the HAT. Does not he recall the fairly length negotiations that took place before the tenants were prepared to consider the proposition? They insisted that they had the right to return to the local authority after the HAT period, if they so wished. It was only when they were given that undertaking that they were prepared to vote in favour of the HAT.
  Sir George Young: That is indeed the case. However, that in no way demolishes my point. The tenants voluntarily decided to leave a locally elected local authority and to come under a quango. They have that right. Not only does the hon. Member for Walthamstow criticise the Government but he criticises his constituents for exercising their choice. He will regret his comment.
  I have seen estimates from the London Boroughs Association showing that, had the Greater London council continued in being for a further six years, it would have cost Londoners £1.3 billion. That money could be better spent than by continuing the GLC. The hon. Gentleman mentioned cycling. I am deeply committed to cycling. We had the GLC for 20 years, but what did it do for cyclists? More has happened for cyclists since the GLC was abolished than it achieved in 20 years.
  As for a referendum on the GLC, the hon. Gentleman knows how decisions are taken in this country. We said in our 1983 election manifesto that we would abolish the GLC, and we had one of the best results in London that we have ever had. We subsequently introduced the legislation
  1160
  and got it through both Houses. That is now the law and will remain the law until a Government say in their manifesto that they will bring back the GLC.
  At the last general election, restoration of the GLC simply was not an issue in my constituency. I spent a lot of time banging on doors but met few people who said, "I would vote for you and your party, Sir George, if you were committed to bringing back the GLC, but because you are not, I shall vote Labour." The issue simply did not emerge in my constituency or anywhere else.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, West made a touching remark about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said that my right hon. Friend was remembered with curious affection in his constituency. My right hon. Friend is deeply committed to the well-being of London and has a soft spot for Lewisham. He now lives in my constituency and, as chairman of the Cabinet Sub-committee responsible for London, is deeply committed to improving the well-being of Londoners.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow added up all the money that was spent through what he called quangos and suggested that it should be spent through local authorities. I wonder whether the housing associations, for example, would welcome the proposition that, instead of getting funds from the Housing Corporation, they should in future depend on funds from local authorities. I think that the hon. Gentleman would find a lot of resistance to that proposition.
  The main argument against the case put by hon. Members is their own document, the "London Policy Forum". They criticise the Government for quangos when the number of quangos that they would set up is legion: a Greater London authority; a national park to cover the Thames: a police authority; a strategic health authority for Greater London; an independent public arbitration and advocacy service; a national standards body for education; a development agency; a transport authority; an environmental protection agency; a cultural education commission; a cultural education partnership; a human rights commission; an urban design partnership; and a London film commission.
  Opposition Members have a nerve to criticise the Government for having quangos in London when they have recently produced a London Policy Forum, to which the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) gave evidence. Has this document no connection with London Members of Parliament? Is it of no relevance? Will the hon. Gentleman disown it?
  Mr. Raynsford: Yes, I will. It has no relevance to any London Member of Parliament, it is not an approved document, it has not been endorsed by the national executive committee, and it has no basis whatever.
  Sir George Young: That will come as an enormous disappointment to Mr. Terry Ashton, general secretary of the Labour party, who wrote on 16 September to a number of Labour Members:
  "The London Policy Forum is being used as a model for regional policy forums in other parts of the country. With its detailed analysis of the problems and challenges facing London, and its many innovative ideas, I am sure that this document will be of major benefit to Labour's campaign to win over voters in the capital."
  The hon. Gentleman has just implied that Mr. Terry Ashton was totally wrong and that the document is of no benefit whatever to Labour's campaign. All those hon. Members

  1161
  listed at the back, who gave evidence to the London Policy Forum, have now heard from the hon. Gentleman that they laboured totally in vain.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned transport. My constituency now has the benefit of new rolling stock on the Great Western line from Ealing Broadway into Paddington. The Paddington to Heathrow extension is being constructed; and £750 million is being spent on modernising the Central line. It would be wrong to depict transport in London as being represented by the Northern line, which we debated earlier.
  As for housing, a subject in which the hon. Member for Greenwich and I have a shared interest, we published figures a few days ago showing that acceptances for homelessness in London in the past year were 13 per cent. fewer than in 1992—the seventh successive quarter in which the numbers have fallen by comparison with the previous 12 months. The figures are now at their lowest for six years, and there has been a big reduction in the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation too. Only 7 per cent. of all households are in temporary accommodation, down from 10 per cent. in December 1992.
  The Opposition spokesman knows perfectly well that there has been a decline of about two thirds in the number of those sleeping rough in cardboard boxes in the centre of London.
  To bring back the GLC would be a step backwards: back to swarms of bureaucrats in county hall checking and double-guessing what might happen elsewhere in the capital; back to the inefficiency, muddle, profligacy and waste that typified the GLC; and back to high local taxation to pay for it all. That is not our way; we are forward looking, creative and low taxing.
  The crucial fact, which no Opposition Member mentioned, was that London has strong local authorities: the boroughs. That is the key difference between London and the other major capitals of Europe. Our form of strong, unitary local government is not replicated in other capitals. I see no point in bringing back an over-arching structure, as proposed by the Opposition.
  It is much better to find out what London needs, the approach adopted in some of our initiatives, none of which was mentioned by Opposition Members this morning. They did not mention the development corporations, or city challenge, or London pride, or any of the other things that we are doing in London.
  Last November we published "London: Making the Best Better", a document that was unashamedly positive about London, unlike Opposition Members this morning. It covers many aspects of London, ranging from the economy to visitors and shopping. It lists the achievements of local government, the private and voluntary sectors, and the Government. The document has been widely distributed and has been extremely successful. It was also an exercise in listening. It contained a questionnaire inviting those who live and work in London, and visitors to it, to tell us what they appreciate and to make suggestions for possible improvements.
  We were extremely encouraged by the response—10,800 replies by the middle of February. We shall publish a digest of those responses later this month; the House will forgive me if I avoid giving away any secrets today. It was noticeable how much Londoners like this city and how
  1162
  proud they are of it. Of course they have suggestions on how to improve it, but they also see a great deal to be proud of. In the autumn we announced city pride for London, Manchester and Birmingham, an initiative to produce a prospectus setting out a vision for the future of the capital and the practical steps needed to bring that about.
  We have set up a partnership involving local authorities, the ALA, the private sector, and voluntary sector bodies, and they are on course to produce the prospectus by the end of the year.
  We are also on the verge of another exciting development for London, creating a single Government office for London by bringing together officials from my Department, the DTI, the Department of Transport and the Department of Employment in a single office with a single senior regional director. The new office will provide a single point of entry to the government of London and will ensure that Departments' programmes are co-ordinated—a much more user-friendly service.
  City challenge in London has utterly transformed attitudes in some of the capitals most intractably deprived areas. In Deptford, for instance, much has already been achieved. The initiative was greeted with scepticism, but it is now recognised as having broken the mould and changed how we all think about urban regeneration. It has enabled some players to see at first hand the power of competition to maximise resources for the good of those in need. It has created partnerships where there had been a tradition of non-co-operation between sectors. It has brought together participants whose paths otherwise rarely crossed: bankers, industrialists, church leaders, the police, councillors, tenants, educators, voluntary organisations and private individuals.
  As a targeted, measured and time-limited policy, it has asked all partners to be strategic in their approach and to deliver hard, measurable outputs within a fixed term. There is no bottomless pit of funding; it is a five-year programme with £7.5 million of city challenge money per year. The rest is up to the partners to secure, underpin and deliver. That contrasts with the vague, rather uncosted proposals about which we heard this evening.
  The results of city challenge are already impressive by any standards. Seven of the 13 urban priority authorities in London were successful in their bids, working in partnership with local businesses and local people.
  Over the five-year programmes, my Department's investment of some £260 million in the targeted areas will attract more than £450 million from other Government programmes and £800 million from the private sector. As a result, we will preserve 12,000 jobs that might otherwise have been at risk and open up 20,000 new job opportunities. We shall reclaim more than 450 acres of valuable inner city land currently lying derelict or contaminated. We shall improve or build 13,300 homes, help to start 2,600 new business and bring into use 500,000 sq ft of business and commercial floor space.
  City challenge has already created a new impetus to urban regeneration. It has brought together all the stakeholders in urban regeneration to form new partnerships and to work towards achieving visions for key deprived neighbourhoods. The areas include Park Royal in Harlesden, a major industrial subcentre in west London; Stratford in Newham, already benefiting from enhanced transport facilities and likely to become a keen regenerative force; Bethnal Green in Tower Hamlets,

  1163
  which has the largest growing young population in the country; and four other city challenge areas: Dalston, Deptford, Brixton and north Kensington.
  That is not the only example of partnership in London. In east London we have the East London partnership, a highly dynamic private-public sector organisation based in Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham. It has a key role in Stratford city challenge and continues to contribute to strategic thinking in the pivotal area right at the head of the east Thames corridor.
  On the other side of London there is the West London Leadership and the associated Park Royal partnership—powerful sponsors of revitalisation in that key area. Park Royal, part of which is in my constituency, and once a highly prosperous industrial enclave ensconced on the right side of London, has seen decline, but its potential, aided by city challenge, is enormous. The partnership is a key agent in realising that potential to the full.
  In Greenwich, the Waterfront Development partnership has developed a strategy for the future of 7.5 miles of Thames waterside, linking major sites of the Greenwich peninsula, the historic town centre, Woolwich Arsenal and Thamesmead.
  The newest area-based partnership was launched only last week. On 9 March, my right hon. Friend attended a gathering of 200 people at Haringey Technopark to launch the Lea Valley partnership involving six boroughs—Enfield, Haringey, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham—with members from all other key sectors. It covers one of London's oldest industrial areas, tracing a corridor reaching from the M25 to the terminus.
  The partnership has the huge task of promoting the Lea valley and east London—an area with the capacity to develop into London's truly modern industrial zone reclaimed, opened up, greener and fully geared to the technical and commercial trends of the next century. It was clear that all the partners present were committed to that vital task.
  1164
  City challenge, the area-based London partnerships, and the extended objective 2 partnerships for the Lea valley and east London do not end the story. There are other moves afoot in south and outer west London. There are many partners in London. The 33 boroughs, the nine TECs, the four task forces, English Partnerships, local business groups, the voluntary sector and the Faith communities are participants in many groupings. The networking of those groups is one of the most creative aspects of partnership development.
  We have had a substantial debate on transport, so I do not plan to go over that ground again, but I believe that the flexible approach that we have adopted in targeting those parts of London that need help, bringing together the existing players—the private sector, local authorities, the Government and the voluntary sector—is much better than the recreation of a body which I have to say was unloved by Londoners, for which I do not believe there is any substantial demand.
  Londoners had a choice in the 1983 general election. We fought on a manifesto stating that we would abolish the GLC. We had one of the best results ever in London. It was a vote winner on the doorstep in 1983. Successful packages will be driven by local as well as national policy objectives—package bids from local authorities focusing on a balanced approach to reducing congestion, for example, and in improving public transport.
  Partnership is a powerful idea whose time has come. The people of London know what they want. They do not want a son of GLC. They want their great city to remain powerful, prosperous, attractive, convenient to live and work in and a joy to visit. They do not want top-heavy bureaucracy pretending, at vast expense, to provide those things. They want to see things happen; they live here. That is exactly what partnership is about. That is what Conservative borough-led local government is all about.

  South-east Turkey
  1.50 am
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: I asked for this debate because of my concern and that of many Opposition Members about the current political situation in Turkey and the treatment of the Kurdish minority there by the Government forces.
  The Kurds are a people who, since 1926, in the words of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ennals, have been a people of minority in five different sovereign nations, most of which have scant regard for human rights. The human rights record of Syria, Iran and Iraq is well known and publicised, but far less is said about the human rights record of the Government of Turkey. Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe and NATO. One may read something into the fact that less criticism is made of a country that is an ally of the United Kingdom than those that are perceived to be its enemies.
  The situation of the Kurds in other parts of the area has been well documented and seen on our television screens, particularly since the run-up to the Gulf war, and subsequently. The Prime Minister expressed concern about the persecution of the Kurds in Iraq by the brutal oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. At the time of the Gulf war, the Prime Minister called for safe havens for the Kurds in that country, yet the Government appear to have been relatively silent when similar policies of genocide against the Kurds have been practised by the Government of Tansu Ciller.
  I visited north-west Kurdistan and south-east Turkey last October with Lord Avebury, on behalf of the parliamentary human rights group. We visited a number of villages, talked to the local population and interviewed the regional governor. I commend the bravery of the witnesses who gave evidence to us. That evidence is well documented in the publication that has been produced by the parliamentary human rights group. The evidence that Lord Avebury and I collected adds to that which has already been published by Helsinki Watch and Amnesty International, which has been supported by resolutions from the Inter-Parliamentary Union and confirmed by the visit of the representative of His Eminence Cardinal Basil Hume and several members of the other place.
  When I visited south-east Turkey last October, it was one month after the assassination of Mehmet Sincar, the democratic Member of Parliament for Mardin, who was assassinated along with the chairman of the Democracy party for the Batman region. Shortly after that assassination and just prior to our visit, a bomb attack was made on Mr. Sincar's father's house, when Leyla Zana, another Democracy party Member of Parliament, was visiting to offer her condolences. Leyla Zana accompanied the human rights delegation on its recent visit. She is now under arrest by the Turkish Government for having used constitutional means to express Kurdish aspirations.
  On our visit last October, we saw brutal evidence of the destruction and depopulation of villages. I understand that, according to the current estimate, some 900 villages have been destroyed by the Turkish authorities since 1993. The policy of the Turkish Government, in terms of their attacks on the villages, has been well documented, both in our report and by Amnesty International.
  1166
  Let me read the evidence that was given to us by one of the witnesses. Hurshit Diri, a 54-year-old farmer in the village of Kele, near Yuksekova, told us:
  "On October 11 at about 1.30 pm we heard firing and saw a large column of armoured vehicles … entering the village. The troops first searched all the houses, then the mountains outside. The soldiers opened fire on the village, and we believed it was because we had refused to join the village guards. Four people were injured"—
  and, indeed, a young child was killed. The farmer went on to tell us:
  "The army gave us until Thursday to join the military guards, or we would be bombarded. We didn't join and the village was attacked, killing two people."
  Another witness said to us, in Karabag village:
  "On October 11 the military called all residents to the station and told them they had to accept weapons and fight the PKK, or they would be evicted and their houses burned. Tanks are waiting outside the village now. Last night they opened fire and killed some sheep. Yesterday also they went to Dadaba, a next door village, and arrested some residents who refused to join the village guards".
  That is typical of the action of the Turkish authorities. As I have said, I understand that, to date, some 900 villages have been depopulated or destroyed.
  On our visit, we saw evidence that those who have become victims of the Turkish authorities had been refused treatment in hospitals and that doctors had been put under pressure not to treat them. We saw evidence that attacks had been made on the freedom of lawyers and, indeed, that lawyers who had defended those accused of political crimes had been arrested. We saw evidence of mass murder and other killings; we received evidence of extra-judicial executions. We certainly saw evidence of attacks on journalists, and on the newspaper Ozgur Gundem.
  As hon. Members may know, since my return the Turkish authorities have closed down that newspaper—on international human rights day, 10 December 1993, when its front page highlighted the violation of human rights in Turkey. Several of the journalists working for the paper have been murdered; others have been arrested and tortured, and the lawyers defending them have been intimidated and arrested.
  The pretext for the arrests was that the lawyers were acting as couriers for the Workers party of Kurdistan; the reality is that lawyers defending political prisoners were targeted by the Turkish authorities. Those arrests of lawyers in Turkey violate the basic principle that lawyers are entitled to defend their clients without interference from the state.
  Earlier, I mentioned that a number of Democracy party Members of Parliament had been arrested. A few weeks ago, in answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister suggested that the Kurdish people of Turkey were entitled to pursue their Kurdish aspirations, but must do so through constitutional means. Eight Members of the Turkish Parliament who have been pursuing their aspirations through democratic and constitutional means now find themselves under arrest. Yesterday, I understand, the Turkish state prosecutor filed a case with the state security court, under article 125 of the Turkish penal code, which carries a maximum death penalty. What crime have those people committed? They have asserted the rights of the Kurdish people, as a people.
  Turkey is a member of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and an adherent to the declaration of Copenhagen. My understanding is that that declaration asserts the rights of minorities

  1167
  "freely to express, preserve and develop their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity and to maintain and develop their culture in all aspects, free of any attempts at assimilation against their will."
  Turkey is clearly in breach of its commitments under the Copenhagen declaration of the CSCE. There is a responsibility on all the other participating states to protect those rights and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do that with force within the CSCE.
  The Kurds who have been denied statehood are a distinctive people with their own history, language and culture. The Kurds in Turkey played a significant role in the establishment of the Turkish Republic in exchange for promised equal rights and local self rule. Once the republic was founded, their language, their culture and their political organisations were banned. We have seen a regime of oppression on the part of the Turkish Government that has been matched only by the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in his brutal oppression of the Kurdish minority there.
  I believe that this country has specific responsibilities to take some action. Apart from the fact that we had some responsibility for the delineation of the boundaries in that area at the beginning of the century, Germany, the United States and Britain are supplying Turkey with the military means to wage the conflict against the Kurdish people.
  Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe. Presumably, it is therefore bound by the human rights conventions of the Council of Europe. As I said earlier, it is also a member of the CSCE. I believe that this country has a responsibility to ensure that Turkey fulfils its rights under the Geneva conventions. Not only does Turkey have a responsibility to carry out its duties under the Geneva conventions, but there is a responsibility on all the high contracting parties to the Geneva conventions to "ensure respect" for their terms. I believe that that places a responsibility on Her Majesty's Government to ensure that Turkey adheres to the conventions. I urge the Minister to argue with his colleagues in the Council of Europe to submit an inter-state application against Turkey under article 24 of the European convention on human rights.
  The problem is inherent in the Turkish constitution. The constitution effectively denies the rights of any minority. A person who asserts the rights of a minority in Turkey is in contradiction of the constitution. Article 125 of the penal code states that the penalty for even arguing for independence, devolution or a degree of self-government for the Kurdish people is death. As I said earlier, eight democratically elected members of the Turkish Parliament, elected through constitutional means to carry out Kurdish aspirations, find themselves facing the prospect of the death penalty.
  Lest what I say sounds extreme, I shall quote the chief prosecutor of the republic. In one of his statements in a case against the Democracy party, the chief prosecutor's assessment is:
  "The Democracy party claims that there is a distinct Kurdish nation and a Kurdish question in Turkey. It demands a political solution which can be found in a democratic context in which Kurdish identity is recognised with all its implications, and freedom of thought and organisation are recognised."
  He goes on to say:
  "This question is determined by the Lucerne agreement. There is a single nation in Turkey, the Turkish nation. Our citizens with Kurdish origin constitute the national unity by fusing with other ethnic groups and this unity forms the Turkish nation. By calls for
  1168
  a solution implying that there is a distinct nation, people or minority is aimed at dividing the nation. Only Greeks, Armenians, Jews and Bulgarians are minorities in Turkey."
  The Turks' insistence that the Kurds do not exist is enshrined in the Turkish constitution, which is not only undemocratic but contravenes the articles on human rights, to which Turkey is an adherent.
  The killing, the destruction of villages and the depopulation go on unabated. The abuse of human rights in Turkey is no different from that in Iran or Iraq. If the Government can call for safe havens and for sanctions against Iraq for its brutal oppression and murder of the Kurdish people, why are they not doing the same when those actions are carried out by the Government of Turkey?
  2.5 am
  Ms Joyce Quin: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) has had the opportunity to raise this matter. I wish that he had been even more fortunate in the ballot and had been able to raise the matter at a time when it would have attracted wider attention. The issue is important and it increasingly concerns British people.
  My hon. Friend's concern and his knowledge of the matter is well known. He is well briefed, particularly following his visit to the area last year with the noble Lord Avebury, as a result of which a report was written that has been influential in informing people in Westminster and beyond of the situation in south-east Turkey. A good debate was held in the other place last November, in which many took part.
  I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the specific points that my hon. Friend made. The situation of the Kurds in Iraq enjoyed considerable publicity and became the focus of widespread international concern, but that of the Kurdish minority in Turkey has been less well reported, although the extent of repression is alarming.
  Although I have nothing like the experience of my hon. Friend, in the past two months I have met representatives of the Kurdish minority in Turkey, who, I understand, held discussions with Foreign Office officials. As a result of what I heard, I felt that, if only half of what I had been told were true, it was still enough to make me deeply alarmed about what was happening and the repression that seems to have taken place. A huge number of innocent people certainly seem to have been caught up in a drastic situation.
  There have been reports of terrorist activities perpetrated by the PKK, which were referred to in the debate in the other place. We must remember that the vast majority of the Kurdish population in Turkey are entirely innocent of any acts of violence, yet they are, on a great scale, the victims of state violence.
  Labour strongly believes that if Turkey is to claim to be part of the democratic group of nations and a civilised country, it must give proper respect to minority rights. A range of policies must be introduced, such as allowing the Kurdish minority proper freedom of expression and freedom to organise and express their views in the country. Such forms of expression seem to be denied at the moment, as evidenced by the lack of a free press and free media in general. That form of repression needs to be considered alongside the instances of extreme brutality to which my hon. Friend referred when he mentioned the destruction of

  1169
  hundreds of villages and the expulsion of villagers from their homes. Many of the villagers were abandoned in freezing conditions, with no shelter.
  The accounts of torture detailed in the report by Amnesty International make very frightening reading. They mention brutality against thousands of people and many instances of arrest and torture. How does the Minister respond to the specific recommendations in the report, with which I am sure that he is familiar? If he agrees with them, how does he propose to pursue them with his counterparts in international organisations, such as the European Union, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations?
  There have been reports in several newspapers about the Government's role and their attitude towards the Turkish Government. Indeed, the Government seem to be portrayed as one of Turkey's friends within the European Union, together with the German Government. To what extent does the Minister accept the reports, especially that which appeared in the Financial Times in February, as accurate portrayals of Government policy? It would be interesting if he were able to elucidate the Government's view.
  We believe that Turkey cannot make any progress towards full membership of the European Union unless there is a complete sea change in its attitude to human rights. The plight of the Kurds will be the real test of the Turkish Government's willingness to adopt more civilised behaviour and respect for human rights.
  In the past, Turkey's geographical position has given it a pivotal role, especially in the cold war era when it was regarded as an important part of NATO. It is less pivotal these days, although it is still important strategically for access to the middle east and the Balkans. Nevertheless, even though we need friends in strategic positions, we cannot have friends who do not behave in a civilised manner or respect human rights. There will be even more widespread alarm for the Kurds in Turkey unless Turkey mends its ways very soon and very dramatically.
  For those reasons, and in view of all the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, I hope that the Minister will respond with care to the debate.
  2.13 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): There is no doubt that this is a serious issue, and I make no criticism of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) for raising it at just before 2 am. I am bound to say that it is a very odd procedure whereby such important issues are discussed at this time, but the hon. Gentleman is making use of the facilities available to him and that is a perfectly right thing to do.
  This is also a perfectly sensible matter to debate. I shall not enter into a debate of the ordinary type, because I have learnt from long experience that those who try to do so at 2.13 am are asking for trouble. I shall not, therefore, respond to all the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin)—I mean no discourtesy to them, but I have a feeling that that would not be wise thing to do. I have a text that I propose to read.
  1170
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich on raising this issue. It is a difficult matter for the Turkish Government, and one that is followed with considerable interest and some concern in the United Kingdom and other western countries. The late President of Turkey was arguably right to describe it as going beyond the simple dimensions of terrorism and as perhaps the most significant problem in the history of the republic. It is good that this problem is now being increasingly and openly discussed in Turkey.
  About half of Turkey's 12 million Kurds live in the south-east. That is one of the poorer areas of the country. Since 1984, the Marxist-Leninist Kurdistan Workers party—the PKK—has been fighting a terrorist campaign for an independent, autonomous Kurdistan, and there is a state of emergency. The escalating conflict between the PKK and the Turkish security forces has seen thousands of deaths since the troubles began. PKK tactics include attacks on Turkish military and Government installations, ambushes of security patrols, brutal attacks on villages believed to be pro-Government and the murder of teachers and electoral officials in the area.
  As hon. Members will know, the PKK has also attacked tourist targets in western and south-western Turkey, seeking to undermine the income going into that country, which the people of the south-east need as much as anybody in terms of investment. In addition, it has kidnapped foreign tourists in south-eastern Turkey, and PKK supporters have carried out fire-bombings of Turkish properties in London and other European cities.
  There are, in addition, in the south-east in particular, unexplained killings of many civilians, including local politicians and journalists, and detainees have been tortured in police cells. That is why there is widespread international concern about the Kurdish problem in Turkey.
  It is, of course, for the Turkish Government to decide how to resolve their problems in the south-east. We unreservedly condemn terrorism. We understand and sympathise with the difficulties faced by the Turkish Government in the south-east. We support their efforts to remove the PKK terrorist threat. But they must do so in conformity with the norms of governmental behaviour, which they have accepted in subscribing to various international conventions. The clear evidence of human rights abuses by both sides is cause for justifiable concern by the international community. A Government must, above all, act with full respect for human rights, even in facing an opponent that shows no such respect.
  Mr. Austin-Walker: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I am afraid not.
  It is important that all societies fully respect human rights. Turkey has signed the European convention on human rights. We have urged Turkey to ratify the two main United Nations covenants—the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.
  Foreign Office Ministers and senior officials continue to stress these points when they meet their Turkish colleagues. Other western countries do the same. In Ankara, at the end of January, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Turkish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister that terrorism has to be tackled within the rule of law and with full respect for

  1171
  human rights. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made the same point, in London, to the Turkish Minister for human rights.
  Britain and other European countries have also pressed for remedial action in international forums. At the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe human dimension implementation review meeting in Warsaw last September, the Turkish Government were criticised for the actions of their security forces against civilians in the south-east, their failure to investigate properly the murders of pro-Kurdish activists, including journalists and politicians, restrictions on the freedom of speech and systematic torture. The United Kingdom, on behalf of the European Community, delivered the statement on freedom of expression and free media. We cited Turkey as one of the participating states whose performance in that respect gave cause for concern. Our statement referred to the harassment of journalists, the murder of 16 journalists since February 1992 and the banning of journals and publications.
  Her Majesty's Government are aware that, on several occasions, the International Committee of the Red Cross has requested access to Turkish prisons, in co-operation with the Turkish authorities. Regrettably, the Turkish response has so far been a negative one. Following the recent statement about that matter by the European Union at the human rights conference in Geneva, I urge the Turkish Government to engage in talks with the ICRC about ICRC access to prisons in Turkey.
  The Turkish Government have made efforts to improve matters. We recognise that a new law passed over a year ago improves human rights provisions under domestic law. But the task remains to ensure that Turkish police abide by that code and that the fight against terrorism is conducted within the framework of proper respect for domestic and international human rights obligations. Moreover, officials who commit abuses must be, and be seen to be, brought to book.
  The United Kingdom, along with our European partners, is concerned about the lifting of the parliamentary immunity of deputies from the pro-Kurdish Democracy party earlier this month. Our ambassador in Ankara made our concerns plain to the Turkish Government, stressing that such action was very damaging for Turkey's international image. Other European ambassadors in Ankara have done the same. We await the decision of the constitutional court on the appeal by the deputies before considering further action with the Turkish Government.
  1172
  The debate has underlined the difficulty of any moderate Kurdish view being expressed in Turkey. That is because, under the existing constitution, such expression is considered to be advancing separatist opinion and as such, even if non-violent, is a criminal offence. We believe strongly that the people of Turkey, including elected representatives, should be able to give non-violent expression to their beliefs even when they do not agree—as clearly they will not—with some members of the Turkish Government. That is the meaning of democracy.
  We have seen promises from the Turkish Government on reforms aimed at greater democracy. They have undertaken to reform the constitution and certain terms that restrict freedom of expression. I believe that the House would urge the Turkish Government to make early progress to achieve all that, because if the moderate Kurdish view is allowed to be expressed peaceably in Turkey, the terrorists of the PKK will be isolated, and that is what will protect the civilians more than anything else.
  I have listened carefully to the various concerns expressed during this timely debate. Once again, the hon. Member for Woolwich has given us the opportunity to discuss the matter. The debate will also serve to remind the Turkish authorities of the entirely legitimate concerns in the United Kingdom and other western countries about human rights in Turkey. It is appalling that large numbers of innocent civilians find themselves caught up in the conflict—often threatened by the PKK on one side and by the actions of the security forces on the other.
  As I have said, and as we in the United Kingdom well know, dealing with ruthless terrorists is far from easy. But police and security forces engaged in the conflict must not sink to the level of their opponents. They must stand above them, and they must abide by the international standards of human rights.
  We must also make it clear that moderate Kurdish views should be allowed to find expression within Turkey. That would strengthen the hand of the Turkish Government in dealing with ruthless terrorists. A functioning democracy cuts the ground from under them.
  We continue to hope that the problem in south-east Turkey will be solved through peaceful and democratic means. That will bring lasting peace to the region, help to deliver the region's economic prosperity and encourage the Kurdish people of the south-east to feel that they are fully a part of a democratic Turkish state.

  Local Government
  2.21 am
  Mr. David Shaw: Local government in this country is operating on a scale probably never envisaged when it first took on its present structure, and when the legislation that determined that structure was brought into being. It now costs about £80 billion in capital and revenue terms each year. That is an enormous sum, and the council tax that we all pay covers only about 10 per cent. of that £80 billion. The Government and business pay 90 per cent. of it.
  If we include teachers, there are about 2 million employees of local councils throughout the United Kingdom—that is, nearly 50 per cent. of all workers in the public sector. That is a vast number of employees, and the total cost is considerable. It is therefore important that we should always try to raise standards in local authorities, as we should try to do everywhere in the public sector. It is important that value for money be set as an objective, and strong efforts be made to achieve it. We must always strive for the utmost efficiency, the highest levels of effectiveness and the highest attainable quality of service from our local authorities.
  Sadly, that is not always the case. In recent years we have seen much abuse involving the way in which local authorities are run. The fact has recently been published that the debt of many Labour councils now exceeds that of many third world countries, and the 13 Labour councils with the largest debts all have debts of more than £500 million.
  Manchester tops the list with a debt of £1,326 million. Then there is Birmingham, with a debt of £1,233 million, Islington, with £946 million, Lambeth, with £878 million, Southwark, with £856 million, Liverpool, with £765 million, Hackney, with £757 million, Camden, with £743 million, Leeds, with £737 million, Sheffield, with £730 million, Haringey, with £549 million, and Newham, with £547 million. Lewisham, 13th in the list, has a debt of £506 million.
  Many people will wonder who is to repay this debt. Many people will also wonder whether they will be told the truth in the coming council elections. Will they really know who they are voting for? Are these figures widely available? Are they understood by the electorate? Does the electorate even know about them? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind that the figures ought to be publicised in the national interest so that taxpayers and council tax payers throughout the country can see which councils have the largest debt and be made aware of the figures that I have mentioned.
  The cost of servicing the debt ought to be recognised and understood more widely. Not only are there Labour councils in the top 13 councils for debt but also those top 13 Labour councils must raise some £600 million a year in taxation just to pay the interest charges on the debt. It is a phenomenal amount of money, equivalent to nearly 10 per cent. of the total council tax raised.
  What emerges from all this is that Conservative councils have a much better record. In many cases, they are role models for the rest to follow. In my own constituency we had a Conservative council for many years, and although at present a Lib-Lab pact rules the council, it is worth looking at what a number of years of Conservative rule have brought to Dover. Dover has a debt of only £34
  1174
  million after many years of Conservative control. It manages, with just 500 employees, to provide an excellent service to its residents. It has also had a report just published by the audit service that is one of the best that I have ever seen.
  The housing department in Dover—a particular interest of mine and one that I shall return to later—earned the following accolade from the auditor:
  "My review of the council's housing strategy was based on a national study by the Audit Commission which identified a number of good practices against which authorities could be compared. We found that the council in Dover is performing well in many respects and has adopted a variety of methods for addressing housing needs."
  The report went on to say:
  "The process for allocating council houses via the waiting list works well."
  The housing department received a well-earned credit from the audit service. Judging from the correspondence that I have about housing matters in Dover, it does very well indeed.
  The community charge benefit system and the housing benefit system operated by the finance department in Dover also earned plus points in the audit report, which said:
  "Our review showed that the council had already introduced many of the elements of good practice identified by the Audit Commission."
  The report went on to say that
  "the council's workload has increased by some 9 per cent. in the three years to 1992–93, while at the same time the number of staff employed in the benefits section has decreased. As a result, the workload per person is above the Kent average and the cost of the council's service compares favourably with other Kent authorities."
  By definition, it must compare favourably with that of other authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Dover's senior officers have been on performance-related pay, something that the Government have encouraged, for some six years. The staff of Dover district council have been on performance-related pay for some three years. They are performing and delivering a better service for my constituents. Dover district council is a well-run Conservative council.
  Another council that earns the accolade of being a well-run Conservative council is Redbridge. I was impressed by the speed with which Redbridge council noted that I had a debate today on local government and immediately sent me a fax with some statistics about how efficient it is. There is no doubt that Redbridge council must come high on the list of successful Conservative councils. I was impressed with the facts and the details that it sent me.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has kindly come along to reply to the debate, will be delighted by what he, I hope, saw in the Evening Standard last night—or should I say tonight? Brent council, formerly under Labour control, has announced its council tax for the next year. It has announced that for the fourth year in a row it will reduce its council tax. That is what Conservative councils mean—four years of reducing the council tax below the level set by Labour. That is a major achievement and a great improvement.
  We compare that news with the sad news yesterday from Islington council. It is £878 million in debt and the child care division of its social services department has collapsed. In the newspaper tonight we discovered that there had been 14 years of failure and neglect in the child care division of the social services department. We also discovered that the council attempted to hide the report that

  1175
  would have disclosed the problem. The council is £878 million in debt and it still cannot finance, structure and make work a proper social services department.
  Lewisham council is of particular interest in Dover at present because the leader of the council was brought down to Dover by the Labour group to teach Dover Labour party how to run a council. Lewisham council is not a good example, and we in Dover certainly do not want to have what goes on in Lewisham down in Dover. I understand that Lewisham council attempted to ban Christmas. It did not consult the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. It just decided that a Christmas party was the wrong sort of party because it identified with religion, so it changed the name to a winter party. Lewisham council has also failed to collect £25 million in rent, rate and council tax arrears. That is an appalling state of affairs. We in Dover certainly do not want Lewisham to teach us anything.
  In Tameside the position is even worse. The council has set up a company to look after the elderly. The company did not so much look after the elderly as look after Labour party supporters. A number of shares in that company are apparently owned by the local Labour party through the nominee of its chairman. That is an appalling state of affairs and a scandal in which much money has been lost. The BBC has carried out an in-depth investigation and discovered much wrongdoing. Local newspapers have written articles of many column inches identifying corruption, fraud and wasteful expenditure.
  Another council also identifies badly from Labour's point of view. ft is Monklands council, where the Leader of the Opposition has his base. It has a debt of more than £130 million. It has more than 1,400 employees. It is one of the most inefficient, nepotistic and corrupt councils in the country. It has the sixth highest council tax in Scotland. The audit report by its auditor is completely the opposite to the one I have just read out about Dover. The Monklands audit report, just released, announces that the council is operating at the limits of its financial capacity. The evidence of wrongdoing in Monklands does not come from Conservative politicians—apart from the fact that I have got hold of many papers and have started to bring Monklands council into the public arena.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: As someone who was born in Monklands and has a record in local government, I understand the audit reports very well. Would the hon. Gentleman like to alter his statement in the light of the fact that the auditor said that Monklands council had not been at all compromised in its report? No qualification was entered by the auditor in this year's, or any other year's, audit report.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman's comments on the audit report that has been issued may change as he listens to what I have to say. He may change his view when he hears about the police who are currently investigating something that happened only a week after the audit report was concluded. He may change his view when he hears about some of the fraud and fiddles that I shall identify in the remainder of my speech.
  I want to give some of the evidence and quote Catherine Miller, the branch secretary of the Holehills and Raywards branch of the Labour party. In 1992 she said:
  "This branch … unreservedly condemns the nature of Cllr Brooks's highly personalised and derogatory statements, believing these are grossly insulting to the four councillors and deliberately designed to divert attention away from the main
  1176
  issues that have been raised."
  The four councillors to whom she referred are four Labour councillors who have attempted to identify and expose the corruption and wrongdoing. Councillor Brooks is the Labour leader of the council that the Leader of the Opposition has supported for a position on a local health board at a salary of £5,000 a year. Fortunately, the Government had the good sense not to appoint Councillor Brooks.
  An anonymous spokesman for the Plains and Caldercruix branch of the Labour party wrote to the local newspaper, saying:
  "In addition to other branches within the local Labour Party, Plains and Caldercruix also calls for a full, detailed investigation by the National Executive into the way in which the 'inner circle' of the Labour Group run the affairs of this local authority."
  Such entrenchment of power in so few hands is bad for local democracy. It also called upon the national executive of the Labour party to investigate fully the present dictatorial set up of council committees and subcommittees. A democratisation process is called for so that the council fully represents the entire electorate. There are real worries in the local Labour party in Monklands about the democracy, or lack of it, that exists there.
  Mr. P. Drummond, the branch secretary of Gartlea branch of the Labour party, wrote that
  "Councillor Brady"—
  a Labour rebel councilor—
  "as far as we are concerned can hold his head up. He has no relatives employed by the council, has never sought to get friends into such posts, does not use crude language in public pronouncements, is a relatively low claimant of expenses and an infrequent attender at available buffets and junkets."
  It seems that that is a model by which some people in the Labour party locally measure the other people in the Labour party, and many people in the Labour party do not fit that model.
  James Turner, branch secretary of the Rochsoles and Glenmavis branch in Airdrie, wrote:
  "If left as it is, this situation will only deteriorate. The subject of 'Democracy à la Monklands' is surely questionable at best: divisions in the Labour Party here grow even wider."
  Labour councillors are also concerned. Councillor Murphy, a regional councillor for Coatbridge, North and Glenboig, and a shop steward in the National Union of Public Employees, stated:
  "I have got good proof about jobs not being advertised … employees who are members of the Labour Party have been given temporary promotion and the jobs 'get lost in the system."'
  Councillor Morgan, a Labour councillor, said:
  "I know of cases where candidates have been selected for jobs without even the bare minimum qualifications required."
  That was reported in The Herald of Glasgow on 21 May 1993.
  The Labour party was so worried that it was forced to hold an inquiry into the way in which the council was operated. Unfortunately, that inquiry has ended up as a cover-up. The Leader of the Opposition has never answered questions about it, even though it led to the suspension of his constituency Labour party. Nevertheless, the Scottish Labour party had to admit in its report:
  "Involvement of Councillors in the appointment procedures … was a practice which has left the Labour Group open to criticism."
  That is fairly mild language, but it is fairly serious when one realises what has gone on in that council.
  Public records are also now established about the wrongdoing. A recent ombudsman's report recorded maladministration. I give as an example the ombudsman's report in August 1993, on the son of Councillor Gilson

  1177
  —Councillor Gilson being a leading Monklands councilor—being allowed to buy his council house when neighbours in similar houses were not allowed to buy theirs. The ombudsman said:
  "My investigation of how this application was processed has been hampered because the authority have been unable to provide my investigating officer with information which might have revealed the reasons for the apparent inconsistency."
  Earlier we heard about Islington council trying to keep secret a report on child care. Now we find that Monklands council managed to keep secret the way in which Councillor Gilson's son bought his council house for himself whereas other residents could not buy theirs.
  The decision-making process on Monklands council is determined by who controls the local Labour party. In Monklands, control rests firmly with the small group known as the local Labour mafia. In Monklands, East, the Leader of the Opposition's constituency, the Labour party is bankrupt and in debt to the tune of £2,500. It is devoid of active members. Only about 100 people are active in the local Labour party.
  Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have put up with this drivel for so long. Has this peroration on some local Labour party branch or constituency any relevance to the debate that the hon. Member is supposed to be speaking to?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Member chose local government as a subject and what he is saying is clearly connected with local government.
  Mr. Shaw: I am trying to show the way in which it is possible to control a local council with only 100 people in the local Labour party.
  Mr. Connarty: I respect the Deputy Speaker's position, but I wonder whether a debate about a constituency Labour party which has absolutely no relevance to local government law in Scotland has any relevance.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall listen further.
  Mr. Shaw: The local Labour party has but 100 people effectively working in it.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: Tell us about the power.
  Mr. Shaw: The power is controlled, as I was coming on to say, by a small trade union vote, which largely consists of council employees active in the trade unions. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Shaw: Those council employees attend the local party meetings, where they elect into power people who then become councillors.
  Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Shaw: I have just used the word "councillors".
  Mr. Connarty: I think it is relevant, because I have been on a course on that subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a district Labour party which is responsible for controlling any policy matter relating to a district council
  1178
  in Scotland does not consist of members of a constituency Labour party. The hon. Gentleman is speaking about a constituency Labour party and who attended a constituency Labour party general committee. It has been ruled already in law that it is not a relevant matter on a district council. He was speaking about local government.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for an intervention rather than a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Shaw: I am only too happy for the hon. Gentleman either to intervene in my speech or, if he so wishes, to make his own speech afterwards. If he wants to attempt to alter or amend anything that I have said, I am sure that the House and the world will be very grateful. If he would have a word with the leader of his party and ask him to make a statement to the press correcting anything that I have said about Monklands, I am sure that the press and the world would be grateful if the Leader of the Opposition were to make a statement.
  Mr. McMaster: Has not the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland has powers to investigate Monklands district council? To date, the Secretary of State has chosen not to use those powers.
  Mr. Shaw: The Secretary of State for Scotland has challenged the Leader of the Opposition to produce the internal Labour documents for the inquiry that I have just mentioned. The fact is that John Smith will not produce the papers.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that in this House we do not refer to hon. Members by name.
  Mr. Shaw: I apologise, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I meant to say that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) had not produced the background papers for the Labour party report.
  Mr. McMaster: Has not the Minister with responsibility for Scottish local government, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), appeared on BBC television's excellent "Scottish Lobby" programme and said that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has nothing to answer?
  Mr. Shaw: I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister. I have heard no suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition has nothing to answer. I have frequently heard my hon. Friend say that he believes that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East should stop being silent and behaving like a Trappist monk, and that he should make a statement about what is going on in his own constituency. I have heard that said at the Dispatch Box and more widely.
  The Monklands, East Labour party is in a very bad state. It is controlled by no more than about 100 people. There is a heavy trade union vote.
  Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is supposed to be talking about local government. In fact, he is talking about Monklands, East constituency Labour party. It is clearly established that constituency Labour parties, under the local government law of Scotland, of which I have some knowledge, have nothing to do with district Labour parties or district councils.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must understand that that is a matter on which he may wish to intervene. It is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Shaw: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  As I have tried to say on a number of occasions—I wish to repeat the point—I am concerned about how the councillors become councillors. How do they remain as councillors? How do they get access to the council gravy train? The fact is that they get access to the council gravy train in Monklands by getting control of the local Labour party. They get control of the local Labour party because it is bankrupt and in debt to the tune of £2,500, and it has only about 100 members. As a result, it is quite easy to get control of a council with a turnover of £80 million simply by paying the subscriptions for about 100 members of the local Labour party in Monklands.
  Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you clarify this point? Did you hear the hon. Member for Dover accuse the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East of paying for Labour party membership subscriptions in his constituency to ensure that he was the Member of Parliament for that constituency?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: No, I did not hear that.
  Mr. Shaw: That was not what I said at all. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) is clearly trying to distort the facts. All I said was that it was possible to control the whole of Monklands district council and some £80 million of council expenditure by paying for the subscriptions for 100 people. I did not say who was paying for the subscriptions for the 100 people. I leave it to the public to work that out.
  Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shaw: I have given way very generously. I have also had to cope with many points of order, which hon. Gentlemen have raised to try to stop the flow of my speech.
  On employment practices in Monklands, 40 close relatives of councillors have been appointed at secret meetings of the council. That has been achieved by a chairman, the convenor of the manpower services committee, or his representative, attending every interview for a job on the council. That practice has existed since the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) started it in the 1970s when he was the council's provost.
  The House has also heard of the green and pink forms used by Monk lands district council to ensure that councillors and their friends could distribute the green forms while the pink forms were left for the rest of the unemployed in Monklands. Consequently, many councillors' relatives and senior local Labour party members have jobs on the council.
  Mr. McMaster: Will the hon. Gentleman answer two specific questions? First, despite what he said earlier., did not the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) appear in the excellent "Scottish Lobby" programme about five or six weeks ago and say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East had nothing to answer? Secondly, in the past year the hon. Gentleman has asked several questions about Monklands, which I accept is his right as an hon. Member. How many questions has he asked in the past year about his own constituency of Dover, and how many has he asked about Monklands?
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must realise that Dover has assisted area status as a result of my efforts. It has much more going for it than Monklands, and Dover council is much more efficient. My constituents are extremely worried about the cost that they are paying for Labour-controlled councils like Monklands, where the Labour party is seriously abusing expenditure.
  Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shaw: No. I wish to make some headway now.
  There has been a tremendous abuse of employment practices in Monklands. They have been purloined for the benefit of councillors and their families. A case has even been reported recently in which Councillor Fitzpatrick chaired an appeal committee of the council against an unfair dismissal involving three employees in which he upheld the dismissal. Having dismissed the three employees, he arranged for his brother-in-law to fill one of the jobs. The only problem was that the three men were later found to have been unfairly dismissed.
  When the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East wrote to the council saying that that seemed to be wrong practice and unfair, he was told to go jump. The council was not interested in his views. The councillors in Monklands district council are more powerful than the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shaw: Not for the moment.
  The other concern about employment practices which I want to bring to the attention of the House is that some 16 senior district Labour party members are employed by the council: Joe Barrett has family members employed. Celia Conwell, Des O'Neill, Joy Scott, Jay Brown, Matt Costello, Andy Burns, Stephen Fagan and Martin Dempsey are all senior Labour party officials employed by the council. According to the local newspaper, those do not include other Labour party members, whose numbers in some council departments are understood to be high. The Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser said on 25 September 1992:
  "Two members of the District Labour party executive were among those promoted into highly-paid jobs in the Housing department.
  Others also include the election agent of a high-ranking Labour councillor, who also received a housing promotion, and the son of another senior member.
  A council spokesman admitted the posts had not been advertised or interviews conducted … a leading Labour party member said, `Monklands has become the Tammany hall of Scotland."'
  This week's edition of the paper has discovered that a district Labour party member, Alex Brown, a deputy house maintenance manager—why a deputy is needed I do not know; when I was on Kingston council 20 years ago we abolished deputy posts, but there seems to be a plethora of them in Monklands—and his four sons are all employed by the council. There is more too: a daughter-in-law, a brother-in-law and possibly one more family member. It is believed that at least seven members of the family are employed by the council. They enjoy the knowledge that the senior member of the family is also a senior member of the party.
  Let us examine the planning process in Monklands and how the council operates its planning policies. Is the agenda under the control of the councillors, or under the control of a small clique of them? There have been breaches of local plans. In 1981 Monklands district council

  1181
  passed a local plan, but when Councillor Brooks, the leader of the council, wanted planning permission, the Labour group gave him it, even though it breached seven of the—
  Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Labour group on a Scottish council gave a member of that council planning permission for a development. Under Scottish law, planning permission is a quasi-judicial function and Labour groups are not allowed to participate in group decisions on planning permission. Is the hon. Gentleman allowed to say such things in the Chamber.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. An hon. Member might want to refute the point in a speech, but it is not one for the Chair.
  Mr. Connarty: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just said that it was not a point of order.
  Mr. Connarty: On a point of order of my own, then. The Chair in this Chamber is supposed to protect the rights of the citizens of this country. Surely such defamation should not be allowed in the name of this Chamber?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Members of this House have certain privileges that enable them to make statements. The only proviso is that we expect them to advance their views with circumspection and with due regard to the fact that they enjoy these privileges. The privileges exist nevertheless.
  Mr. Shaw: The fact remains that seven of Monklands' planning policies were breached. That is not a point of contention; it is admitted by everyone. Councillor Brooks correctly declared his interest at the official council meeting when the breach was effected, but I understand that the vote was taken at a Labour group meeting before the council meeting at which it was agreed to back Councillor Brooks' development. He received that backing even though the director of planning was not in agreement, and even though seven policies under the local plan were breached: policies H15, IND16, IND17, IND20, IND21, COM2(2), COM13 and COM15. But the leader of the council got his planning permission anyway, and he implemented it.
  Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the year 1981 and made the scurrilous accusation that there was a breach of planning policy. As I recall, the director of planning in Monklands district council that year was Mr. Andrew Cowe, who later became the managing director of Renfrew district council. He still holds that post and is a former leader of Renfrew district council. I worked closely with him and hold him in the highest regard. Is the hon. Gentleman making any specific allegation against Mr. Andrew Cowe?
  Mr. Shaw: I understand that that particular planning officer left Monklands and went to Renfrew district council because of his disgust at the fact that the local plan in Monklands had been breached.
  Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the person whose name is being called
  1182
  into question very well indeed on a professional level. Mr. Andrew Cowe chose to leave Monklands district council because he sought promotion to a larger council—Renfrew district council. That was a scurrilous remark against an individual who cannot defend himself here.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must make clear to hon. Members the difference between disagreements and points of order. Of course the hon. Member may disagree strongly. I hope that he will have the opportunity to speak later, but that is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. McMaster: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that it is not a point of order.
  Mr. Shaw: I have made it clear I am not in any way criticising the gentleman who has just been named. He did very well to make it clear that he was not in agreement with what the Labour party was doing in Monklands district council. He did not like what the Labour party was up to and he went on record saying that the way in which the Labour party was operating in Monklands district council was totally corrupt and wrong. He did it in the most obvious way possible, yet still they voted through the planning permission that breached seven areas of the local plan to give considerable financial benefit to the leader of the council.
  Many people may well ask who gets the planning permission that counts in Monklands. I have already spoken of the leader of the council who got his planning permission for Dundyvan road. He built some flats, some offices and a nursing home. He took a Scottish Development Agency loan of £45,000 and got the agency to write it off, without repaying the loan. His company still owns the land and the building despite the fact that it went into liquidation, the creditors were not paid and the taxpayer lost some £45,000.
  More significant is the planning permission that S. L. Homes Ltd. has managed to achieve. The company's last filed accounts in 1991 showed assets of £7 million and liabilities of nearly £7 million. The company was in financial difficulties, and it is supported by Scottish Legal Life Assurance, a company that has many policyholders and investors. The company had appointed directors to the board of S. L. Homes Ltd., but did the assurance company's directors know about the loan of £35,000?
  Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has raised the discussions of constituency Labour parties. Unfortunately, he does not realise that they have nothing at all to do with district Labour parties or councils in Scotland. Now he is talking about a company—not a local authority but a company in the house building business.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that is a point of order for the Chair. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will relate his remarks to local government.
  Mr. Shaw: I am about to talk about how a company got planning permission in the Monklands district council area.
  Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise this

  1183
  matter. Will you confirm that your ruling on my previous intervention correctly made it clear that, although Conservative Members have the right to say what they say, that does not necessarily mean it is true?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair, happily, has no responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise of hon. Members' points made in speeches. My only concern is whether matters are points of order for the Chair.. I have tried to make a distinction between those that are and those that are not. Of course, all hon. Members are free, through an intervention or their speech, to refute matters that are put forward by other hon. Members.
  Mr. Shaw: If the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) have any doubts about the truth of this, I commend to them the information from Scottish Companies House, which shows clearly that S. L. Homes Ltd. lent £35,000 to a family company owned and controlled by the leader of Monk lands district council. It lent money in exchange for planning permissions given by Monklands district council. The fact is that the council leader, through his family, is connected to Commercial and Industrial Maintenance Ltd. S. L. Homes Ltd. has received planning permissions in connection with two property developments in the Monklands area. S. L. Homes Ltd. is owned and controlled by Mr. Brian Dempsey, the son of the former Labour Member of Parliament for Monklands, West, who is currently trying to get control of Glasgow Celtic football club.
  Mr. McMaster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shaw: I give way to the hon. Member for Paisley, South.
  Mr. McMaster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he is a little behind the times. Mr. Brian Dempsey and Mr. Fergus McCann now have control of Glasgow Celtic football club.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman may not have checked the corporate returns correctly. Mr. Dempsey has not joined the board of directors and does not exercise control from that point of view, perhaps because he is concerned about the fact that five directors of his company all resigned on 23 December last year, according to information that I have today and that has just been filed at Companies House. Those five directors were appointed by Scottish Legal Life Assurance. Clearly, there is real concern that they had a conflict between their interest in looking after the interests of depositors in Scottish Legal Life Assurance and their interests as directors of S. L. Homes Ltd., a company lending £35,000 to a company owned and controlled by the family of the council leader of Monklands district council.
  Mr. Connarty: Obviously, once again the hon. Gentleman is not up to date with what is going on. I understand that the company that was owned by Mr. Brian Dempsey was bought by a major construction company for more than £20 million. The company to which he refers is now in the hands of yet another company, which might explain why a relationship between Scottish Legal Life Assurance and Mr. Dempsey's company may no longer exist.
  1184
  It might be advisable for the hon. Gentleman to step outside the Chamber if he wishes to make accusations against someone whom I know to be a very honourable member of the building profession and who is highly respected in Scotland, not just for his interest in a football team but for the profitable work that he has done for many people in the building industry. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps get back to the drivel that he was talking a few minutes ago.
  Mr. Shaw: If the hon. Gentleman is correct, he is admitting on behalf of Mr. Dempsey that the returns at Companies House are false and fraudulent. He should, therefore, be careful about what he is admitting on behalf of Mr. Dempsey, with whom I believe he has no personal financial connection. If the hon. Gentleman is declaring an interest, financial or otherwise, with Mr. Dempsey, I should be interested in hearing the interest that he wishes to disclose.
  Mr. Connarty: Let me make it quite plain. I have no financial interest or any other interest in the business of Mr. Brian Dempsey. In fact, I have even less interest in the football team in which he has an interest than most hon. Members in Scotland. I have no connection at all. I am suggesting to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to throw mud at limited targets—because of the political process, the limited targets that he has chosen at the moment have little redress—he should be willing to step outside the House when he talks about someone who is respected in the business community in Scotland. As the gentleman's father was a Member of the House—James Dempsey was my Member of Parliament for a number of years and is a very honourable man—the hon. Gentleman should really restrain himself in the vilification in which he participates in the House. It does not do him any credit. If he steps outside the House, it may do him a great financial disservice.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman seems to be keen to defend Mr. Dempsey. Perhaps he would like to explain why, when Mr. Dempsey was on the board of directors of S. L. Homes—he is still recorded at Companies House as being on the board of directors—the company, having obtained planning permissions in the Monklands area, then paid the leader of the district council's family company £35,000. Why did Mr. Dempsey authorise that payment? There is no mud, and no distortion; it is on record at Companies House in Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman can look it up for himself in the records of Commercial and Industrial Maintenance Ltd.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Get on with it.
  Mr. Shaw: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am trying to get on with it, but there have been a good many interruptions from his colleagues, which he could stop if he wanted to.
  Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not. He and I have discussed fraud in other debates, and have listened to each other's speeches with great interest. This is a matter of fact.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow a conversation between the hon. Member who has the Floor and another hon. Member sitting on the Front Bench—or anywhere else, for that matter.
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he had debated questions of fraud. Is he now accusing Mr. Brian Dempsey and any member of Monklands district council of fraud?
  Mr. Shaw: Certainly I should like an answer to my question. I think that many people will take different views on how family members come to be employed by the council, how people who pay their subscription to the Labour party get jobs on the council, how planning permissions are obtained on the council and how money changes hands around the time planning permissions are granted. People are going to ask, "How has this happened? Why do all these transactions seem to coincide, involving jobs, money and membership of the Labour party? How is it that money has gone from S. L. Homes to a company owned by the family of the leader of Monklands district council at the same time as the granting of planning permissions to the property development company?" The position is less than satisfactory.
  Mr. McMaster: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am no more here to defend the integrity of Brian Dempsey—although I think he has a lot of integrity—than he is here to defend that of Pamella Bordes, or some Daily Star photographer who was badly beaten up outside his house. Let me ask him a question, however, when will he stop misrepresenting Monklands, and start.
  Mr. Shaw: That shows the desperate lengths to which Labour will go to cover up the matter. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am taking facts straight from Companies House, and that I have researched the information. As I said earlier, it comes from Labour's own statements; even its own report contained a mild criticism of Monklands district council. The hon. Gentleman is becoming very desperate. He is getting things out of proportion.
  The losses in four council companies in Monklands—the Quadrant shopping centre, MDC Windows, the Time Capsule (Monklands) Ltd. and Summerlee Heritage Trust—amount to £6 million in three years. We are all paying for those losses; every man, woman and child in the country is paying for them, through taxation. Mysteriously, several of those companies have managed to win tenders from the council. It has been suggested to me that that is because the tenders from competing companies are always opened in advance, and the council companies are told what to bid. It is strange that loss-making companies always manage to win tenders in Monklands when they are controlled by the council.
  Earlier I paid tribute to Dover district council's housing department. I should now like to deal with some of the problems in Monklands district council's housing department so that a proper contrast can be drawn between a good council and a bad council. Monklands is a very bad council.
  Labour's policy in Monklands has been against council house sales, except where those sales are to councillors and their families. The council policy has been extended to allow sales to councillor's sons as well. Mrs. Willamina Wylie, a 63-year-old widow, was not allowed to buy her council home at 36 Newlands street. However, Councillor
  1186
  Gilson's son at 28 Newlands street was allowed to buy his home. Two other council tenants in Newlands street were refused. The council could not explain the position to the ombudsman and, for that reason alone, Monklands district council was found guilty of maladministration in its housing department.
  When Martin Dempsey, a Labour party member, ex-councillor and now a council employee—the Labour party looks after its ex-councillors in Monklands—needed a council house, he was put ahead of 300 homeless people. He beat Mr. Lenny Miles and his fiancee who had been waiting for a council house for four years. Of course, Mr. Lenny Miles and his fiancee are not paid up members of the Labour party, so they have to go to the back of the queue when Mr. Martin Dempsey is involved.
  Other abuses of the housing department are numerous. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that an independent housing department is essential if the housing is to be managed fairly between all applicants and repairs are to be carried out fairly, without preference to individual tenants. Transfers can be abused to the extent that councillors and their families receive preferential treatment unless there is proper independence.
  Additionally, decisions about which homes are improved can be made fairly and properly only in an independently run operation. Much council money is spent on housing repairs and improvements. Decisions about the allocation of that money mean that considerable power can be exercised over the lives of ordinary people. Allegations of preferential treatment for councillors and their families are commonplace in Monklands.
  Factors that give rise to a lack of independence in housing decision-making in Monklands include the fact that the wife of the director of housing is employed in the council's Time Capsule leisure centre. It compromises his independence and he must ask whether he can make independent decisions when his wife's employment is controlled by councillors who can cause him personal financial loss if he does not go along with the decisions that they want him to make.
  The provost of the council, Councillor Gilson, is a former convenor of the housing committee. He has a daughter working in the housing department. The convenor of the general purposes committee, Councillor Fitzpatrick, has a wife who is a senior housing officer and a nephew who is a rent officer. The convenor of the housing committee, Councillor Betty Leitch, is also compromised by the fact that she has a daughter employed in the library service. All that has led to a number of problems involving housing decision-making.
  Some years ago, Councillor Gilson moved from his council-owned property in Henderson street, which is regarded as a fairly poor area, to a better council house in upmarket Blairpark ward, which is not the ward that he represents. He proceeded to buy that house using his full discount for the years in his previous house. There is a feeling locally that the move was arranged by Labour councillors in order to provide him with a virtual gift of a comparatively upmarket house. Councillor Gilson bought his home at a time when he publicly supported Labour party policy against the sale of council houses.
  Councillor Smith obtained a council tenancy amid much controversy last year in an upmarket area, which is not the ward that he represents. I have mentioned Martin Dempsey, the ex-councillor who managed to get a council house. Councillor Cairns has managed to get a house that

  1187
  was bought by the local regional council. Also, Christopher Barrett, the son of ex-councillor, Joe Barrett, now a local Labour party treasurer, who unfortunately had to resign as a councillor because of a little problem connected with a fiddle involving his expenses, obtained his grandfather' s council house at 15 Dunothar avenue. No one locally ever saw Christopher Barrett sleep a night in that house, yet the grandson's name suddenly appeared on the electoral register and he suddenly became eligible for a tenancy in a house with which he had no connection other than the fact that his grandfather lived there. Meanwhile, many homeless people in Monklands were denied council houses.
  I now move on to the finance department, where a £1,000 cheque made out to a local builder recently went missing. It was discovered two months later to have been paid into the leader of the council's personal bank account, despite the fact that it was made payable to a local builder. The finance department altered the records of the council to pretend that the cheque was a payment to the council leader for his expenses. It did not tell the auditor, who discovered it only when a Scottish Television programme identified that this had happened last year. The council had kept this secret to itself.
  Mr. Connarty: I am sure that with his deep knowledge of Scottish local government, from the perspective of Dover, the hon. Gentleman will realise that any misappropriation of funds or expenditure outwith the financial remits of the council would bring a qualification by the auditor on the council's accounts. I read its accounts because the hon. Member has given us such a reason to be interested in Scotland, but I could find no such qualification. In fact, I found a clear statement that there was no qualification on the accounts of Monklands district council. Can he explain why that should be so, as he appears to be accusing the finance department of losing a cheque for £1,000, misappropriating it and putting in a different account under a different title?
  Mr. Shaw: I am not responsible for the district auditor's report, but the leader of the council does not deny that the cheque was made out to a local builder. Nor does he deny that it ended up in his bank account and that he had signed it on the back and endorsed it. If the district auditor did not feel that he had to refer to that in his report, that is a matter for him, but it does not say much for audit standards if the auditor felt that he could not refer to the fact that the council's finance department had altered its records to make that cheque, made payable to a local builder, an advance on expenses.
  The law and administration department has recently had a problem—after the audit date to which the hon. Member for Falkirk, East referred. A taxi licensing fraud has been discovered; some £45,000 is estimated to have gone astray. The police are investigating; an employee has resigned.
  I shall conclude by saying that the standards of local government in many areas of the country are quite high—in areas under Conservative administration and control. In Monklands, the country is being let down. Matters are serious and are getting worse in Monklands. Serious matters are being brought to people's attention week in and week out in Monklands. The fact is that there is nepotism, corruption and wrongdoing in Monklands. That has been
  1188
  established in the local newspapers and accepted widely, yet we still have silence from the Leader of the Opposition. We still hear nothing from him.
  3.23 am
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on being selected to propose a motion on the subject of local government. The nation is fortunate that the debate has taken place so early in the morning and that so few people have had to endure the rantings and sheer nonsense that purport to be his speech.
  Perhaps one should look into the individual psyche of the hon. Member to find out why he has not used the debate to raise important issues of concern to his constituents. We have heard about Redbridge, Islington, Lewisham and even Tameside but there was no mention of Pineham ward and the events of 25 November 1993 which, I am sure, are etched on the hon. Gentleman's heart.
  This is no ordinary man; this is a man obsessed, a man in need of help. Monklands has become a means by which the hon. Gentleman obtains self-gratification. There is another word for it but I understand from the Clerks that it is unparliamentary so I shall not use it. I can only repeat the advice given to him by his mother many years ago: if he keeps going on about it, there is a real danger that he will go blind.
  It is time that Tory scaremongering and petty politicking was blown open. The Conservative party and the hon. Gentleman are attempting to use diversionary scare tactics to cover their sordid footsteps but it will not work. Where there is so much as an insinuation of incorrectness in local authorities, we as a party insist that it is investigated, not behind closed doors with Members of Parliament manoeuvring and interfering in due process but out in the open where public scrutiny ensures that it is properly dealt with.
  However, in a recent interview, the hon. Member for Dover revealed the Conservative party's true view of how local authorities should be run—not democratically by councillors but by certain Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Dover, interfering. He told the Local Government Chronicle:
  "MPs have to be tough. If there are any suspicions about a councillor and his actions, whatever party he may belong to, then that party has to question whether he should be readopted."
  The report continues:
  "Mr. Shaw said he had taken such action in his constituency."
  In the light of the comments of the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups on Dover council, Councillor Sansum wrote to the hon. Gentleman asking him to clarify which councillors he had removed in his democratic selection process.
  There was a great deal of correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and Councillor Sansum, ending with a letter dated 8 July 1993 and signed by the hon. Gentleman. I have a copy of it and I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman of its contents. He wrote:
  "I am far too busy on constituency matters to worry about the press being 100 per cent. correct."
  That is his view on accuracy and the way in which he is quoted.
  Mr. McMaster: The admission of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) that he is too busy to worry about

  1189
  whether the press is 100 per cent. correct is similar to the comment that I believe he made to a female photographer of the Daily Star at about the same time.
  Mr. Vaz: That may be so, but I do not know whether it has anything to do with local government. I am, however, grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out.
  The hon. Member for Dover is not so keen to intervene when his constituents face ruin and hardship because of the closure of mines. Labour follows the law, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has twice written to the Secretary of State for Scotland stating that, if there is any evidence of impropriety, an investigation must be instigated. That has not happened. Allegations should be made through the channels of evidence and proof, not in behind-the-hand whispers.
  I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier today when the Prime Minister said:
  "If the hon. Gentleman has any firm charges to make, perhaps he should make them other than by innuendo and under privilege of the House."
  They are not my words, but those of the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Dover has the guts to go outside and make the allegations that he has made tonight.
  Over the past year, the Labour party has continued to grow at local level. We are now the largest single party in local government with 9,129 councillors compared to the Conservatives' 7,846 and the Liberal Democrats' 4,088. To the lists of councils that we control we now add Derby city council. I wish the new Labour authority there all success.
  The reason for our success in local government is simple and irrefutable. It is that people have seen that Labour councils offer the best services at the most reasonable rates. Labour is proud of its achievements in local government. There is a plethora of examples of excellence in local government. For example, Labour leaders such as Teresa Stewart in Birmingham, Grahame Stringer in Manchester, Phil Homer in The Wrekin, Margaret Moran in Lewisham, Jeremy Beecham in Newcastle, Brian Flood in North Tyneside, John Ingham in Plymouth, John Taylor in Nottingham and many more continue to struggle to provide the best services possible under a Conservative regime that has made Britain the most centralised country in Europe.
  The Government have set themselves the task of destroying local authorities and, with them, the democracy that has acted to restrain the corruption with which the hon. Member for Dover is so infatuated. Since 1979 the Conservatives have introduced 155 separate Acts of Parliament interfering with and undermining local government. Not one of those Acts has improved, or really attempted to improve, local democracy. Local individuals are now more remote from the decision-making process than at any time in living memory. People's taxes are no longer spent locally to improve conditions and services. Instead, they are directly controlled by Westminster, where absurd equations are used to calculate what percentage of money raised locally may be spent locally.
  The Government have adopted a cynical chain of blame, which ensures that local authorities are held responsible for decisions that are made by Ministers and their henchmen. If ever it seems that Ministers are to be held responsible for
  1190
  their despicable decisions the truth is quickly shielded or the blame passed on more quickly than bad news. The three local government Ministers—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is here tonight—adopt the "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" stance when the blame comes round, or use the Prime Minister's favourite phrase, "It's not a matter for me."
  The Conservative party has presided over the destruction of all that British democracy had to be proud of—the destruction of open and democratic government, once seen as a tenet central to Conservative ideals. Lord Salisbury, one of the Conservative party's greatest leaders, praised and respected local government and insisted on increasing the powers of local authorities. As he said in 1885—119 years ago—at a rally in Newport:
  "Large reforms in our local government are necessary and in the direction of increasing powers to local government. You must provide local government with sufficient power and add to this power by diminishing the excessive and exaggerated powers which have been heaped upon central authorities in London."
  The Government are guided by self-interest and they fear open, just and democratic local government. They should return to Salisbury's ideals, and not the questionable basics to which some Ministers have been happy to return.
  Yesterday, during Department of the Environment questions, we had yet another example of a Conservative Minister changing his tune to suit the situation. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, in reply to a question on the council tax, went into a long and—may I say?—flawed explanation as to why it is incorrect to use average council tax rates to compare different councils. Three questions later the same Minister was merrily comparing authorities, using—yes—average council tax rates. The confusion is understandable because, no matter how the Conservatives have tried to hide it and Ministers have tried to wriggle, as the Prime Minister did earlier today, the fact remains that, in the financial year 1994–95, average council tax bills per household will be £40 lower in Labour areas than in Conservative areas and £26 lower than in Liberal Democrat areas—and this at a time when Conservative-led authorities are receiving massive funding, poured into them at the cost of the most needy.
  Wandsworth council receives 11.6 per cent. of the non-needs-related grant for the whole of Britain, even though its population constitutes only 0.5 per cent. of England's. If, however, the Conservatives wish to talk about tax, should not we scrutinise their record nationally? Before the last election the Conservatives, in their do-anything, say-anything panic to win power, promised that there would be no new taxes and that they would cut taxes year on year.
  Mr. McMaster: I realise that I am asking my hon. Friend a question that it may be difficult for him to answer, but can he imagine why the hon. Member for Dover is the only Member to record in the Register of Members' Interests the fact that his companies are "dormant"? Is there any tax advantage in doing that?
  Mr. Vaz: I do not know, but I am sure that we shall be down at Companies house tomorrow checking the records, as the hon. Member for Dover spends more time there than he appears to spend in the Chamber—or in Dover.
  The Government's promises were made not on a wet night in Dudley, but at every press conference and public

  1191
  meeting that the Conservatives held before the general election. Now, less than two years later, we are faced with tax increases and new taxes. Most people—those earning less than £60,000 a year—are now paying more than they were when Denis Healey was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and promised to tax the rich until the pips squeaked. Under the Conservative Government, not only have the pips squeaked, but the juice has run dry.
  The revenue has been wilfully squandered on toadying up to Conservative supporters and attempting to cover up the economic bankruptcy and failure of Conservative dogma. Under Conservative party rule not only have people had to endure spiralling tax, uncontrollable unemployment rates, mounting crime, decaying infrastructure and a breakdown in social standards, but the means of correcting those unacceptable changes have been placed beyond the reach of the people most affected.
  The growth in influence of that much-loved Tory master, the quango, has reached the stage where quangos' budgets rival those of local authorities. If they continue to increase in influence, it is calculated that by 1996 quangos will control £54 billion of public money—almost a quarter of all Government expenditure.
  The most worrying aspect of that development is that quangos can spend their money as they please, with no checks whatever, whereas the way in which local authorities run by democratically elected councillors allocate their budgets is under the direct control of the Conservative party—most notably through the draconian capping legislation so adored in Marsham street. Quite rightly, if a councillor is found to have committed fraud or wasted council money, he or she will be surcharged, or will be subject to criminal proceedings. Yet when questions are asked, members of quango boards are carefully and gracefully allowed to retire from their positions with a golden handshake and a gong.
  Quangos are not only undemocratic and unprincipled but inefficient. For every £60 lost by central Government and quangos in fraud, mismanagement and waste, only £1 is lost by local government. The Property Services Agency lost £65.6 million, and Wessex health authority wasted £20 million on a computer that did not work. West Midlands health authority squandered £10 million on botched privatisation; the chairman resigned and was given a golden handshake.
  If those standards were repeated in local authorities, there would rightly be public outcry, and the events would have to be fully investigated. The hon. Member for Dover would no doubt have booked his air ticket or rail ticket just to have a look at the area, like a grand inquisitor. But with the quangos everything is done to conceal the true situation of the Tory placemen and placewomen.
  Mr. McMaster: One of the other allowances that Members of Parliament are fortunate enough to obtain—it is absolutely legitimate—is an office costs allowance. We all try to spend that to our satisfaction. At one time the hon. Member for Dover derived great satisfaction from his office costs allowance.
  Mr. Vaz: I am grateful for that information from my hon. Friend.
  Probably because the successes are Labour run, the hon. Member for Dover is insistent that we concentrate not on
  1192
  the successes of local councils in continuing to provide efficient services to local people, but on alleged impropriety.
  There are a few home truths that the Conservative party has tried to keep hidden from scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Conservative Brent. Brent has the worst record on arrears. It is also difficult to know who is in control of Brent on any given day. Councillor Blackman's Tory group, if one may call it a group, splits amoeba-like every few months. Tory councillors move resolutions on a range of bizarre subjects, including female circumcision. What a shambles. Nationally the Government have failed to collect £1.7 billion of tax owed for 1992–93. The eight highest council rent chargers in London are Conservative, with the local authority of the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction having the worst record. Westminster and Wandsworth combined owe £552 million. The three London boroughs with the largest debt per head are all Conservative.
  In contrast, Labour councils not only have lower council taxes but have won national awards for efficiency and quality of service at a greater rate than those controlled by any other party. That is the true result of Labour control. Which councils did the Secretary of State choose to launch City Pride? Manchester and Birmingham, two excellent Labour councils. It must also be realised that where Labour authorities have got themselves into financial difficulties it is because they have tried to provide for local people and invest in their future, not cynically squander resources in attempts to influence the political balance of a borough.
  Local government needs to be supported, not ridiculed. There is a new breed of civic entrepreneur who, if given the opportunity, can lead the country forward bravely into the next millennium. Such people have to be free to do so, free from the shackles of central Government and openly responsible and accountable to their electorate. I have seen for myself the abundant talent in local government during the progress of the City 2020 inquiry, of which I am chair, as it has travelled the length and breadth of the country. Unless we return to a time when local government provided a tool of municipal pride, we will continue to see our cities and society dragged down through the mire of corruption and dirty dealing.
  This is not a private vision held by the Labour party. It is echoed by the private sector over and over again, most recently by the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, when he demanded on Monday that central Government allow councils greater flexibility over their own functions, particularly through greater control of their own money.
  Local government, through democratic and accountable control, is the most efficient means of providing services for local people. Local councils need to be freed from central Government intervention so that once again people receive what they want and need most efficiently instead of suffering the present system which provides only for Conservative supporters on the boards of various unrepresentative bodies.
  As the hon, Member for Dover mentioned the debt of Labour councils, I shall end by pointing out to him and to the House that the Government have borrowed twice as much in a single financial year as the net total that Labour councils have borrowed over 60 years. The Government's public sector borrowing requirement for this year alone is £49.8 billion. The total external debt of all Labour local councils, built up over decades, is £22.7 billion. The

  1193
  Government's borrowing for 1993–94 is more than communist China's over 50 years—China's external debt at the end of 1992 was £45.8 billion. Westminster and Wandsworth each have a bigger debt than Mongolia. Conservative Croydon has a bigger debt than the Seychelles.
  Those are debts that are currently owed. We need no lectures on debt from the Conservative party, and we expect to receive none. It is time the Government understood that local government needs to be able to carry out its functions in the best way it can. It is time that a real civic vision was realised.
  3.43 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am responsible for local government in England, and it is perhaps not surprising that at this time of the night the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) had to have recourse to that sort of knockabout speech. Local government is, of course, very important. I would certainly be prepared to make a prediction here and now at the Dispatch Box that after the local government elections in May there will be more Conservative councillors in England and fewer Labour councillors. The hon. Gentleman knows that people in the Labour party are worried that it will lose control of councils such as Birmingham, Kirklees and others. One of the reasons why it will lose is that people know that Conservative councils cost less.
  Let me try to help the hon. Member for Leicester, East with his problem on averages. It is simple. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) wishes to pretend that the way to assess council tax payments fairly is by an average council tax. But, of course, no one pays an average council tax. People pay a particular band. If one compares band A with band A and band B with band B, Conservative councils cost less.
  Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baldry: No, let me explain this to the hon. Gentleman. If one takes the average of Conservative councils at band A and the average of Labour councils at band A across the country, Conservative councils cost £99 less than Labour councils at band A. If one takes each and every separate band, Conservative councils cost less. People understand and appreciate that. They can see it in their own council tax bill. They can compare it with neighbouring authorities. They are not stupid. They appreciate that to take an average of the totality of the housing stock of an area is to produce a statistically meaningless figure. The hon. Gentleman knows that, too.
  Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister saying that the Conservative party and the Government have never compared the average figures?
  Mr. Baldry: I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman that the only average is the average of all the Conservative band A council taxes compared with the average of all Labour band A council taxes. Whatever band one chooses to take, band for band—
  Mr. McMaster: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has been up and down like a yo-yo all evening. He has ants in his pants.
  Of the 10 highest council taxes announced, seven are from Labour authorities and none has been set by a Conservative council. Of the 10 lowest council taxes announced, none has been set by a Labour council. Let us take the highest 10 councils taxes at band C, although one could take any band. The highest is Liverpool, where two different factions of the Labour party are busily disputing who should run Liverpool.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East thought that the Labour party might gain seats in Manchester. I should be surprised at that, as Manchester Labour group has set the second highest council tax in the country at £691 for band C. Newcastle upon Tyne, Coventry, Langbaurgh, Salford, Bristol, Cleethorpes, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, all Labour controlled, are in the top 10.
  When one looks at the lowest 10 council taxes, one sees not one Labour name among them.
  Mr. McMaster: Does the Minister accept that we need no lessons in arithmetic from him? Did he not come to a European Standing Committee yesterday morning which eight Conservatives and seven Opposition Members had the right to attend and yet he managed to lose? Is that some sort of record?
  Mr. Baldry: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman can add up to 15. If that is the best that the Labour party can do, even at 3.48 in the morning, it may well explain why I am perfectly content to rest with my prediction that after the local government elections there will be more Conservative councillors in England and fewer Labour councillors.
  Mr. Connarty: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baldry: No, I will not give way again as I have very little time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover raised some sensible issues about local authority debt. Again, there is no way in which the Opposition can disguise the fact that Birmingham—the largest local authority in the country—has a debt higher than that of Albania. It took 40 years of communist rule to achieve that debt in Albania—[Interruption.]—but it has taken only 10 years of Conservative control in Birmingham.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that repeated seated interventions are not helpful, particularly when they make it difficult for the Chair to hear the remarks of the hon. Member who has the Floor.
  Mr. Vaz rose—
  Mr. Baldry: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as I have given way before.
  What the people of Birmingham understand, and why I am perfectly confident that Labour will lose control of Birmingham in May, is that the amount that Birmingham city council collects by way of council tax is sufficient to pay only the interest on the council's outstanding debt. The amount that council taxpayers pay in Birmingham merely pays the interest on the outstanding debt of that local authority. People in Birmingham understand and appreciate that, and that fact will be reflected in the May elections. I have absolutely no doubt that we shall win seats and take control in Birmingham in May.

  1195
  Much of the debate has been about local authority corruption, which must be a matter for the auditors of the local authority involved. That is why in England we have a system involving the district auditor, the Audit Commission and the local government ombudsman. Local authorities are independent corporate organisations with powers and duties set out in statute—
  In accordance with Mr. Speaker's Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 191—the debate was concluded.

  World Bank
  3.51 am
  Mr. John Denham: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the World bank, even in the middle of the night. I hope that the debate will be about how the World bank and its operations can be improved. I hope that we will consider how improved accountability to this Parliament and to Parliaments and peoples in other northern countries can play a role in improving the World bank's effectiveness.
  I want to outline why the role of the World bank in the world today is so important, much more important than the time spent discussing it in the House would suggest. I want to show why the United Kingdom is important to the operation of the World bank and why what that bank does is of direct importance to the UK, in terms of its development policy, our foreign policy and our international economic policy. I shall argue that the secrecy, and the lack of openness and scrutiny that characterise the UK's involvement in the World bank, must be challenged.
  I am not speaking against the existence of the World bank, but we must recognise that the background to the debate is one of growing demands and criticisms from popular organisations in the south and many of their allies in the north about the bank's role. Increasingly, popular and representative organisations in the south say that they have suffered too much at the hands of that institution, from failed projects that have harmed them, not helped the poorest and left them with unpayable debts. They have suffered too much from structural adjustment programmes that have failed to deliver what was promised and, in many cases, left the poorest people worse off than they were before. They have suffered too much from the bank's promotion of micro and macro-economic policies which do not take into account the problems of poor people in poor countries.
  It is not surprising that, around the world, increasing numbers of people are arguing that we would all be better off without the World bank. That is not the best starting point for the debate. The world needs a mechanism for transferring capital from richer countries to poorer ones. There is a need beyond bilateral assistance for a multilateral organisation that is able to raise, organise and co-ordinate the transfer of funds from the north to the south, whether in the form of aid loans, highly concessional loans through the International Development Association of the World bank or in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, through raising funds from money markets at low margins that would not be available from developing countries. That function needs to be carried out in the global economy. There is also a case for an agency that can pool and bring together the best knowledge of the best development practice and propagate that knowledge. In other words, if no institution similar to the World bank existed, many people, including many of its fiercest critics, would be calling for something like it to be established. The problem is not the idea of the World bank but the way in which it fulfils its role, and its freedom from adequate scrutiny and adequate accountability for its activities. The question is not whether we need the bank but how it can be changed.
  I hope to outline some of the major concerns about the activities and the role of the World bank, but I would say

  1197
  at this point that it is central to my belief that the bank cannot be successful in its role unless it is an open, transparent, intellectually honest and accountable institution. Today, although some improvements have been made, it still lacks those characteristics. Above all, the bank should be open, transparent, honest and accountable to the people, the civil organisations and the Governments of borrowing countries.
  Although much of what I shall say will be about the accountability of the World bank to this Parliament in a northern country, the major impact of the World bank's activities is in the developing countries, which are borrowing countries, and a much bigger—indeed, more important in many ways—debate would be about the way in which the bank's operations in developing countries should be held genuinely accountable to the peoples and Governments of those countries. I want to put that point on the record.
  I believe, however, that a significant part in changing the bank can be achieved by improving its accountability to northern Governments, which in effect control the voting power of the bank. Although the bank has more than 100 member countries, a relatively small number of northern countries hold the vast majority of the shares in the World bank and, therefore, the vast majority of the voting power. I believe that improving accountability of the bank to its member Governments, and of those Governments to their Parliaments, could play an important role in improving the effectiveness of the bank and its operation.
  The United Kingdom has an especially significant role in the World bank. It is the fifth largest shareholder in the World bank group and, as such, is one of only five countries entitled to appoint its own executive director of the bank representing that country alone, rather than, as is the normal practice for the vast majority of member Governments of the World bank, having an executive director who is required to represent a large and sometimes bizarre coalition of member Governments. So this country is still one of the most significant players in the World bank group. The scrutiny of the role played by the United Kingdom in the World bank group is therefore of special importance.
  Our role is also important financially and should be of concern to taxpayers in this country. Christian Aid calculates that about 10 per cent. of aid spending in this country goes to the World bank group. Contributions to the International Development Association, the soft loan arm of the World bank, totalled £1.6 billion between 1982 and 1991. Since then, a further increase in payments into the IDA has been agreed by the House. That is a very substantial contribution to the IDA.
  Over a similar 10-year period, another £120 million was paid by this country into the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the main market-lending window of the World bank. The total capital committed by this country to the IBRD is $3.67 billion, of which more than $110 million has been paid in. A further $30 million has been paid into the International Finance Corporation and we have committed about $50 million to the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. That is a heavy financial commitment by this country to the operations of the World bank group. One striking point is
  1198
  that the scrutiny of the use of that money and of whether it is being used to achieve the aims and objectives set by the Overseas Development Administration is very poor.
  Before touching on the main concerns about the activities of the World bank, I shall set out the outlines of my argument that the accountability of our Government's role in the World bank to this Parliament is far too weak. Both in practice and in theory, the accountability to this House of the British Government's role in the World bank is strictly limited. We do not know, for example, how the United Kingdom executive director in the World bank votes. It is true—we are always told this—that often there are no votes among executive directors, but there are votes on occasion. On only one occasion have the Government ever revealed the position taken in a vote by the UK executive director. That is utterly unjustifiable. Certainly after the event, there would appear to be no reason not to disclose the position taken by the UK executive director.
  As votes are a relatively rare occurrence in the World bank, we also need to know what positions are taken by the UK executive director on individual projects, on individual structural adjustment loans or in the major debates that take place within the World bank about development strategy and about the role of the bank. We have little information in the House about the role played by the UK executive director.
  It is almost impossible to find out when, if ever, the United Kingdom, takes a policy initiative within the World bank. There is rarely an announcement that the United Kingdom would like this or that change in policy within the World bank group, and there is rarely an evaluation of whether our Government have been successful in achieving such a change of policy. That is another sector in which we should have information.
  There have been major reports, to which I shall refer in due course, which have highlighted failures of the management of the bank and failures of the practice of the bank—failures to appraise, evaluate and implement projects effectively. We know from the press that there are major internal debates within the bank about how to address those shortcomings. The House has no information about any initiatives taken by the executive director or the British Government to address those shortcomings.
  Members of Parliament have no access to the key internal discussion documents in which the debates take place. We do not have those documents, even though they are freely available to any citizen of other Governments within the World bank who have executive directors. The ludicrous position in which I have found myself several times in the past year is that I have been unable to obtain a document by tabling a question for the Minister, yet I have been able to obtain the same document by ringing up a two-man non-governmental organisation based in Washington which will send it to me by return post. There can be no justification for obstructing Members of Parliament trying to follow an interest.
  Scrutiny of our financial contributions to the World bank is highly limited, despite the fact that nearly £2 billion has been paid out of our aid budget to the World bank group in recent years. The National Audit Office has hardly looked at the effectiveness of the money that we contribute to the World bank group or whether it is achieving the objectives of the British aid programme.

  1199
  In a letter that I received on 16 March 1993, Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General, referred to a number of sujects of interest to the National Audit Office, but said that any examination would be
  "to the extent, of course, that our examination of Overseas Development Administration projects allows."
  The mechanisms for scrutinising where our money goes and how effectively it is used are extremely limited and circumscribed to the areas of operation where the Overseas Development Administration is directly involved.
  The scrutiny of the World bank group by the Select Committee system has also been extremely limited. No Select Committee has ever made a comprehensive assessment of the bank's performance or the United Kingdom's role within the World bank group. Clearly. that is fundamentally a matter for the House rather than the Government, but if the Government were open, forthcoming and encouraging in promoting scrutiny of the World bank, the Select Committees would have taken a greater interest.
  Weaknesses in the structural relationship between the Government and administration here and the United Kingdom's executive director's office in Washington also hamper scrutiny. Replying to a written question asking what plans he had to improve the World bank's accountability to national Parliaments, the Minister said:
  "The World bank and the IMF are accountable to their shareholders, including the United Kingdom. The Government are accountable to Parliament for payments made to these institutions. These arrangements work and we therefore have no current plans to change them."—[Official Report, 17 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 384.]
  I question whether the arrangements do work and whether the line of accountability is as clear and straightforward as suggested.
  There is a difficulty about the position of the executive director. It is not created by the Government exclusively but arises from the constitutional position of the bank's executive directors. As a letter from the noble Baroness Chalker to me last year pointed out:
  "Executive directors … perform a dual function: as an official of the Bank, and as a representative of the countries which appointed or elected them. Directors are expected to act in the best interests of the Bank and its members as a whole, while reflecting the views of the country they represent."
  As one of the British non-governmental organisations said, that dual responsibility—partly a member of the bank's staff and partly a Government representative—does not make for clear lines of responsibility and decision making. On many occasions in recent years, it has been unclear whether the UK executive director has felt that he is primarily a staff member of the World bank with loyalty to the staff and operations of the bank or a representative of the Government within the bank.
  The mechanisms of accountability are very poor. Christian Aid has sent me a briefing on this subject. It says:
  "In practice in decisions on funding for the World Bank and the resulting financial subscriptions to the United Kingdom the line of accountability set out by the Minister does not work. The United Kingdom is represented at such discussions by the executive director, who makes his decisions without recourse to the UK Government. On such occasions there needs to be clarification of the executive director's accountability to Parliament and exactly whose interests he represents—the Government's or the Bank's. In addition, the absence of any provision by the Government for meaningful parliamentary debate on the United Kingdom's contribution to the World bank and for regular reviews of the work of such institutions ensure that Parliament is unable to hold the Government truly accountable for any funding decisions taken."
  1200
  There are also weaknesses in the evaluation of the work of the bank. Only two types of World bank decision are ever investigated in detail by the United Kingdom Government, through the Overseas Development Administration. These are, routinely, when the ODA is itself to be directly involved in the evaluation of co-financed projects and of structural adjustment loans. There are also occasions, not routinely made public, when the UK executive director seeks guidance from the ODA on a project or loan. However, with the vast majority of loans approved by the bank, the executive director relies entirely on the assessments of the bank staff. We should seriously question whether that reliance is satisfactory, given the bank staff's poor record over the years in the appraisal, implementation and evaluation of World bank projects and structural adjustment loans.
  About the only small insight into this problem that we have comes from the National Audit Office study—about the only one of its kind ever done, as far as I could establish in correspondence with the NAO. The study, published in 1992, was on overseas aid in respect of water and the environment. It states that on four of the six occasions when the ODA relied on World bank appraisals, they were less satisfactory than appraisals that the ODA would have done for its own projects. That suggests that we should seriously question claims that although the World bank staff have got it wrong in the past, they are getting it right now.
  The NAO gives but scant attention to the effectiveness of the use of UK resources in the World bank group. The Public Accounts Committee is therefore rarely invited to consider the effectiveness of the use of aid money by the group. I hope that the Minister will commit himself to publishing ODA evaluations of co-financed World bank projects and to publishing any other appraisals that the ODA is, from time to time, asked to make of World bank projects by the United Kingdom executive director.
  There are also weaknesses in the implementation of World bank projects, and in the extent to which the Government monitor whether the bank is effectively pursuing the policies that it has set itself. In recent years, the bank has given much greater rhetorical emphasis to involving NGOs in developing countries in discussion of its projects and adjustment loans. It became clear to me through parliamentary answers over the past year that the Government make no independent evaluation of whether the World bank is effectively involving non-governmental organisations in the south. They do not know which non-governmental organisations are involved in any particular project or whether the involvement of those non-governmental organisations has been effective.
  The Government make great play of the esteem in which they hold non-governmental organisations and the value that they place on them, but when it comes to whether the World bank is carrying out its stated policies of involving non-governmental organisations, the Government's position appears to be one of disinterest.
  Having dealt with the agenda and the problems of accountability, I shall now outline some of the major concerns about the past and present performance of the bank. Where I can, I shall highlight problems with the current system of accountability which I believe prevent hon. Members and our constituents from influencing both the United Kingdom's role in the institution and the bank itself.

  1201
  The first concern is obviously the widespread failure of the bank to achieve its self-proclaimed over-arching priority of eliminating poverty. The bank has two main types of lending: lending for projects and structural adjustment lending.
  The overall investment record of the bank is important, not just because it is a bank, but because, under the World bank system, the cost of failure of projects falls exclusively on recipient countries in the form of the destruction of lives, livelihoods and the environment that so often follows failed projects, and also in the form of a debt burden, on which payments have to be made although the borrowing country has no useful asset to generate funds.
  In normal commercial banking, the lender shares the risk with the borrower. In practice, the World bank designs programmes and projects that fail, without its staff or its shareholders being accountable for their role in that failure.
  The Wapenhans report, published last year on the effective implementation of World bank projects, revealed an alarming and rising rate of project and loan failures rising from 15 per cent. in 1981 to 37.5 per cent. in 1991. The record of the World bank was worsening throughout that critical decade, often referred to as the lost decade of development. Now that we are in the 1990s, we are into the lost two decades of development. The bank is now considering its response to the Wapenhans report, but we have no idea what stance the United Kingdom will take. There is never a statement or any idea of what the Government's priorities are.
  It could be argued that the Wapenhans report probably took a too narrowly economic view of loan performance. The valuation of a loan should also embrace the social, environmental and anti-poverty criteria, but I do not know whether that view is shared by the United Kingdom Government. I do not know what submissions they have made to the crucial debate about the appraisal of projects by the World bank and how it judges returns on investment. It is all shrouded in mystery.
  If we examine the performance of structural adjustment loans, a similar dismal picture emerges. The bank has just published a report entitled, "Adjustment in Africa: Reforms, Results and the Road Ahead". It has been described by Oxfam as
  "a blend of half-truths over simplifications and institutional propaganda … what was needed was an open acknowledgement of the scale of Africa's development failure—including the failure of adjustment policies to generate sustainable growth and poverty reduction."
  That is in tune with what other NGOs have stated.
  In a report on Zimbabwe, produced last year, Christian Aid said:
  "Zimbabwe has only recently started to implement a World Bank package, but already the evidence is clear. The immediate costs are devastating and unacceptable. Moreover, as in so many other African states, there is very little evidence of the economic recovery promised under the programme. The hope and determination of the post-independence years are rapidly turning to confusion and despair".
  Christian Aid highlighted the fact that one of the great triumphs of Zimbabwe after an investment—a 30 per cent. increase in the rate of investment in education—had been reversed under the structural adjustment programme. For all the rhetoric of the World bank—that it wished to concentrate resources on the important sectors of the economy and that primary education is the motive for development in economic growth—the reality in
  1202
  Zimbabwe was that the structural adjustment programme led to a slashing of education spending on the young people of that country.
  Oxfam highlighted glaring failures in the World bank report. It highlighted the fact that Ghana, the star performer for the World bank, is many decades away from seeing its people come out of poverty, and after quite an exceptional level of external assistance. Other countries, such as the Gambia, which have been highlighted as a success, have had their success generated by a boom in the tourist industry, which has generated few economic linkages into the rest of the economy.
  Earlier this week, The Guardian pointed out that Mozambique has improved its apparent economic growth per head—the most of 26 African countries in the survey from the World bank—but the poverty there has increased for the majority on a massive scale. It said:
  "The rich who have got rich enough to pull the average income up are a tiny and deeply resented class."
  Another star performer, Sierra Leone, was described recently by Robert Kaplan, who generalised the situation in many west African countries. He spoke of
  "The withering away of central governments, the rise of tribal and regional domains, the unchecked spread of disease, and the growing pervasiveness of war."
  In other words, the World bank has produced a travesty of an assessment of the real situation. What perhaps is most relevant to the debate is the way in which the bank seeks in public to hide the sharp differences of opinion within the organisation and to sanitise every report before it is published.
  One of the documents that the Minister, in response to parliamentary questions, refused to give me earlier this year was the report of the operation and evaluations department of the World bank, entitled "Adjustment in Sub-Saharan Africa". It had a very different tone about the success of World bank adjustment policies. It said:
  "The results of this effort … in Africa, have been decidedly mixed."
  Under macro-economic policies, investment fell in all but four countries out of the 36 that had adjustment policies
  "and less than half experienced higher real GDP growth."
  Reform of public enterprise has been slow.
  On the social impact of adjustment, the area where the World bank says that it has made most changes, the report concluded:
  "In five of the eight countries for which data were available, the social expenditure to GDP ratio fell with the onset of structural adjustment. In only one of these did social expenditure increase in the medium term."
  There are very different views within the bank. I am sure that we will hear something later of the new moves by the World bank towards information and openness. I have to say that I am not encouraged, because instead of that report, what I got from the Minister was the official summary of it, produced by the World bank. None of the quotes that I have just given appear in the official, sanitised summary produced by the World bank. The tone of the summary is entirely different. There is a debate in the World bank about where adjustment goes from here. We do not know what position the Government are taking in the debate.
  I could get the document, not from the Minister, who said that it was confidential, but from an American non-governmental organisation, which obtained it, as any US citizen could, under the US Freedom of Information Act. That is nonsense.

  1203
  Let us turn to World bank projects. One area of concern has been the impact of major dams on the environment and the displacement of indigenous people. According to "The Ecologist", again using unpublished bank information, £1 in £7 of World bank expenditure is devoted to projects that displace people. It estimates that, in the next year alone, some 600,000 people—approximately the population of Guyana—will be resettled as a result of World bank projects, yet the bank's own assessments show that it cannot point to a single project where forcibly resettled communities have been fully rehabilitated in accordance with its own resettlement policies. In other words, those projects are creating poverty, not alleviating it.
  The aim of cur aid programme is to help the poorest people in the countries, yet we have no proper accountability to show whether that is happening. All the evidence is that it is not.
  Those brief examples highlight some fundamental problems of the accountability to Parliament of the UK's role in the bank. There is grossly inadequate financial scrutiny of the effectiveness and adherence to the stated aims of the aid programme; Parliament and its Members are denied information about the activities of the United Kingdom executive director, about projects and other loans, about policy debates and about management initiatives. As a result, Parliament is excluded from such debates.
  Many other Government activities are not subject to effective scrutiny, so what is it about the World bank that makes it a topic of particular concern? The answer is that the bank is central to our relationship with the developing world. It dominates our bilateral aid programme. It must be appreciated that, when a country is under the tutelage of one of the bank's structural adjustment programmes, often in conjunction with an IMF programme, the programme and priorities of the bank determine the entire social, economic and often political context of development.
  The bank is in the business not just of funding projects but of changing the style of government, determining the role of the state and the private sector, governing the external economic relations of the country and determining its macro-economic programmes. It is an enormously influential institution. Indeed, I think that it has a dominating influence on our own aid programme.
  According to a parliamentary reply that I was given in July, 57 per cent. of the UK's bilateral aid programme goes to countries implementing IMF and World bank-supported adjustment programmes. If we add to that a fair estimate of the UK's contribution that goes to the same countries through the European Community, the figure rises to around 80 per cent. In other words, where this country is funding development programmes, the likelihood of their success or failure will be determined by the success or failure of the World bank's influence on the countries concerned.
  In theory, adjustment programmes are the property of the sovereign borrowing Government; in practice, as the bank now openly admits, many Governments feel little or no sense of ownership of those programmes, which is why so many fail. The bank is a transmission belt for the priorities of northern Governments.
  There is no serious intellectual argument against adjustment per se: any Government must adjust to changing external economic circumstances, just as this country must adjust to, for instance, a single market or the liberalisation of financial markets. The bank's role in all
  1204
  this, however, is to require each developing country to respond to external pressures determined by northern priorities—determined by our reluctance to finance adequate debt relief on a debt that, certainly in sub-Saharan Africa, is increasingly owed to the bank itself and other international financial institutions.
  The bank requires individual developing countries to respond to our reluctance to provide sufficient external finance for development. It requires individual countries to respond and to adjust to the reluctance of the north to tackle seriously the problem of export dumping by northern agriculture, while requiring the dismantling of developing-country tariff barriers. It requires those countries to respond to our failure to address in any serious way the fall in the earning power of commodity-dependent countries.
  The bank is also now part of the north's agenda for good governance. This is, admittedly, a difficult issue, because the promotion of human rights, democracy and good government involves legitimate issues of foreign policy. The use of external economic pressure to achieve those aims is a tricky and unpredictable mechanism, particularly when that pressure is used without the consent or participation of the people of the ocuntry concerned. In many cases, far from promoting better government, the bank has reduced the local capacity to govern independently at all.
  The bank influences regional policies around the developing world. By transmitting the north's preference for seeing developing countries compete individually in world markets, in sharp contrast to the way in which the north itself is forming regional blocs, the bank acts as an obstacle to regional co-operation and economic integration.
  All those factors mean that the bank is now far more than simply a development institution. It is a major tool of northern economic and foreign policy around the rest of the world. It is for those reasons, as well as its narrower development success, that the accountability of the United Kingdom Government's role in the World bank should be given much greater prominence within the House and the Government should encourage the House to take that interest.
  Having said all that, my list of proposals is modest. It is an agenda to which I hope that the Government could reasonably respond. I do not think that there is anything that I am putting forward that is not the practice in at least one of the other northern countries that are major shareholders of the World bank. These points would be a major improvement in the level of accountability of the operation of the bank.
  I hope that the Minister will consider some further points. Could we have an annual report on the United Kingdom's role within the World bank and the other international financial institutions which would show, at least after the event, the voting record of our executive director on major issues and the instructions given to our executive director by the United Kingdom Government? It would record the policy initiatives taken by the United Kingdom executive director and the positions that he takes in response to policy initiatives from others.
  Could we have a report that would establish the strategic aims of the United Kingdom within the World bank, to be achieved over time, and an evaluation of our success in so doing? Could we see an improvement in the scrutiny of our role in the World bank by the Overseas Development Administration and greater openness about

  1205
  the projects that it examines and—this is more a matter for the House—an improvement in the scrutiny by the National Audit Office?
  It would be helpful to see encouragement from the Government for the establishment of a system of regular scrutiny of our role in the World bank by the Select Committees. It would be helpful to have parliamentary statements and debates around key events, but particularly around the annual and semi-annual meetings of the bank.
  Could we also have the release of technical documents, project documents and policy documents? As I have said, they can be obtained, but not through our Government. They illustrate the likely impact of major projects, the debates around structural adjustment loans and the debates about the bank's wider policies. The release of those documents would make informed debate about the bank a less furtive and more open process than it is today.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I hope that I have put the importance of the World bank on the record. I believe that the proposals that I have put to the Minister are modest, but they would make an important contribution towards making the World bank a more effective institution.
  4.32 am
  Mr. Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has done a great service to the House and to development in what I thought was an extremely comprehensive, well-informed and welcome speech. It was worthy of an hour other than this one. I am sure that it will be, rightly, widely read and studied.
  In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend referred to non-governmental organisations such as Christian Aid. I know of its interest in our debate and in these matters and of its view on the accountability of the World bank in particular and other financial institutions, and about the fact that British taxpayers are entitled to know that debate takes place in this House on these important matters.
  My hon. Friend almost made the relatively short speech that I am about to make somewhat redundant, because his speech was so beautifully well informed. He referred, for example, to the World bank's recent report, "Adjustment in Africa, Reforms, Results and the Road Ahead." It is interesting that on page 8 we have a public confession, which I welcome and which I hope that the Minister's views will reflect. It says:
  "Policies are not good—yet".
  On something as important as that, we should be striving to get the policies right. Perhaps the best way to do that is to involve ourselves in the sort of accountability to which the main thrust of my hon. Friend's speech addressed itself.
  A Foreign and Commonwealth Office report was published last week, the cover of which refers to the
  "Foreign and Commonwealth Office including Overseas Development Administration."
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that shows how the ODA has been demoted in the Government's thinking to less than an arm of the Foreign Office. We certainly want to reassert the role that the noble Baroness Barbara Castle described at a meeting in the House a few weeks ago and which is crucial to genuine development.
  The document will be well known to the Minister. It says that one of the main reasons for British aid is
  1206
  "to help poorer countries and their peoples improve their standard of living."
  In the absence of the accountability that my hon. Friend rightly demands, those people are entitled to ask how far we have gone in achieving that objective. On page 9 of its report, the World bank says:
  "Nor is there much evidence that public spending within those sectors—health and education—is being relocated away from costly tertiary programmes and towards the basic services likely to reach the poor."
  That was a refreshing, if unwelcome, comment. Even the bank admits that its funds essentially are not, as the objective suggests, reaching the poorest countries. I am sure that the Minister will share not only that objective but our disappointment.
  Any discussion of the role of the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and accountability raises fundamental questions. I understand that 10 per cent. of aid spending goes to the World bank. In 1992–93, nearly 15 per cent. went to the World bank and the IMF. There should, therefore, be some transparency to our bilateral aid and our multilateral contribution, which might be obvious in other Departments but is not evident here.
  I shall not extend the debate to Malaysia, which I am sure will come as a relief to the Minister.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I am not worried.
  Mr. Clarke: The Minister should wait for the various reports to be published.
  In the absence of accountability, there is clear evidence of projects that are environmentally undesirable or even anti-social. As my hon. Friend so rightly said, there is evidence of the displacement of indigenous populations. If our development policy is about anything, it is about recognising the needs of individual communities wherever they live and their right to have a say in the kind of community in which they live. I am sure that the Minister will not disagree with that view.
  My hon. Friend and the various reports available to the House show that structural adjustment programmes, far from improving poverty, actually deepen it.
  Last week, I and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) were privileged to visit Uganda, sponsored by Oxfam. Our visit was part of the all-party caucus on Africa. We saw that poverty is deepening in Uganda, but, in spite of its difficult recent history, it is seeking to respond to the demands of the World bank and the IMF. I admit that I would find it difficult to agree with some of the conditions being set, were I an elected Member of Parliament in Uganda and should such a Parliament exist. Uganda finds that the spirit of its approach is hardly being met by the World bank or the IMF.
  The case for accountability has been well made. It has been said that there was a 150 per cent. increase in the failure rate of World bank projects since 1981. I do not know whether the figure is correct, but there have undoubtedly been some failures. I am not saying that all World bank projects have ended dismally, but such matters should be openly debated. Had there been an open debate on, for example, the Naramada project in India, I think my hon. Friend would agree that we should not have had to hear the well-informed comment that it was
  "flawed, that resettlement and rehabilitation of all those displaced … is not possible under prevailing circumstances and that

  1207
  environmental impacts … have not been properly considered or properly addressed".
  That is a profound comment and I hope that the bank will be modest enough to accept that it is not even in the bank's interests—although it is more important to consider those of the millions of people whom it seeks to serve—that such a situation should prevail where there is not the slightest attempt to justify pluralism or a democratic input into the discussion of projects that are crucial to specific communities.
  As my hon. Friend said, local people are entitled to much more information than the World bank is willing to provide. He gave a most interesting account of how he, as an elected Member of Parliament, has tried to obtain information but finds it easier to telephone Washington than to place a question in the Table Office. That cannot be right, and he is 100 per cent. right to draw it to the House's attention and suggest that there should be a better way of providing information on such important matters. Without access to information, the participation that the World bank itself says is important becomes meaningless.
  However inadequately, we recently discussed the World bank and the 10th International Development Association replenishment 'which led to much criticism from non-governmental organisations including, I think, Christian Aid, not least because £620 million, it must be conceded, is a sizeable amount. Again, we need more open, crisp and well-informed debate, based on all the information that is available to the bank and all that is in the public domain.
  My hon. Friend acknowledged that the bank is undertaking poverty assessments, but they hardly go far enough. We need to be assured that the bank will act on the information provided, will genuinely consult and take on board the views of those who, like the people we met in Uganda, are involved daily in trying to solve some very serious problems.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a very important speech on these matters in Geneva just a few weeks ago, showing that although my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen has been able only to obtain a debate in the middle of the night, many people share his interest in this important subject. My right hon. and learned Friend said:
  "It would be sensible to establish a clear line of accountability for the World bank and the IMF."
  That is certainly the undiluted position of the Labour party. Surely after 50 years there is a case for such accountability and for a review.
  It is becoming clear that the House does not have enough time for debates of this kind. I do not know whether the Minister agrees, but it seems to me evident that the other place gives much more time to these matters. My hon. Friend will probably agree that in view of the huge importance of the issues, this is a matter for very considerable regret. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend suggested, the only scrutiny of the World bank, the IMF, IDA, and similar bodies is undertaken on their own initiative through, say, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs or some Committee dealing with statutory instruments. That is hardly enough. My hon. Friend made the compelling point—I hope that the Minister will find time to address himself to the specific issue—that even the Government seem to have very little influence over the executive director and his role in all this. I realise that we have lots of debates about quangos—hon. Members on both sides of
  1208
  the House have views on these matters—but the role of such a person is crucial and the need for accountability well established.
  As my hon. Friend said, the World bank is very reluctant to reveal documents and information. That is a matter for very considerable regret. It would certainly be churlish not to welcome the appeals commission and the new information disclosure procedure, but it hardly goes far enough in terms of the matters that hon. Members, especially those as well informed as my hon. Friend, would like to debate. The expressions "commercial confidentiality" and "politically sensitive" can be abused. Indeed, there is evidence that they are being abused. We want to see more openness. The absence of openness has led to some of the problems that we face.
  I join my hon. Friend in saying that the House of Commons is entitled to know what is going on in these international banking organisation to which, as shareholders, we have a contribution to make. We are entitled to know what pressure the ODA has exerted on the World bank genuinely to help the poorest people in the poorest countries. As my hon. Friend has said, we are entitled to know how Her Majesty's Government's representative on the board votes. We are entitled to know whether the Government consider that taxpayers' money is being spent really effectively and that we are securing value for money. We are entitled to ask what efforts are being made to involve the non-governmental organisations which, as I have said, are very interested in this debate. They told me so throughout yesterday and during the week. We are entitled to know whether communities at every level have an opportunity to be involved, not just at the design stage of projects but at every stage in their development right through to implementation. Those are reasonable questions, which would inevitably arise if such affairs were given the kind of scrutiny that rightly applies to other Departments of Government, national and international.
  My hon. Friend concluded by asking for an annual report to Parliament. In that request, he was absolutely right. We are entitled to know about investment, development and the environmental and social consequences of World bank and IMF decisions. If my hon. Friend's debate, and his excellent initiative in drawing such matters to the attention of the House, means that at least the Government are invited to focus on those important, democratic and compelling issues, my hon. Friend can again congratulate himself on the excellent service that he has done in connection with those crucial issues.
  4.49 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I am sure that it is appropriate for me to congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on his contribution. The subject of the debate is certainly one in which he has made himself a considerable expert. He may not appreciate the fact until I tell him, but he has in great measure been responsible for my understanding of the subject—I do not claim that it is as great as his—not because he has been my tutor, but because he has tabled many parliamentary questions that I have had to answer, and the answers have briefing attached to them that I have to try to understand.
  On 8 February last year, the hon. Gentleman tabled a question, and I suggested in my answer that he initiate a

  1209
  debate on the subject in the House. That has taken him only a year; perhaps in some measure the debate tonight is taking place because of that answer.
  This year is the 50th anniversary of the World bank, so it is appropriate that we should now review its affairs. Even if the whole of our nation is not listening to the debate at this moment, I know that what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) have said will be carefully scrutinised, and I hope that it will have some effect in the direction of which they spoke.
  Before I start the main part of my speech, I must alert the hon. Member for Itchen that the main tenor of my remarks will be to pick up a theme that the hon. Member for Monklands, West emphasised. He welcomed a public confession that he had read on page 8 of a report that he had brought to the House. I shall tell the House that we should recognise that there has been an improvement in self-examination by the World bank, and a considerable improvement in the conduct of its affairs.
  The World bank is the largest single source of multilateral development assistance for developing countries. In recent years, it has begun to assist countries in transition in the former Soviet Union and in central and eastern Europe. As hon. Members have pointed out, a £620 million contribution is a great deal of money. That alone is certainly a good reason why we should debate the subject tonight.
  The World bank group consists of four main entities: the bank itself, the International Development Association or IDA, the International Finance Corporation or IFC and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency or MIGA. The bank is the institution which makes loans to member countries on terms related to its own cost of borrowing on international capital markets. The IDA provides the soft loans on highly concessional terms to the poorest countries, which are generally unable to service debts on the harder bank terms. The IFC promotes private sector development by investing in private sector entities in developing countries and economies in transition. The MIGA also aims to promote private sector growth by insuring foreign investors against losses that might arise from political risks.
  Tonight, we are speaking principally of the development role. The World bank plays a key role in the development process. Its central objectives are poverty reduction, economic reform and sustainable development—aims which complement and are mutually supportive of the priority objectives of the British aid programme. The bank has, therefore, always received strong support from the United Kingdom.
  The bank has an important leadership role in policy dialogue with developing countries and in promoting economic reform measures. It has also responded swiftly to the major challenges of assisting the countries of central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in their transition to market-based economies. In the year ended June 1993, new lending reached a record of almost $24 billion and membership rose to a total of 176 countries.
  I should like to say a word or two about how the structure of decision making in the World bank is organised. It operates under the authority of a board of governors and each member country is represented by a governor. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor
  1210
  of the Exchequer is the governor for the United Kingdom, assisted by the alternate governor, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. The board of governors delegates authority on most matters to a board of executive directors which is based full time at the bank's headquarters in Washington. The board of directors is responsible for decisions on policies affecting the bank's operations and for approval of all lending proposals.
  The hon. Member for Itchen has referred to the executive directors. As he said, the board consists of 22. The five members having the largest number of shares in the bank, of which the United Kingdom is one, have the right to appoint their own executive director. The rest are elected by the governors representing the other member countries. The World bank's president is chairman of the board and is responsible for the management and day-to-day operations of the bank.
  I should also say something about our executive director. The United Kingdom is represented at the World bank and the International Monetary Fund by one executive director, who is a senior Treasury official appointed by the Government. He is supported by an alternate executive director for each institution and by a team of technical assistants. Something has been made by the hon. Member for Itchen of a conflict of loyalty under which this gentleman must operate—a conflict between his loyalty to the British Government and his loyalty to the institution where he works. The director and his team take instructions from, liaise closely with, and report fully to Whitehall Departments on bank policies and lending proposals. Our executive director is accountable to the Government for his actions. The Government likewise are accountable to Parliament for payments made to the bank as part of our aid programme. The hon. Member will know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development takes a close personal interest in the bank's activities and will certainly read and note the contributions that have been made tonight.
  Mr. Denham: I thank the Minister for that statement. Does he agree that, in practice, one of the difficulties for those of us who want to follow our role in the bank is that it is very difficult to know when, in the consideration of a project or a structural adjustment loan, the executive director and the small staff—I believe that it is only six people in Washington—work independently, without reference to the United Kingdom Government, and when the executive director refers back here to Whitehall? Clearly, it happens in some cases and not in others. Whatever the constitutional position, I would argue that the role of the executive director is very different when he is simply acting with his Washington team and World bank staff and when he feels it necessary to seek guidance from here. Does the Minister agree that if we knew when the executive director was seeking the British Government's advice, and if we knew what advice the Government were giving him, it would be a helpful illumination of the process?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When the executive director operates, he is answerable to, and under the control of, the Government, but there are occasions when he must act on his own initiative because matters are not of such moment that they must be reported to the Government. That would certainly be the case. However, the hon. Gentleman is

  1211
  entitled to table questions and we will answer them. I cannot do more than that. That is the only way in which I can give him the information that he wants.
  I must say something about the instructions that we give to our director and our position on the board. I shall repeat, and perhaps clarify, what I have said before. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, under the rules of procedure, board proceedings are confidential. There is no consensus within the board to change those arrangements. Therefore, that places limits on what we can say about the position of our executive director in board discussions of individual project proposals and policies. We abide by the rules that have been set. We do not impose on ourselves a greater burden than has been agreed. If others bend the rules or do not follow them as closely as we do, we do not regard that as a reason for breaking the rules but as a reason for pressing to have the rules changed. I shall make some remarks later about the Government's policy on disclosure.
  The bank's board aims to operate on the basis of consensus. Formal votes are rare. Our executive director works closely with fellow directors and management to achieve this. Decisions, once reached, are collective decisions of the board. Certain matters covered in board documents or discussions are, and must be, sensitive. The important point that all hon. Members must accept—it is a matter of reasonable logic—is that a balance has to be struck between openness and the need to preserve the integrity of the bank's decision-making processes. Within those constraints, however, we have encouraged the bank to be more open and transparent about its operations. I shall outline some of the measures that the bank has taken in that regard in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Itchen referred specifically to scrutiny of bank spending. There are opportunities for scrutiny. Parliament approves our contributions to the International Development Association every three years and capital subscriptions to the bank and the International Finance Corporation. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee scrutinises the Overseas Development Administration's budget annually. There are general debates on aid. A plethora of parliamentary questions are tabled by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. In my experience, parliamentary questions are effective tools of scrutiny available to Members of Parliament. They lead civil servants and Ministers to come together and make decisions on matters of concern to hon. Members. That is my experience as a Minister.
  The hon. Member for Itchen raised the Oxfam criticisms of the report on the adjustment for Africa. Oxfam has criticised adjustment efforts in Africa, but it has not made clear what alternative approach it proposes. We are convinced that good economic policies are essential to lay the foundations for growth and poverty reduction. The operations evaluation department study on adjustment in Africa complements the recent bank report. The record is mixed, but strong adjustment pays off and the bank's latest report emphasises that there is a long way to go, even for good reformers.
  The full operations evaluation department report is confidential, but we made available to the hon. Gentleman a summary of the study that the bank published. It is wrong to suspect that summaries hide essential matters on which criticism could be made. Publishing summaries is not a business of whitewashing. It is a business of keeping confidential that which has to be kept confidential.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister has been uncharacteristically unfair to Oxfam. If he reads the papers that it has made available on adjustment, and the views of the House all-party caucus on Africa, which is an effective body, he will see that positive suggestions to improve accountability have been made, not least by Oxfam, and those suggestions have been endorsed by hon. Members of all political parties, including the Minister's party.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I must make some progress now as I have only 17 minutes left and quite a bit of ground to cover.
  I want to say something about the measures that the bank has taken to be more open and transparent. Let us consider the bank's environmental performance. There has been much criticism today about the adverse impact of some of the bank's actions in that sphere. Some of those criticisms are well founded; others are misplaced.
  The bank would be the first to admit that its performance on environmental issues has been mixed, but we believe that its approach has improved over time as lessons have been learnt. We are all still learning about the complex economic and social pressures and linkages that lead to environmental degradation. In many ways, the bank has been at the forefront in devising policies to take account of environmental concerns in its operations.
  The bank has produced operational guidelines on environmental assessments, involuntary resettlement and protection of indigenous peoples. Those guidelines are currently being revised—not, as some critics allege, to dilute them, but to make clearer which provisions are mandatory and which elements reflect best practice. The aim is to make the operational guidelines a more effective management tool. Environmental screening of projects is routinely carried out, and environmental assessments are undertaken where necessary at an early stage in project design. The bank's guidelines require that affected groups and local non-governmental organisations be consulted.
  In 1992, the bank carried out a frank and self-critical review of why the success rate of bank-funded projects had been declining over the past decade. The hon. Member for Itchen referred to the Wapenhans report. It found that among the factors explaining the deterioration in performance were the difficult economic environment faced by many borrowers in the late 1980s—oil price rises, high interest rates and the debt crisis—and the worsening domestic conditions in many developing countries. But the team noted that aspects of bank performance also played a part. There was undue emphasis on new loan commitments and inadequate attention to supervision of continuing projects. That was part of the self-examination, for which we must give the bank credit.
  The hon. Member for Itchen mentioned the investigation of bank projects by the Overseas Development Administration. He is right to say that the ODA should not double guess all activities undertaken by the bank.
  Mr. Tom Clarke rose—
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall give way once more, and then I must make progress.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister, but he will appreciate that we do not often have the opportunity to have exchanges on such matters. He was generous to the World bank, both about consultations and about taking on

  1213
  board the views expressed in them but last week, when the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and I, together with others from Oxfam, were in Uganda we met the World bank representative. I am sorry to have to say this in his absence, and when he does not have the right of reply, but the representative clearly gave the impression—which all of us shared—that he regarded our meeting as a bit of a waste of time. What he did with his time for the rest of the day and the rest of the week, I do not know, but he hardly gave the impression that he regarded the views of the community—which has been devastated by AIDS and has a problem in protecting its water—as terribly important.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No doubt the representative will read the reports of the debate, but I cannot give way any more because in the last 12 minutes that I have left I must pursue some other matters.
  It is right that the ODA should not double guess all the activities undertaken by the bank. The emphasis must be on ensuring that systems and procedures are in place. Development always entails risks, so it is obvious that not all projects will succeed, but the Wapenhans report has made definite recommendations for improving project quality.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me for a specific undertaking to disclose evaluations made by the ODA. I hope that I can give him some comfort because I thought that I had already given him that undertaking last November, when I said in reply to a question:
  "The ODA has produced a number of evaluations which we have co-financed with the bank. Details of how reports or summaries can be obtained are set out in the ODA' s catalogue of evaluation studies, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House."—[Official Report, 29 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 310.]
  The answer to his question is yes, and I had already given him the undertaking that he sought. Now I must proceed.
  After extensive discussions, the bank's board endorsed an action plan on the Wapenhans report last July to strengthen management of the bank's portfolio. That places greater emphasis on supervision and evaluation of loans, better project design, and changes in the bank staff's skills mix and incentives structure. We considered the action plan a comprehensive response to the report's finding—a positive reaction. We were impressed by the determination with which bank management followed up those issues. We also welcomed the fact that the bank publicised the findings of the task force as well as the measures being taken in response to its recommendations. We shall monitor the follow-up and implementation of that action plan closely.
  We also welcome the further measures that the board adopted last year to make the bank's operations more open and transparent. In August, the bank's board of directors approved measures substantially to increase the amount of information publicly available about the bank's operations. The main features are a new project information document to provide factual information about all projects in the pipeline, the release of project appraisal reports after the board's approval of projects, the routine release of country economic reports and environmental assessments, and publication of sector policy papers and evaluation summaries. A public information centre has been set up at headquarters to process requests for information. The
  1214
  bank's London office is one of several regional offices which will distribute material and it has an on-line link to Washington for immediate access to information and to facilitate the processing of requests for information.
  Those measures should help to improve understanding of the bank's role. The new policy should also encourage more dialogue and interaction between bank staff and interested outsiders, including NGOs and local groups, and thus help to strengthen the quality and effectiveness of projects that the bank finances. We certainly want that to happen and that is an undertaking which I can give.
  The board has already taken steps to set up an independent inspection panel, which will examine allegations of failure to adhere to bank policies under bank-funded projects. The results of all investigations will be made public and an annual report will be published detailing investigations undertaken. We hope that the panel will prove a useful addition to the existing systems of control provided through the board of directors and by management. Those measures should greatly increase the transparency of the bank's operation.
  The measures that the bank management and its shareholders have introduced in the past two years are already having an impact on the way in which the bank operates. Two examples may serve to illustrate that—the bank's review of resettlement policy and the consideration currently being given to a proposed project for the construction of a dam in Nepal. I will say something about the first—the Narmada valley project, to which the hon. Member for Monklands, West referred.
  In response to criticisms in 1992, the management initiated a bank-wide review of all projects involving involuntary resettlement of population. We strongly supported the bank's decision to set up that review and we are pleased that it has invited contributions from informed NGOs and others outside the bank. We have also encouraged bank staff to share the review's findings and recommendations with the people who have contributed to the review, before the report goes to the board, which may be within the next couple of months or so. Management are considering our suggestion. In the meantime, the bank has published information outlining the purpose and scope of the review and some of its preliminary findings.
  With regard to the Arun-3 dam in Nepal. The process that the bank is following in its appraisal of this project also illustrates a rather more interactive approach. The bank began appraising the project last May and has had meetings with local and international NGOs to hear their concerns about its potential environmental and social impact. It has undertaken to disseminate updated information to NGOs and other interested parties once the appraisal is completed so as to facilitate informed discussion of the options. We have encouraged the bank to ensure that there is a full dialogue on the issues before the project is submitted to the board for approval. I hope that that shows the hon. Members for Itchen and for Monklands, West that things are changing and improving in the World bank.
  It is as well to have comments about these matters at this stage because this is the 50th anniversary of the bank and the IMF. It is an important opportunity for shareholders to step back and to reflect on its current and future role, and how it should adapt to the challenges ahead. One of the bank's great strengths is its capacity to adapt. The action that it has taken in recent years shows that it listens and that it is prepared to be responsive to constructive criticism

  1215
  about its role. As a major shareholder, we will continue to support measures that will enhance the effectiveness of all its operations.

  Fenchurch Street Station
  5.15 am
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I begin the debate which I have initiated on the impact on the commuters of the closure of Fenchurch Street station and Limehouse station for seven weeks this summer by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House, its servants and its officers for detaining them at this unearthly hour. I extend that apology to the Minister and to his colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who, on a personal level, are always courteous. Nevertheless, I shall not hesitate to criticise the Government and their stewardship of our railway network as it affects east London and Essex, despite the fact that the Minister has always been courteous and helpful to me about constituency matters.
  The fact that Back-Benchers have to raise important issues at ridiculous hours of the day and night reflects the imbalance of the way in which we do things in this House. Before I depart from the House, my ambition is that the balance between Government business and BackBenchers' debates will have been altered. Government business should be held in the middle of the night and Back-Benchers' initiatives should be held during the day. I have already been in the Palace for 21 hours, working on parliamentary business. It is absurd that we hold these debate so late when the Minister, like me, has a full diary for the day ahead.
  Having got that point off my chest, I state clearly that I do not question the urgent need for the resignalling works on the line that goes from Fenchurch Street to Southend, via my constituency of Thurrock and the constituency of Basildon; nor do I minimise the urgent need for Fenchurch Street station and other stations along that line to be refurbished and for the track to be renewed. Indeed, that work is long overdue, but I question whether, to complete those works, it is necessary to close Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations for seven weeks from 22 July. Had the Government and managers of Network SouthEast been alive to the decay of the London-Tilbury-Southend and Great Eastern lines and their stations, those closures would not have been necessary. They are a direct consequence of years of neglect and indifference by the Secretary of State and his predecessors under this Administration.
  My constituents will suffer enormous additional delay and inconvenience as a result of that neglect. The impact will be quite awful for the thousands of commuters who travel from East Tilbury, Tilbury, Grays and, to a lesser extent, South Ockendon stations. They would wish me to place on record their considerable irritation at the inconvenience that they face this summer. The problem is not exclusive to my constituency but will affect thousands of commuters from Essex and east London, Southend, Shoeburyness, Basildon, Pitsea, Upminster, Dagenham Dock and particularly Barking. Some 19,000 commuters a day use Barking station and there is already considerable congestion and problems for commuters interlining from that station on their way to work in London.
  When Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations close this summer, Network SouthEast intends that the bulk of commuters travelling from Essex will disembark at Barking and join the already heavily used, if not overloaded, District and Metropolitan underground lines from Barking. Commuters who normally interline with the

  1217
  docklands light railway at Limehouse station will have an additional problem to get to their place of work in the new docklands development area.
  The closures will affect not only travellers to Barking but commuters living in Barking. Had my late colleague Jo Richardson still been with us, I am sure that she would have participated in this debate because of the enormous impact that the closure of Fenchurch Street station will have on the Barking and Dagenham constituents. I regret that no other hon. Members whose constituents will be affected by the closures are in the Chamber. In fairness, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is indisposed. He takes a keen interest in transport matters, having been a former Transport Secretary, and is also my chairman on the Transport Select Committee. I am sure that, had it been possible, he would have been here tonight. The inescapable fact remains, however, that there are Essex Conservative Members who should have been here tonight to speak up for their commuters, who will be greatly disadvantaged by the closures.
  I have been a consistent and unashamed critic, not just of the Government and their transport policy, but of the managers of Network SouthEast, who do not respond as they should to the interests of commuters. They make cosmetic efforts to recognise those interests, but I am not satisfied that they properly champion consumers' interests in their dealings with the Government. Were they to fulfil the spirit of their duties as line managers they would join me in criticising the Government for their chronic underfunding of the lines, which in turn has led to the chaos of one of London's oldest mainline stations being closed for seven weeks in the summer.
  The managers make some attempt to acknowledge the interests of commuters. Just this morning, they issued commuters with a glossy brochure entitled, "LTS Newsline: Customer Newsletter". The banner headline reads:
  "Station to shut for seven weeks".
  The second page of the document is headed:
  "LTS moves towards shadow franchise".
  It goes on:
  "The senior management team headed by Chris KinchinSmith, divisional director of LTS, has already expressed its initial willingness to mount a bid for the line, providing the terms of the franchise are acceptable."
  I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that during the tortuous debates on rail privatisation, in the House and in the Select Committee, we were assured both by the Minister and by the chairman of British Rail that line managers who might be contemplating putting in a bid for a franchise should keep that interest separate from their operational role. Mr. Kinchin-Smith and his colleagues, in a document paid for by commuters through their fares, are flagging up an interest in bidding for a franchise—that clearly runs contrary to the spirit of those undertakings. I hope that the Minister will accept that, and that his Department will tick off people who are mixing up their responsibilities in this way.
  Another sign that the legitimate interests of commuters are being ignored is the lack of facilities for the travelling public. The document also tells commuters that no toilets will be available for their use at Barking station, the main inter-line station, which is due to accommodate a great many more travellers this summer. That is symptomatic of
  1218
  the decay of the line and its understaffing by Network SouthEast and it is wholly unacceptable. It is not unreasonable to say that the line and its passengers must be properly looked after. It is a very bad state of affairs if they cannot provide WCs for commuters.
  I move to the central issue of the debate—the closure of the Fenchurch Street main line station. Mr. Chris Kinchin-Smith says:
  "We know this work will cause severe disruption for many of our customers".
  My word, he can say that again; it is the understatement of the year. He then argues that the temporary closure of Fenchurch Street station is essential.
  As I have said, I have no way of testing whether it is essential or unavoidable now, but it could have been avoided had there been proper funding and planning of the refurbishment and restoration of the line in previous years. The Government and the line management failed to acknowledge that, despite the fact that I and other Labour Members have been drawing attention to the problems of the misery line for a number of years.
  The management's document says that the station will be closed when many passengers take their holiday. That is very kind of them, but the fact that the work will be carried out in July or August will not greatly reduce the irritation to customers. We are not a town that has a "holiday week". Thurrock does not close down and nor does Essex. In the south-east of England, in modern times, holidays straddle the summer months. It is of no great consolation to us that the work will be conducted in the summer and it is nonsense to suggest that that is any great concession to the fare-paying customers.
  In their document, the managers of network SouthEast also say:
  "We are working closely with London Underground".
  I am not sure that that is so. Dear old London Underground has been told there about the closure of Fenchurch Street and Limehouse station and has to live with it.
  In the past 24 hours, I have corresponded with the senior public affairs executive of London Underground. She replied:
  "The eastern section of the District Line is currently operating the optimum level of service possible and therefore additional trains can not be provided by the line"
  — that is the District line—
  "during the 7 week closure period.".
  The management of London Underground are in no position significantly to abate the problems of commuters from Essex; nor can they do anything to affect the impact on the existing underground customers who will also suffer through increased congestion on already overcrowded underground trains.
  I also criticise the management because their glossy and expensive document does not give much time or attention to the problems that will be faced exclusively by my constituents on the Tilbury loop line. The section headed, "Your Questions Answered", contains hardly any reference to mitigating the problems for my constituents, apart from telling us that present proposals include the Tilbury line and that all stopping services will terminate at Barking with onward travel by tube. It then gives us the good news that LTS tickets will be valid on the underground.
  I have been fighting a continuing battle with Network SouthEast about its penalty fares scheme and how it relates to the closure of Fenchurch Street. I support the principle of the penalty fare scheme, but the management of

  1219
  Network SouthEast on the London-Tilbury-Southend line have been unable to maintain the ticket machines so that honest fare-paying passengers can purchase a ticket and avoid the embarrassment of having to defend their position when an inspector gets on the train. It is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs when, night after night on the main concourse of Fenchurch Street station, it is impossible, unless one has the exact fare, to purchase a ticket for use on that line. If Fenchurch Street station is to be refurbished, I hope that the management are able to get their act together. Apparently the machines there are supposed to be self-replenishing in change, but they do not self-replenish and the management seem incapable of arranging for people to empty them and fill them up with change.
  The situation gets worse. If more people have to change at Barking on to London Underground, which is also introducing a penalty fares scheme from the beginning of this financial year, it makes it even more imperative that passengers are able to purchase a ticket or permit to travel at stations in Essex. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and ensure that the management of London Underground and Network SouthEast understand that that is a reasonable expectation and demand by the commuters in view of the penalty fares policy.
  I want to ask the Minister some questions. First, what compensation will commuters who are disadvantaged by the lengthy closure of Fenchurch Street station receive? They do not have a good service at the present time. Despite what the management say, the journeys are still erratic in terms of punctuality. Their problems will be compounded. I guess that the vast majority of commuters from Essex will have each day an additional three quarters of an hour travelling time, at least, to their place of work in London as a result of the closure. That is not fair when one bears in mind that commuters from Southend, if travelling only on the LTS line, pay £1,912 per annum for their season ticket. If they are travelling LTS and Great Eastern, the season ticket costs £2,056 per annum. In my constituency, commuters from Tilbury pay £1,564 per annum. At that price, bearing in mind the problems that they will experience this summer, they are entitled to a rebate. I hope that the Minister will consider that matter and make the appropriate recommendation to the management of Network SouthEast.
  Secondly, is the Minister able to give me an assurance that when the work is complete following the closure of Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations, there will be no further hiatus for commuters from Essex? I ask that because I have no confidence about the frankness of the management of Network SouthEast. For example, they did not mention the possibility of this closure until it was almost unavoidable. They must have known about it a year or two ago, but they did not tell us. I have a deep suspicion that there will be further closures of stations along the LTS line in the coming months or perhaps the next two years. If I am wrong, I would welcome that correction and reassurance from the Minister.
  Thirdly, after significant sums of public money have been spent on refurbishing the LTS line and Fenchurch Street station, will the station be fully used to the advantage of the Essex commuters? Each evening, commuters wanting to get back to Essex are faced with the absurd irritation of having to look at the clock and decide whether to head for Fenchurch Street station or Liverpool
  1220
  Street station. About halfway through the evening, Fenchurch Street is closed and those travelling to Essex must use Liverpool Street.
  Fenchurch Street is a mainline station. It services my constituents on the Tilbury loop, and many others who want to get to towns between London and Southend. I do not think it unreasonable to expect those people to be able to board a train at Fenchurch Street throughout the evening. I hope that, following the expenditure on Fenchurch street, that problem will be remedied and a proper service will be restored.
  Although I have tempered my remarks, I hope that the Minister will understand why I legitimately accuse the Government of neglecting the line. They are, to a large extent, to blame for the problems that will be experienced this summer by my constituents and by people living throughout Essex and in east London. Some of the blame must lie with the management of Network SouthEast but, putting that aside, I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will have a further meeting with the management to establish whether the work can be completed without closing the station.
  I feel that, although it might be inconvenient and involve some additional cost to Network SouthEast, the work could be completed in the middle of the night and over a series of weekends. It might take a good deal longer, but the disadvantage to computers would be a good deal less. I suspect that a seven-week closure of Fenchurch Street station is the easy way out for the management, rather than being truly unavoidable. I hope that the Minister will investigate that.
  I also hope that the Minister will establish whether it will be possible to increase capacity on London Underground during the closure of Fenchurch Street—assuming that it goes ahead—and that he will ensure that passengers can purchase tickets from properly maintained machines, both on that line and throughout the Network SouthEast area. That is not happening now. Finally, I hope that commuters will be told about any other anticipated problems months, if not years, in advance, rather than those problems' being sprung on them with the minimum notice.
  I expect the Minister to say that Network SouthEast has consulted local Members of Parliament, because that is what Network SouthEast told me today. It is true that Mr. Kinchin-Smith has invited me to meet him, and I look forward to arranging a mutually convenient date. What he has never done, however, is write to me, as a Member of Parliament, saying, "We have a problem: we are going to have to close Fenchurch Street station, which will affect your commuters." All I got was a press release, some weeks weeks ago—not even a letter. I do not protest about that discourtesy on my own behalf, but I am protesting on behalf of my constituents and other commuters from Essex. It shows the way in which the management of the line treat their customers.
  I hope that we will receive some reassurance from the Minister and that, as a consequence, the enormous chaos will be avoided for commuters this summer.
  5.44 am
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was courteous in apologising for the hour of the debate. That was kind of him, but there was no need to

  1221
  apologise. Ministers are never inconvenienced at coming to the House to answer a debate at any time. The hon. Member was courteous to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Officers of the House for keeping them up till this early hour. I should be happy to come at any hour because it is the responsibility of the Government and Ministers to answer legitimate concerns raised by Back Benchers.
  Those who listen to our debates on the radio must wonder why three or even four times a year we have an all-night debate. It is one of the rare opportunities for Back-Bench Members to debate for longer than the normal half-hour Adjournment debate issues of relevance to their constituencies. It is a good use of Parliament's time. It brings the Government properly to account and allows issues to be properly explored. I would rue the day that these proceedings were in any way curtailed or changed. They provide a valuable opportunity for Back-Bench Members such as the hon. Member for Thurrock to raise various issues.
  The hon. Member referred to the late Jo Richardson. This is the first opportunity that I have had to pay my tribute to her. When I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the Ministry of Defence, I had many occasions to talk to the late Jo Richardson because she was my Minister's pair. I always had courteous and friendly relations with her. We will long remember her contribution to the House.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to several of my colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) have all been consistent in raising concerns about the London-Tilbury and Southend line on behalf of their constituents. They have been very assiduous. The fact that they are not in the Chamber now is no reflection upon their zeal, which is shared by the hon. Member for Thurrock, in looking after the interests of their constituents.
  As many hon. Members will know, the London, Tilbury and Southend line is one of the undoubted rail success stories of recent years. The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to its performance as erratic. I would have shared that view if he had been referring to two or three years ago. I do not believe that that is a fair description of the service now. I have travelled on the line on a number of occasions during the past four years and I have spent a great deal of time talking to commuters about the quality of service on the line.
  From those visits, one thing above all is clear—the London, Tilbury and Southend line is no longer the misery line of the late 1980s. The figures show that it is now one of the best performing commuter lines in the south-east. On average, over the past 12 months, 92 per cent. of LTS peak services have arrived at their destination within five minutes of the advertised time. Given the acknowledged poor punctuality and reliability of a just a few years ago, that represents a real turnaround.
  It is important to remember that no new equipment has been available to the line over that period. The improvement is the result of the efforts of LTS management and staff and shows what can be achieved when there is a shared determination to provide a better
  1222
  service to passengers. I pay tribute to Mr. Kinchin-Smith, his predecessors and all British Rail staff, from the most senior to the most junior, for the tremendous improvement in the quality of service brought about over the past 12 months. It is a great credit to them. They have been successful without the completion of resignalling, without the delivery of new rolling stock and with the difficulties of running a 19th century railway line.
  Further improvements are on the way. I said that the LTS has had no new equipment recently, but that is now about to change. The line is undergoing a major resignalling programme costing £83 million, which involves replacing equipment installed in the 1960s. The present 16 signal boxes are being replaced by a single state-of-the-art control centre at Upminster and the power supply is being upgraded and junctions improved.
  Improvements on that scale cannot be made without some inconvenience to passengers, although British Rail has shown that disruption can be minimised by careful planning and consultation with rail users. Hon. Members may know that Charing Cross and Waterloo East stations were closed for three weeks last summer to allow essential work to be carried out so that the new 12-car Networker trains could be accommodated there. During that period, trains were diverted into Cannon Street and Victoria. By the careful timing of the work during the peak holiday season, when passenger numbers are at their lowest, and by warning passengers well in advance—the closure was first advertised more than a year beforehand and frequently thereafter—British Rail ensured that inconvenience was kept to an absolute minimum. It sensibly employed the media, including advertisements in local newspapers, to ensure the widest possible dissemination of information. The result was that many of those who were affected were impressed by the sensible and professional way in which the necessary closures were handled. No doubt some who were able to do so, knowing the details of the work so far in advance, arranged their holidays to avoid the closures.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I am not surprised that the Minister and Network SouthEast pray in aid the closures on the old Southern region last year, but the right hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Alternatives were offered during those closures, but the position that we are debating is not comparable. There will be major inconvenience to my commuters, whereas there was some irritation for people on the old Southern region railway, some of which they could overcome with relatively minimal delay.
  Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, I will deal specifically with his point, which I understand.
  I have been describing the procedures followed by British Rail in relation to closures involving Charing Cross and Waterloo East stations. They are what passengers should be able to expect when improvements on this scale are carried out. Management on the LTS intend to ensure that their passengers are equally well treated when Fenchurch Street station is closed for seven weeks. The LTS has produced a code of practice on how the resignalling project will be carried out. It has been endorsed by the Southend rail travellers association and supported by other statutory and voluntary representative bodies. It is also publishing a regular newsletter, "LTS

  1223
  Newsline", from which the hon. Gentleman quoted, which is keeping passengers fully up to date on progress and service alterations.
  As with the closure of Charing Cross and Waterloo East, information will be disseminated via local press and radio. LTS commuters have the added advantage of the Pride system, the colour television monitors at each station which provide instant information.
  The closure of Fenchurch Street for this period is unavoidable. The hon. Gentleman said that it could have been avoided if the Government had provided substantial funds at an early stage. That is not so. The station requires complete remodelling. Several miles of track and overhead power lines need to be replaced. The signal box currently just outside the station must be dismantled. All that work should take seven weeks. My information is that if it were carried out during the night and at the weekend, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, it would take three years, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would tolerate that for a moment on behalf of his constituents. All our experience of major rail infrastructure work shows that it is much better to concentrate the work into a short period. That inconvenience, which is regretted, is much better than spreading it over a substantial period.
  While the station is closed, some LTS services will run into Liverpool Street and others will terminate at Barking where passengers will be able to transfer to London Underground's District line on which their tickets will be valid. In addition, bus services will be provided between LTS and Great Eastern stations that are in relative proximity. London Underground services from Upninster and Barking, where there are LTS interchanges, will be strengthened.
  British Rail is in no doubt that the result of the project will be a great improvement in signal reliability which, it says, is the biggest single factor contributing to delays at the moment. There will be more crossovers which allow services to bypass failed trains or engineering works without causing serious disruption; better centralised control and co-ordination from the new centre at Upminster; and a more versatile and easily maintained terminus at Fenchurch Street.
  When the important work is complete—British Rail hopes by next spring—the already much improved service should improve still further. I shall ensure that the hon. Member for Thurrock and all my hon. Friends who represent constituencies along the line are invited to the formal opening of the new service. More modern trains for the LTS service are due to become available in 1995–96 as a result of £150 million leasing facility that the Government announced in 1992.
  1224
  The LTS line will be one of the first to be franchised under the Railways Act 1993. The Government believe that the improved performance of the past few years will be pursued even more vigorously when the LTS is an independent company competing for business in the market and subject to the rewards and penalties of the proposed franchise system. With new signalling, more modern trains and, most important, a real incentive and desire to meet the needs of its users, the LTS will be in the vanguard of the move towards the new-style rail service that we all want.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me four questions. I shall examine the matter of the ticket machines at Fenchurch Street and the rebates and I shall write to him. Those are perfectly valid matters to raise. He also asked whether there would be any further problems and said that he had deep suspicions about further closures. I am advised that, once the work is finished next spring, the infrastructure work will be complete for the foreseeable future and, with the arrival of new trains, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will not experience any significant disruption to services.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked for an assurance that the station would be fully used. He complained about the closure of the station in the early evening. We hope that the line will be franchised next year and, with more capital, freedom and innovation, there may well be a change in the pattern of railway services. I share his view that it would be advantageous for the people of Essex if services were expanded. If that is possible, and if it makes economic sense, I should welcome it.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me to tick off Mr. Chris Kinchin-Smith, but I decline to do so. I am delighted that there is an interest in organising a management buy-out by Mr. Kinchin-Smith and his colleagues. Mr. John Welsby, the chief executive of British Rail, has just issued new guidelines to BR management on how they should discharge their responsibilities for running the railway services and prepare a bid. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that I answered a parliamentary question, drawing attention to the fact that I had placed in the Library a copy of the guidelines that should resolve the problem of dual responsibility for management of the line and the preparation of the bid. Far from ticking off Mr. Kinchin-Smith, I congratulate him and his staff on the management of the line and on preparing to bid for the franchise.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Hartley Hospital, Colne
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  5.59 am
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: This debate is about national health service property and how it is disposed of. Since I applied for it, Hartley hospital, which is in my constituency, has been sold, after lying empty for five years. News of the sale came as a complete bombshell to me and, indeed, to everyone else in the constituency. Apparently, an offer has been made and has been accepted by the chairman of the North Western regional health authority, Sir Bruce Martin, who made the decision a few days ago, acting under delegated powers.
  I am told that the buyers are a three-person partnership—presumably builders and developers—based in Simonstone, which is just outside my constituency. The regional health authority will not tell me any more than this as contracts have not been exchanged. I do not want contracts to be exchanged as I am totally opposed to the sale, as, indeed, is my local authority, Pendle borough council. In due course, I shall explain why.
  I do not know how much the mystery buyers paid for Hartley hospital, and I do not know what they intend to do with it. But Mr. Richard Strickland, who deals with property matters for the regional health authority, hinted today that the main block of the hospital would be retained and converted into "quality private residential flats".
  I want to say a few words about the background to the whole affair. Hartley hospital occupies a very special place in the affections of the people of Colne. There are two people who are famous benefactors of the town and are held in the highest regard. One is Peter Birtwistle, whose trust still benefits the residents of the town; the other is Sir William Pickles Hartley, made famous and wealthy by his jams. Sir William—Mr. Hartley, as he then was—was the driving force behind the new cottage hospital for Colne, which opened in 1900 to commemorate the diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria. He put up half the money required, with the people of Colne making up the difference.
  But soon the hospital became too small for the town. Sir William and his wife, Lady Hartley, this time generously agreed to pay the entire cost of the new hospital, which opened its doors to patients in June 1924. It was given to the people of Colne in perpetuity, but transferred to the national health service as a result of the National Health Service Act 1946, free of the trust, and it continued to serve the needs of the people of Colne, Trawden, Foulridge and beyond until 1989, when it was closed for good.
  In fact, there had been creeping closure before then, as various aspects of the hospital's work were progressively moved to other hospitals in the area. But the closure and the lead-up to it sparked a public outcry, and the town saw candlelight vigils, packed public meetings, petitions attracting thousands and thousands of signatures and, indeed, visits by Ministers. The current Leader of the House, who was then a junior health Minister, descended on the town, which was in great turmoil. The newspaper files of the period bulge with coverage of the closure, which was very extensive indeed.
  I want to say a word about Dr. Tony Pickles—one of the many people in Colne who deserve special mention. He is
  1226
  a councillor in the Waterside ward, and he was very active in the campaign to save the hospital. But his efforts and those of thousands like him could not prevent the closure.
  Of course, time has moved on. We have seen the opening of the Pendle community hospital in Nelson, and we are all thankful for that new facility in the town next door to Colne. We have seen also the reorganisation of the health service and the creation of the new national health service trusts. But throughout this period of great change, upheaval and flux in the health service there was one constant: Hartley hospital was still there—boarded up, empty and, year after year, slowly and majestically decaying.
  The regional health authority took over responsibility for the building and attempted to market the old hospital on three separate occasions, but with no success. On 13 September last year, I received a letter from the chairman of the regional health authority, Sir Bruce Martin, in response to an earlier letter of mine. He told me that planning consultants had been appointed with the aim of seeking a residential planning consent.
  If one looks through the minutes of meetings way back into the 1980s, one discovers that that has been a recurring theme. Consultants were to be appointed to consider how the hospital could best be marketed. Sir Bruce told me that that action had not been taken before September 1993 because of the need
  "to demonstrate to the local planning authority that there was no suitable interest in the premises for use as a nursing home or similar institution".
  Sir Bruce said that discussions were taking place between the planning consultants and the local authority
  "with a view to an outline planning application for housing being submitted shortly".
  Months passed, and I was becoming increasingly concerned about how long the plans were taking to bear fruit. Following a further prompt from me, I received another letter from Sir Bruce dated 22 February—only three weeks ago—which said:
  "On the marketing of Hartley Hospital, the situation remains one of offers being received but which are either not at an acceptable level in valuation terms or the prospective purchaser has failed to secure the necessary finance … Consideration has been given to other ways of enhancing the marketability of the premises. One possible option under discussion is to submit an outline planning application for the redevelopment of the Hospital for residential purposes. No formal decision has however been taken."
  That was three weeks ago.
  The letter continues:
  "Although the Authority has no plans to demolish the Hospital, I would advise you that the cost of maintenance and security has risen by a further £23,300 since I last wrote to you on the matter in March 1993."
  That is another aspect of the tale which needs highlighting. The cost of keeping the building safe and secure has been increasing every year—from £14,600 in 1993 to £37,900 earlier this year. Yet, despite that expenditure, the buildings were rotting away.
  I have wandered round the old hospital several times, and it always amazes me that it has not been subject to more vandalism and theft. In December last year, my local authority felt obliged to write to the NHS management executive expressing concern about the lack of response from the regional health authority to concerns that the council had legitimately raised about the maintenance and security of the site and the buildings.
  The old hospital has been boarded up for years, neglected and rotting away. Throughout that entire period,

  1227
  no planning applications were submitted to the local authority; it was a period of indecision and vacillation, with nothing much happening. Then at the eleventh hour, just before I managed to secure an Adjournment debate, I was told that the hospital had been sold.
  I shall say a few words about the planning context. Hartley hospital is set in attractive grounds and, as the House has heard, it has a special history. The stone building is also very attractive and in scale with its surroundings, and the local authority has a policy for the site which goes back many years.
  The council's planning policy states that any redevelopment or conversion scheme for the former Hartley hospital should have due regard for the national green belt policy
  "since it is the Council's intention to include the site in a Green Belt".
  The council's policy refers to the Department cif the Environment circular on redundant hospital sites in green belts, and it goes on to list the acceptable uses. These uses include agriculture or forestry-related uses, outdoor sport and recreation, or institutional use such as day care, nursing home, residential college and such like; but the local authority recognises that, should these uses not be practicable, the buildings could have a tourism or leisure use such as a conference centre or perhaps a youth hostel. Housing is in the list of uses that are specifically declared unacceptable, yet it has apparently been sold by the regional health authority for housing, which is in direct conflict with the council's draft local plan.
  I want to know why a planning application was not submitted by the regional health authority to test what might or might not be acceptable to the planning authority. As I have shown, in September 1993 that was promised by Sir Bruce Martin, but six months passed and nothing very much happened.
  The Department of Health publishes an estate code which is supposed to govern these matters. It is called "Property Transactions in the NHS". It looks at the disposal of surplus property and, in paragraph 4.2, under the heading "Consideration of optimum return", it says:
  "Where there are no alternative health service uses, Health Authorities must consider with their professional advisers how to achieve the optimum return from the property."
  Paragraph 4.3 says:
  "To secure the best price possible, property which has potential for development should normally be sold with the benefit of planning permission. Health authorities or their agents must therefore establish the most favourable planning potential by making an application under the Town and Country Planning Act 1984 unless there are overriding reasons in terms of best marketing practice for not doing so and the District Valuer concurs."
  I want to know why that was not done.
  Advice paper 2 amplifies the advice from the Department of Health and discusses the options available for the disposal of surplus land and property. It says that
  "a critical phase of a disposal is that of obtaining the best planning consent and a full discussion with professional advisers and the DV must take place on the type of consent to be sought and any other material marketing considerations."
  I asked Mr. Richard Strickland of the regional health authority earlier today why no planning application was submitted, and he referred me to an undertaking that had allegedly been made by the Minister for Health in the 1980s—presumably, the present Leader of the House—that every effort would be made to secure a health service
  1228
  or allied health use. Mr. Strickland could not point me to where I might find evidence of this commitment, but he recalled its having been made. He also told me that the district valuer had approved the sale to the mystery buyers on the ground that the value of the site with existing use or with housing permission would be the same, something which I find difficult to grasp. If there were a housing development, Mr. Strickland said, it would not be a high-density one.
  It seems to me that the regional health authority and the district valuer have made a lot of assumptions. Any planning application that the new buyer submits will have to be considered by the council, and the new buyer should not necessarily assume that planning permission will follow for any housing development. In one sense, the new buyers may be buying a pig in a poke because there is no outstanding planning permission for housing use.
  The local planning authority will have to consider several matters. It will take into account its policy for a green-belt development, its own policy specifically for the development of the Hartley hospital site, and the Government guidelines. I am thinking of the 1991 guidelines on the use of redundant hospitals in green-belt areas. I believe that the Government are currently examining those guidelines and will shortly reissue them in a modified form. My contention is that what is acceptable and what is not acceptable can be tested only by submitting a planning application. The regional health authority did not do so, even though the guidance from the Department of Health specifically advises it to do so in order to obtain the best price.
  My preference has always been for the hospital to be used as a hospice. However, one must be realistic. In the absence of such a proposal, I wanted to see it put to some community use. A proposal has been made for community use. An offer has been made by a Buddhist group, the Losang Dragpa centre. It has several established centres across the country. One is at Conishead priory, which was restored by the group in 1976. Another, at Kilnwich Percy hall in Pocklington, York, was opened in 1986. Another is in a former hotel in Buxton in Derbyshire. The group thinks that the old Hartley hospital would be a perfect setting for one of its centres.
  The proposal has widespread all-party support locally. The local authority has looked at the application and supports it energetically. It will retain the buildings that Sir William gave to the people of Colne. It would allow some community use. The Buddhist group proposes that there will be some serviced residential accommodation. There will be a lecture theatre for residential courses. There will be quality overnight accommodation for tourists. There will be teaching facilities and evening classes. The centre will not be exclusive to Buddhists. Anyone, whether Buddhist or not, could use the centre.
  The Losang Dragpa centre put in an offer last year of £245,000. It was apparently turned down. I have here a letter from the Buddhist group which tells me that it was shown round the hospital, it put in a bid and it was told by a Mr. Soloman of the estates department that the property was not on the market. I find that inexplicable because someone somewhere

  1229
  looked at the proposal and decided to reject it. Presumably it was the chairman, Sir Bruce Martin, under the delegated powers to which I have referred.
  An offer of £245,000 was put to the regional health authority by the Buddhist group. That proposal falls full square within the planning policy agreed by the local planning authority. It was rejected. A mystery buyer based in Simonstone has made an offer—I do not know for how much—which has apparently just been accepted by the regional health authority. That proposal falls directly outside the planning policy of the local authority. The people who have bought the hospital should not expect to obtain planning permission to redevelop it.
  What is the charge? It is that the regional health authority has, throughout the saga, moved at a snail's pace. The lovely hospital was gifted to the people of Colne in my constituency; it has been boarded up for five years and has been slowly decaying while the regional health authority has been biting its finger nails wondering what to do with it.
  The regional health authority has totally disregarded the planning context, and has sold the property to a buyer—although the contract has not yet been exchanged—who apparently intends to put it to housing use. That is directly contrary to the publicly expressed policies of the local planning authority. I want the Minister to consider the history and background to the affair to see whether he can satisfy himself that the regional health authority has acted properly, because I do not think that it has.
  I shall urge Pendle borough council, the local planning authority, to stick to its guns and to insist that any development of Hartley hospital falls full square within its planning policies. For that hospital of all hospitals to be turned into luxury flats would be an insult to the memory of Sir William Hartley. The people of Colne deserve much better.
  6.21 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): In the short time that remains, I should like to make a few comments on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
  As the hon. Gentleman will know, there have been repeated efforts to sell Hartley hospital over a number of years. There has been a difficult property market in that area and, in common with many other districts, it has been difficult to sell property, whether commercial or domestic. The various offers and negotiations that have taken place over the years have not come to fruition, either because a buyer who made an offer was unable to come up with the finance or because offers were made that were unacceptably low.
  The hon. Gentleman made a connection between the offer that has recently been accepted from a commercial concern and his successful application for a debate in the House. I have to disappoint him: there is no connection between those two matters. It could be said that the property market is recovering and we are fortunate that the regional health authority has apparently obtained an offer from a concern of good
  1230
  standing. I hope that it will come to fruition because we do not want the Hartley hospital to be lying empty and decaying any longer.
  We want the health service in the north-west to receive the proceeds of such a sale. In the past year or so, the region has been successful in disposing of property, and the proceeds of all such disposals go back into the health service.
  Although the hon. Gentleman appeared to wish to take the credit for the latest transaction, he also said that he disapproved of the nature of the transaction because he believed that the property was to be used for an unsuitable purpose. Our remit in the NHS is to dispose of surplus property for the price, or as close to it, that professional advisers and the district valuer advise us is suitable. We are not in the planning business, which is for others. Our responsibility is to obtain a good price. I am advised that the offer that has been made is close to the asking price, although that is much lower than it was a few years ago—in common with commercial property everywhere. Therefore, I hope that the deal will go through, but it is for others to decide whether to allow any specific use to which the property is put or to which the new buyers wish to put it.
  The hon. Member for Pendle mentioned other possible uses. Obviously it would be a very good thing if the hospice movement in the north-west could be further extended. I understand however, that no proposal was made by any voluntary or other organisation to use the Hartley hospital as a hospice. I opened a new hospice only yesterday in another part of the country and I am well aware of the wonderful work that hospices do, but, although I gather that the hospice movement may be seeking further hospices or day centres around the north-west, there is no specific proposal in the hon. Gentleman's area.
  I am not aware of any prejudice by Sir Bruce Martin against Buddhists. I am sure that if that organisation had made an offer that was, according to the region's advisers and the district valuer, a good offer and at, or close to, the asking price, there would have been no problem in selling the property to the Buddhists. I think that that is, if not a red herring, simply a matter of commercial reality. We have to dispose of health service property at a proper price and we have not, in spite of repeated efforts in the past three years, received a suitable offer from a concern that appeared able to complete until now.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we want extra funds for the health service. We dispose of property in a way that provides extra funds for the health service and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me therefore—
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Before the Minister concludes, I wonder whether he would address the point that lies at the heart of the matter—that the regional health authority disregarded the planning context, and at no stage submitted a planning application to the planning authority to find out what might or might not be acceptable.
  Mr. Sackville: As I said, our remit is to dispose of property at the price that professional advisers tell us it is worth. The question of planning is for other people. If professional advisers in the region believe that the buyer is good for a sum which is said to be the proper price for the property, that is our main consideration. The question

  1231
  whether the buyer obtains planning permission is one for the planning authority and for the new owners. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in saying that if the price that has been offered is a good one, the NHS will achieve that price.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Six o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Studies Board
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many advisory committees, in addition to the Ethnic Minorities Advisory Committee, operate under the auspices of the Judicial Studies Board; what are their terms of reference; and if he will list the members and chairpersons of each of these advisory committees, including the Ethnic Minorities Advisory Committee.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Ethnic Minorities Advisory Committee is the only advisory committee of the Judicial Studies Board.

  The current membership of EMAC is:

  Mr. Justice Brooke (Chairman)

  Mr. Trevor Hall (Vice-Chairman)

  Ms Kamlesh Bahl

  Professor Michael Banton JP

  Mrs. Jasu Chatwani

  Judge Gerald Coles QC

  Ms Shirley Daniel

  Mrs. Sylvia Denman CBE

  Mr. Navnit Dholakia OBE, JP

  Mr. Peter Herbert

  Dr. Zaka Ullah Khan OBE, JP

  Judge Nicholas Medawar QC

  Mr. Goolam Meeran

  Ms Patricia Scotland QC

  Professor Avrom Sherr

  Mr. Ranjit Sondhi

  District Judge Peter Wartnaby

  Ms Anesta Weekes

  Ms Cecilia Wells

  Judges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judges were educated at independent schools; and what proportion this is of the total in England.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Aggregated information relating to the schools attended by judges is not readily available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what statistics he has of the political allegiance of judges in England.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Statistics are not kept on political affiliation. Judges are appointed without regard to political affiliation and members of the full-time judiciary may not engage in political activity.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average number of hours per week a judge works in court.

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

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he has taken to 758
  implement (a) the progressive introduction of open advertisements for some judicial vacancies and (b) other reform measures he advocated in his Department's press notice 158.93 of 7 July 1993 on improvements in the judicial appointments system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In his speech to Her Majesty's Judges at the Guildhall on 7 July 1993 the Lord Chancellor said that because of the wide range of issues involved and the extensive preparatory work which his programme would entail, it would be some time before all the measures could be introduced over the whole field of judicial appointments. That work is currently in progress, and an announcement will be made as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates in England have declared political allegiances; and if he will provide an analysis.

  Mr John M. Taylor
  This information can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to allow those whose applications to become magistrates are rejected to know the reasons for their rejection.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No proposals are required. Candidates are informed of the result of their applications and it is open to anyone not satisfied to seek further reasons from the local advisory committee. The desirability of balancing benches in terms of age, gender, ethnic origin, political affiliation and occupation means that many otherwise suitable applicants are not appointed.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what considerations underlie the requirement on prospective magistrates to state their political allegiances.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor does not wish that any bench should become, or remain, unduly overweighted with the supporters of any one political party. It is for this reason that political allegiances are sought, but they are not a qualification or disqualification for appointment and candidates are not required to disclose this information. The key consideration for appointment is that a candidate should be suitable.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Details of the numbers of staff employed in each civil service grade are set out in the table. In column 2 of the table the total number of staff employed in each grade appears; column 3 shows the percentage of women in each grade.
  759

  Civil Service grades in post as at 14 March 1994

  Sustantive grade

  Staff in post

  Per cent. of women in grade

  Grade 1

  1

  0.0

  Grade 2

  2

  0.0

  Grade 3

  9

  11.1

  Grade 4

  5

  0.0

  Grade 5

  19

  15.8

  Grade 5 solicitor

  14

  21.4

  Grade 6 senior principal

  36

  22.2

  Grade 6 legal

  35

  31.4

  Senior legal assistant

  8

  25.0

  Grade 7 principal

  154

  29.9

  Grade 7 legal

  52

  61.5

  Legal assistant

  2

  0.0

  Legal officer

  1

  100.0

  SEO

  326

  34.4

  Senior assistant statistician

  2

  0.0

  Senior information officer

  1

  0.0

  HEO

  1,062

  52.1

  Information officer

  2

  50.0

  Assistant statistician

  1

  0.0

  Chief typing manager

  3

  100.0

  Librarian

  8

  50.0

  HEO D

  8

  62.5

  Administration trainee

  5

  20.0

  EO

  2,046

  65.5

  Assistant information officer

  1

  100.0

  Senior personal secretary

  15

  100.0

  Typing manager

  33

  100.0

  Assistant librarian

  8

  100.0

  Support manager 2

  5

  0.0

  Support manager 3

  31

  71.0

  AO

  4,432

  76.4

  Personal secretary

  69

  100.0

  Interpreter

  2

  100.0

  AA

  635

  71.0

  Support grade band 1

  146

  61.0

  Support grade band 2

  1,426

  59.5

  Typist

  737

  99.9

  Specialist typist

  1

  100.0

  Trainee typist

  4

  100.0

  Total

  11,347

  68.6

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide whatever information is available of those occasions on which he, or other Ministers in his Department, now or in the past, have signed public interest immunity certificates since 1979; and for what reasons.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No public interest immunity certificates have been signed either by me or by the Lord Chancellor since our appointments. Otherwise, the information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases since 1990 judges have been asked to consider a public interest immunity certificate.

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

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps have been or may be taken against solicitors and counsel who do not ensure that an unsuccessful legally aided litigant is ordered to pay costs.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  An unsuccessful legally aided litigant's liability to pay costs is provided for by section 17 of the Legal Aid Act 1988. Any solicitor or counsel acting for a litigant who is successful against a legally aided litigant would have to consider the question of costs against that background.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of time and resources, on average, were spent on activities not directed to processing or furthering any individual cases(a) before and (b) after franchising and BS5750.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  (a) All but a small number of the Legal Aid Board's central staff have been involved in the processing or furthering of individual cases. On average the staff not involved, excluding Legal Aid Board members, have numbered 60: approximately 4 per cent. of the work force.

  (b) The board's management systems accredited under BS5750 are the mechanism by which it processes work and therefore are an integral part of the resources directed to processing and furthering individual cases. A small central team of three staff is responsible for maintaining the documentation of the management system and ensuring the necessary control systems are in place to monitor compliance. The number of full-time equivalent staff employed on franchising will be between 70 and 80; approximately 5 per cent. of the board's employees.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of(a) civil and (b) criminal legal aid applications were processed by the Leeds legal aid board within (i) two weeks, (ii) six weeks and (iii) over six weeks for 1992–93.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  (a) In 1992–93 the Leeds area office of the Legal Aid Board processed 74.9 per cent. of civil legal aid applications within two weeks and 94.1 per cent. within six weeks; 5.9 per cent. took more than six weeks.

  (b) The grant of criminal legal aid is for the most part the responsibility of the magistrates courts and the Crown court. However, in certain circumstances, area committees of the Legal Aid Board consider applications for review of refusal of grant by the courts. Information on the length of time taken to process applications for criminal legal aid or applications for review is not available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what criteria the costs of successful legally aided litigants' costs are met out of the legal aid fund rather than by unsuccessful litigants; and what was the cost to the legal aid fund of the meeting of costs in this way in the last year for which figures are available.
  761
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The order as to costs is a matter within the discretion of the courts. The information requested about the cost to the fund of paying successful legally aided litigants' costs is not available.

  Barristers
  Mr. Martin Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what was the cost to public funds in 1992–93 of providing barristers(a) to prosecute cases and (b) to defend cases.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost of providing barristers to prosecute cases brought by the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1992–93 was £81.7 million. Information on payments made by other prosecution agencies is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Payments to barristers in respect of criminal legal aid amounted to £136.5 million. Payments are also made from central funds in cases where a privately represented defendant is awarded a cost order on acquittal. However, it is not possible to identify payments made specifically to barristers from central funds since the information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how the practice of paying counsel directly who have been instructed by solicitors acting for the Legal Aid Board accords with the professional rules and practice which should apply to counsel receiving fees directly from clients.

  Mr. John M Taylor
  There is no professional rule which requires payments to counsel to be made by the instructing solicitors rather than by the solicitor's client. It is customary for payment to be made by the solicitor but this is not a requirement, professional or otherwise. Direct payment to counsel by the Legal Aid Board, or by any client, avoids unnecessary work and delay.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his latest estimate for 1993–94 of the percentage of(a) civil and (b) criminal legal aid applications processed by the Leeds legal aid board within (i) two weeks, (ii) six weeks and (iii) over six weeks.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  (a) In the 11 months to the end of February 1994 the Leeds area office of the Legal Aid Board processed 81.2 per cent. of applications for civil legal aid within two weeks and 94.9 per cent. within six weeks; 5.1 per cent. took more than six weeks.

  (b) The grant of criminal legal aid is for the most part the responsibility of the magistrates' courts and the Crown court. However, in certain circumstances, area committees of the Legal Aid Board consider applications for review of refusal of grant by the courts. Information on the length of time taken to process applications for criminal legal aid or applications for review is not available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of time and resources are currently spent on franchising and BS5750.
  762
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The board's management systems accredited under BS5750 are the mechanism by which the Legal Aid Board processes work and therefore represent a central call on the resources directed to processing and furthering individual cases. Over 90 per cent. of the board's employees are involved in such work. A small central team of three staff has the responsibility of maintaining the documentation of the management system and ensuring necessary control systems are in place to monitor compliance. The number of full-time equivalent staff employed on franchising will be between 70 and 80; approximately 5 per cent. of the board's employees.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of(a) civil and (b) criminal legal aid applications processed by the Leeds Legal Aid Board for the years (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94 to date had to pay a contribution towards their legal aid costs.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  (a) In respect of civil legal aid, the Legal Aid Board does not maintain separate figures for individual area offices on this point. Nationally the figures are as follows: (i) 14.1 per cent., and (ii) 14.2 per cent.

  (b) The Legal Aid Board has only very limited involvement in the grant of criminal legal aid which, for the most part, is the responsibility of the magistrates courts and the Crown court. In 1992, the last year for which figures are available, about 5.8 per cent. of grants of criminal legal aid made by the courts were subject to a contribution.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions the Legal Aid Board has sought to argue that a successful legally aided litigant's costs can be paid out of the legal aid fund in any event and so it does not make any difference to the successful legally aided litigant or his solicitors and counsel whether the costs of the successful litigation against the Legal Aid Board are paid out of the legal aid fund or out of the Legal Aid Board's own budget for conducting litigation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available. The decisions reached as to costs and costs orders made by the courts in proceedings involving the Legal Aid Board will, however, reflect all the circumstances of the litigation.

  Pepper v. Hart
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) of 7 March,Official Report, column 70, on Pepper v. Hart, what estimate has been made of the additional cost of litigation arising from the case; and what issues regarding such cost are being taken up with the governing bodies of legal practitioners.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No formal estimate has been made of the additional cost of litigation directly attributable to the decision in Pepper v. Hart. The primary issues to which my earlier answer referred concern the availability of Hansard, the costs to those outside Government of tracing proceedings which might be relevant, and the ways in which such costs might be kept to a minimum.
  763
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) of 7 March,Official Report, column 70, on Pepper v. Hart, if he will list the practical steps which are being put into practice to correct mistakes in ministerial statements during the passage of legislation; and in what manner such corrections will be published.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  If it proves necessary to correct any inadvertent ambiguity or error in a ministerial statement made during the passage of a Bill, the aim is to do this as promptly as possible at an appropriate point during the further consideration of the Bill. The best means of doing so and reading such a correction into the official record will depend on a number of factors, including the stage which the Bill has reached and the nature of the proceedings at that point.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Long Lartin Prison
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the representations made on behalf of Mr. George Long (B2514), HM prison Long Lartin on 21 April 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend's recent decision to refer Mr. Long's case to the Court of Appeal was notified to Mr. Long and to his solicitors on 10 March.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received and from whom, concerning the procedures by which he is seeking to reform the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since announcing in November 1992 our intention to replace the present criminal injuries compensation scheme with a tariff scheme we have received representations and comments from 143 hon. Members, either writing on their own behalf or on behalf of constituents, six members of the public, and from the following bodies:

  Association of Personal Injury Lawyers

  General Council of the Bar

  Faculty of Advocates, Scotland

  Law Society of Scotland

  London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  National Association of Victim Support Schemes

  Trades Union Congress

  Transport Salaried Staff Association

  British Security Industry Association

  Police Federation

  Barking and Dagenham Community Police Consultative

  Group

  War Widows Association of Great Britain

  Family Service Units

  Changing Faces

  Various barristers and solicitors

  Various local victim support schemes

  Ethnic Minority Funding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what projects have been funded in the metropolitan borough council areas of(a) Barnsley, (b)
  764
  Doncaster, (c) Rotherham and (d) Sheffield under section 11 funding for ethnic communities; and what funding those projects will receive from his Department in 1994–95.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The titles of projects approved for funding under section 11 in Doncaster, Rotherham, and Sheffield are shown in the table, together with budget allocation figures which have been notified as the basis for grant recipients' own expenditure in 1994–95:

  Doncaster
  English as a Second Language: Support 4 Schools Enhancement of Careers Education, Guidance and Placement for Young People in the Doncaster Minority Ethnic Communities 1994–95 allocation—£100,338. Doncaster College of Further Education: Meeting the Needs of the Ethnic Minority Population 1994–95 allocation—£18,684.

  Rotherham
  Language and Curriculum Development (Schools) Rotherham Asian Youth 1994–95 allocation—£327,313.Rotherham College of Arts and Technology—English Language Support 1994–95 allocation—£24,874.

  Sheffield

  Bilingual English as a Second Language—Primary and Secondary Schools.

  African Caribbean Education—Primary and Secondary Schools.

  Under 5s—African and Caribbean and Asian communities.

  Special Educational Needs of Black Pupils.

  Education Social Work Support.

  Careers Opportunities Race and Education.

  Field Support and Strategy.

  Community Liaison—Asian communities.

  Community Literacy.

  Additional Work with African Caribbean Young People.

  Additional Work with Asian Young People.

  Ethnic Minority Mental Health.

  Day Services for Ethnic Minority Elders.

  Multi-lingual Communication and Community Access Team.

  Children and Young People—Social Services Support.

  Asian Womens Support.

  Community Group Development.

  Information and Welfare Rights.

  Black Employment and Economic Development.

  Information support and Development.

  Ethnic Minorities Occupational Health Initiative.

  1994/95 allocation—£1,697,662.

  South Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority.

  Community Fire Safety Education.

  1994/95 allocation—£12,751.

  There is currently no approved section 11 project in Barnsley.

  DNA Genetic Fingerprinting
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate for the number of entries in the national DNA genetic fingerprint database; whether a DNA sample could be taken in relation to any individual convicted of a serious arrestable offence once the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill passes into law; and how many entries there are on the criminal names index of the police national computer that currently relate to serious arrestable offences.

  Mr. Maclean
  At present DNA records relating to some 3,000 offences are held by forensic science organisations in England and Wales. Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill the theoretical maximum size of the DNA database would be about the
  765
  same as that of the fingerprint record—about 5 million records—since the proposed power to take samples would be broadly the same as the present power to take fingerprints. Whether and how quickly the database reaches this size would depend upon the operational criteria which the police apply in taking samples for DNA analysis.

  Under the provisions of the Bill samples for DNA analysis may be taken from any person convicted of a recordable offence, which includes a serious arrestable offence. Amendments will be introduced to ensure that this power applies only to those convicted after the coming into force of the provisions. The number of entries on the criminal names index of the police national computer which relate to serious arrestable offences is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek an order making powers to prohibit the use, by the police, of a DNA genetic fingerprint relating to those who have committed no crime.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. There are circumstances in which the police need to take samples of DNA analysis, with consent, from people who are not suspected of any crime: an example is the husband of a rape victim, for eliminating purposes. We shall be introducing amendments in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to regulate the use to which information from such analyses may be put.

  Police
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of police officers per 100,000 population for each year since 1979 for(a) the Humberside, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) South Yorkshire and (d) the West Yorkshire police authority areas.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is contained in the following table.

  Number of police officers per 100,000 population

  Year

  Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  1979

  224

  205

  206

  236

  1980

  233

  207

  221

  247

  1981

  231

  203

  222

  252

  Number and percentage of offenders convicted for certain indictable offences at Doncaster Petty Sessional Division1 and South Yorkshire Police Force Area and England and Wales 1979, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90 and 92

  Year/Area

  Burglary in a dwelling2

  Theft from vehicles

  Robbery

  Total indictable

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  [=100 per cent.]

  1979

  Doncaster

  113

  4

  36

  1

  24

  1

  2,690

  South Yorkshire

  507

  4

  159

  1

  80

  1

  11,466

  England and Wales

  19,310

  5

  7,368

  2

  3,188

  1

  412,346

  1980

  Doncaster

  128

  5

  32

  1

  25

  1

  2,801

  South Yorkshire

  524

  4

  171

  1

  61

  1

  11,704

  England and Wales

  22,808

  5

  8,559

  2

  3,470

  1

  455,425

  1982

  Doncaster

  196

  6

  69

  2

  29

  1

  3,224

  South Yorkshire

  668

  5

  254

  2

  86

  1

  12,609

  England and Wales

  24,827

  5

  12,918

  3

  4,375

  1

  475,131

  1984

  Doncaster

  165

  5

  79

  2

  29

  1

  3,439

  South Yorkshire

  717

  5

  276

  2

  107

  1

  13,399

  England and Wales

  25,842

  6

  10,970

  2

  4,282

  1

  449,449

  766

  Year

  Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  1982

  232

  204

  223

  253

  1983

  233

  203

  221

  251

  1984

  227

  199

  222

  248

  1985

  231

  199

  222

  249

  1986

  235

  197

  222

  253

  1987

  235

  201

  230

  257

  1988

  237

  197

  231

  258

  1989

  238

  197

  232

  258

  1990

  236

  195

  234

  260

  1991

  238

  194

  234

  252

  1992

  235

  199

  234

  247

  1993

  230

  184

  231

  238

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration the Data Protection Registrar has given to the definition of "record" in subsection 4 of clause 43 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, in respect of each of the eight data protection principles.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The registrar has expressed his concern that the definition used in the Bill may throw doubt on the meaning of "record" in other statutory provisions, and for that reason the Government are considering tabling an amendment to delete the definition. The registrar has not expressed a view about the implications of the definition for the data protection principles.

  Crime, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there were in(a) the Doncaster area and (b) South Yorkshire as a whole in each of the last 14 years for (i) house burglary, (ii) theft from vehicles and (iii) robbery; and if he will give the total number of convictions for these offences for each year during this period as a proportion of all offences committed.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1979, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990 and 1992 is given in the table. Data for other years would involve disproportionate cost.
  767

  Year/Area

  Burglary in a dwelling2

  Theft from vehicles

  Robbery

  Total indictable

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  [=100 per cent.]

  1986

  Doncaster

  171

  5

  73

  2

  18

  1

  3,280

  South Yorkshire

  577

  5

  203

  2

  132

  1

  11,760

  England and Wales

  20,527

  5

  9,145

  2

  4,196

  1

  384,209

  1988

  Doncaster

  223

  7

  107

  3

  12

  0

  3,079

  South Yorkshire

  677

  6

  258

  2

  100

  1

  11,484

  England and Wales

  19,468

  5

  8,406

  2

  4,311

  1

  386,236

  1990

  Doncaster

  196

  8

  98

  4

  22

  1

  2,540

  South Yorkshire

  597

  6

  334

  3

  144

  2

  9,580

  England and Wales

  18,386

  5

  7,622

  2

  4,806

  1

  342,759

  1992

  Doncaster

  152

  7

  67

  3

  27

  1

  2,180

  South Yorkshire

  582

  7

  259

  3

  129

  1

  8,742

  England and Wales

  18,637

  6

  6,257

  2

  5,082

  2

  324,910

  1 Includes cases heard at the Crown Court where the committing court was Doncaster psd.

  2 Also includes 'aggravated' burglary in a dwelling.

  Detainees (Self-harm)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many acts of deliberate self-harm there have been among those held in detention for immigration or asylum reasons in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of immigration detainees who have committed acts of deliberate self-harm in immigration detention accommodation, and in Haslar holding centre, in the last four years is as follows:

  Immigration Detention Accommodation

  Haslar

  1990

  8

  3

  1991

  15

  0

  1992

  10

  1

  1993

  16

  2

  Information about acts of self-harm in other Prison Service establishments did not identify immigration detainees separately until June 1993. Between June and December 1993 there were 13 such incidents.

  Prison Numbers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of people imprisoned in each year since 1979.

  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. Derek Lewis to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 17 March 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what was the total number of people imprisoned in each year since 1979.
  Information on the number of receptions into Prison Service establishments for the years 1979 to 1991 is published in the 1989 and 1991 editions of "Prison Statistics, England and Wales"
  768
  (Table 1.14, Cm 1221 and 2157) copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The latest available provisional information for 1992 and 1993 is given in the attached table.

  Receptions into Prison Service establishments, England and Wales by type of custody, 1992–19931

  Type of custody

  Year

  1992

  1993

  Males

  Untried2

  47,593

  51,047

  Convicted Unsentenced2

  19,099

  30,038

  Immediate custody2

  48,968

  49,530

  Fine defaulters and non-criminal

  21,917

  25,646

  Females

  Untried2

  2,376

  2,663

  Convicted Unsentenced2

  1,178

  1,566

  Immediate custody2

  2,198

  2,382

  Fine defaulters and non-criminal

  1,189

  1,590

  1 Provisional figures

  2 A person initially received as untried and subsequently received as convicted unsentenced is counted in both sets of figures. A person subsequently received as a sentenced prisoner is counted separately in those figures.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prison inmates were serving life sentences in prisons in England and Wales on 1 March.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 17 March 1994:
  POPULATION OF LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the population of life sentence prisoners in Prison Service establishments.
  The latest available information is for 31 January 1994 and shows that there were 3,148 prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales serving life sentences, of whom 3,040 were men and 108 were women.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the total amount of public money spent annually on crime prevention in England and Wales; and what percentage this represents of the cost of policing.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information available is as follows. Estimated expenditure on crime prevention in its widest sense across Government Departments in England and Wales in 1992–93 was £200 million. That figure is separate from and additional to public expenditure on the police which was £5.9 billion in 1992–93 and £6.2 billion in 1993–94, an increase of 87 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. The prevention of crime is one of the key functions of the police. Local authorities also spend money on crime prevention, but information on this is not held centrally.

  Rule 43 Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were being held on rule 43 in prisons in England and Wales on 1 March.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 17 March 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners held on Rule 43 in prisons in England and Wales on 1 March.
  The table shows the number of inmates held on Prison Rule 43 and Young Offender Institution Rule 46 on 1 March 1994.

  Rule 43 and rule 46 (own protection)

  Rule 43 and rule 46 (good order and discipline)

  Men

  1,284

  248

  Women

  11

  3

  Total

  1,295

  251

  The table does not include inmates held in vulnerable prisoner units. On 1 March, 1,773 inmates were being held in these units who were not on either Rule 43 or Rule 46.

  Prisoners (Christmas Leave)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list by(a) HM prison, (b) HM remand prison the number of prisoners who applied for Christmas leave and the number of those who were granted Christmas leave; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what criteria he uses when deciding which prisoners may be granted Christmas leave; and if he will make a statement.

  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.
  770
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 March 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the Office, to reply to your recent Questions about the criteria used to consider applications made by prisoners to be granted Christmas leave, and the number of prisoners who applied for and were granted Christmas leave last year. Figures for previous years are not available.
  The criteria governing the grant of temporary release and home leave are set out in Circular Instructions 12/1988, 36/1989 and 43/1992, copies of which are in the House Library. Remand prisoners are ineligible to apply under either scheme.
  In addition, specific advice was issued to governors in November last year setting out guidance on the arrangements for the grant of home leave and temporary release over the Christmas and New Year periods. A copy of this instruction (IG 29/1993) is also in the House Library.
  The figures set out below show those establishments which received applications for home leave or temporary release, and the number of applications made and granted specifically to cover the Christmas period, including 25 and 26 December 1993. Some establishments have not retained records of the number of applications which were made, and these are indicated as not available (N/A) in the table.

  Establishment

  Release applications

  Releases granted

  Albany

  3

  1

  Aldington

  13

  13

  Ashwell

  19

  19

  Askham Grange

  64

  58

  Blakenhurst

  0

  0

  Blantyre House

  18

  18

  Brockhill

  6

  6

  Camp Hill

  20

  18

  Canterbury

  9

  9

  Dorchester

  1

  1

  Downview

  n/a

  21

  Drake Hall

  56

  43

  East Sutton Park

  14

  14

  Elmley

  25

  13

  Feltham

  59

  37

  Finnamore Wood

  1

  1

  Ford

  104

  104

  Grendon

  2

  2

  Haslar

  4

  4

  Haverigg

  16

  15

  Howell Grange

  60

  49

  High Down

  4

  4

  Hollesley Bay

  22

  22

  Holloway

  70

  44

  Kirkham

  71

  71

  Kirklevington

  62

  62

  Lancaster Castle

  76

  21

  Lancaster Farms

  9

  1

  Latchmere House

  130

  130

  Leeds

  10

  0

  Leicester

  4

  2

  Littlehey

  13

  13

  Liverpool

  5

  0

  Low Newton

  2

  2

  The Mount

  73

  36

  New Hall

  6

  6

  North Sea Camp

  n/a

  92

  Norwich

  21

  18

  Parkhurst

  5

  3

  Pentonville

  2

  0

  Risley

  21

  21

  Rudgate

  33

  29

  Send

  21

  6

  Spring Hill

  78

  78

  Standford Hill

  64

  59

  Stocken

  13

  13

  Styal

  12

  10

  Sudbury

  79

  79

  Swinfen Hall

  28

  13

  Thorn Cross

  34

  34

  771

  Establishment

  Release applications

  Releases granted

  Wakefield

  8

  8

  Wandsworth

  n/a

  4

  Wayland

  17

  17

  Wellingborough

  23

  19

  Werrington

  60

  30

  Whitemoor

  2

  0

  Winchester

  n/a

  6

  Receptions of remand prisoners into Prison Service establishments in Humberside and Yorkshire—19931

  Male - Ethnic origin

  Female - Ethnic origin

  Age at remand

  Total

  White

  Black2

  South Asian3

  Chinese and other4

  Total

  White

  Black2

  South Asian3

  Chinese and other4

  HUMBERSIDE

  All remands

  All ages

  2,267

  2,154

  76

  22

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  295

  281

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  1,968

  1,869

  69

  15

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All untried

  All ages

  1,917

  1,823

  61

  21

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  245

  232

  6

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  1,669

  1,588

  55

  14

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First received as untried not subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  1,285

  1,219

  40

  17

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  144

  133

  5

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  1,139

  1,084

  35

  11

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First received as untried subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  632

  604

  21

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  101

  99

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  530

  504

  20

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First received as convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  350

  331

  15

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  50

  49

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  299

  281

  14

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  982

  935

  36

  5

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  151

  148

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  829

  785

  34

  4

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NORTH YORKSHIRE

  All remands

  All ages

  143

  135

  4

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  23

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  120

  112

  4

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All untried

  All ages

  133

  125

  4

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  772

  Custodial Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were remanded in custody in (i) Humberside, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) South Wayland and (iv) West Yorkshire for the latest year he has figures available, broken down by(a) sex, (b) racial category, (c) aged under 17 years, (d) aged 17 to 21 years, (e) aged over 21 and under 65 years and (f) aged 65 years and over.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Provisional information for remand receptions into Prison Service establishments in the areas specified in 1993 is given in the table.
  773

  Male - Ethnic origin

  Female - Ethnic origin

  Age at remand

  Total

  White

  Black2

  South Asian3

  Chinese and other4

  Total

  White

  Black2

  South Asian3

  Chinese and other4

  Under 17

  20

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  113

  105

  4

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First received as untried not subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  87

  81

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  12

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  75

  69

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First received as untried subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  46

  44

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  8

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  38

  36

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First received as convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  10

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  56

  54

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  11

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  45

  43

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  WEST YORKSHIRE

  All remands

  All ages

  2,089

  1,794

  123

  145

  27

  336

  311

  13

  2

  10

  Under 17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  273

  235

  15

  20

  3

  124

  115

  3

  1

  5

  22–64

  1,804

  1,547

  108

  125

  24

  212

  196

  10

  1

  5

  65 and over

  12

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All untried

  All ages

  1,706

  1,464

  107

  115

  20

  290

  269

  12

  2

  7

  Under 17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  209

  183

  12

  12

  2

  103

  95

  3

  1

  4

  22–64

  1,485

  1,269

  95

  103

  18

  187

  174

  9

  1

  3

  65 and over.

  12

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First received as untried not subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  1,268

  1,069

  86

  98

  15

  227

  211

  11

  1

  4

  Under 17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  149

  127

  10

  10

  2

  72

  67

  3

  —

  2

  22–64

  1,108

  931

  76

  88

  13

  155

  144

  8

  1

  2

  65 and over

  11

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First received as untried subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  438

  395

  21

  17

  5

  63

  58

  1

  1

  3

  Under 17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  60

  56

  2

  2

  —

  31

  28

  —

  1

  2

  22–64

  377

  338

  19

  15

  5

  32

  30

  1

  —

  1

  65 and over

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First received as convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  383

  330

  16

  30

  7

  46

  42

  1

  —

  3

  Under 17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  774

  775

  Male - Ethnic origin

  Female - Ethnic origin

  Age at remand

  Total

  White

  Black2

  South Asian3

  Chinese and other4

  Total

  White

  Black2

  South Asian3

  Chinese and other4

  17–21

  64

  52

  3

  8

  1

  21

  20

  —

  —

  1

  22–64

  319

  278

  13

  22

  6

  25

  22

  1

  —

  2

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  821

  725

  37

  47

  12

  109

  100

  2

  1

  6

  Under 17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  124

  108

  5

  10

  1

  52

  48

  —

  1

  3

  22–64

  696

  616

  32

  37

  11

  57

  52

  2

  —

  3

  65 and over

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE

  All remands

  All ages

  2,378

  2,207

  65

  91

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  239

  224

  9

  2

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  2,137

  1,981

  56

  89

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All untried

  All ages

  1,945

  1,808

  49

  77

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  205

  193

  7

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  1,738

  1,613

  42

  76

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First received as untried not subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  1,136

  1,046

  32

  52

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  96

  90

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  1,038

  954

  28

  51

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First received as untried subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  809

  762

  17

  25

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  109

  103

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  700

  659

  14

  25

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  First received as convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  433

  399

  16

  14

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  34

  31

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  399

  368

  14

  13

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All convicted unsentenced

  All ages

  1,242

  1,161

  33

  39

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Under 17

  143

  134

  5

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21

  1,099

  1,027

  28

  38

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22–64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Black: African, Caribbean, Other.

  3 South Asian: Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani.

  4 Chinese and other: Asian (other), Chinese, Other.

  Moorlands Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the cell of the month bonus scheme began at HM prison Moorlands; how much has been paid out to date; which other HM prisons have a similar scheme; and if he will make a statement.
  776
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 March 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Moorland Prison and Young Offender Institution.

  777
  The cell of the month scheme began on 19 December 1993. Since the scheme commenced, a total of £114 has been paid out. The scheme at Moorland is a local initiative. No central records of such initiatives are maintained and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Caernarfon, dated 18 October 1993, concerning the case of the late Dewi Jones of Llanaelhaern in Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I hope to respond to the hon. Member very shortly.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown, by race, for the latest date he has figures available, of the inmates held in each of the remand centres in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Population in remand centres on 31 December 1993 in Yorkshire and Humberside by ethnic origin1

  Establishment

  White

  Black, African, Caribbean

  Ethnic origin Southern Asian, Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani

  Other Asian, other Chinese, not recorded (including refusal)

  All persons in establishment

  Moorland

  415

  23

  14

  2

  454

  Northallerton

  128

  3

  1

  2

  134

  Total

  543

  26

  15

  4

  588

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mandatory Life Sentences
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently serving mandatory life sentences for murder; and how many of those have at all times denied their guilt.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 December 1993 when there were 2,564 prisoners in Prison Service establishments serving mandatory life sentences for murder. Information on inmates who deny their guilt is not collected centrally.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. Michael Howard
  The figures requested are given in the table, which sets out, by grade, the total number of non-industrial Home Office staff, including those in agencies, on outward secondment or on maternity or special leave, and the number and percentage of women in each grade. The information was generated from the Home Office personnel system on 15 March 1994.

  Total

  Women

  Per cent.

  Administrative Assistant

  2,167

  1,577

  73

  Administrative Officer

  4,420

  3,105

  70

  Administrative Trainee

  9

  3

  33

  778
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 March 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if he will give a breakdown by race, for the latest date he has figures available, of the inmates held in each of the remand centres in Yorkshire and Humberside.
  The latest available information is for 31 December 1993 and is given in the table. The ethnic breakdown of the population is based on the Census of Population ethnic coding classification which was introduced in prisons in October 1992.

  Total

  Women

  Per cent.

  Assistant Chief Officer

  2

  —

  —

  Assistant Director

  9

  —

  —

  Assistant Divisional Officer

  4

  —

  —

  Assistant Immigration Officer

  39

  22

  56

  Assistant Information Officer

  7

  3

  43

  Assistant Insp. of Fire Services

  29

  —

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  13

  9

  69

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  91

  69

  76

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  1

  100

  Assistant Storeperson

  102

  8

  8

  C. of E./R.C. Chaplain (P/T)

  128

  26

  20

  C. of E. Chaplain

  97

  5

  5

  Chief Immigration Officer

  361

  52

  14

  Chief Inspector-Animals S.P. Inspec.

  1

  —

  —

  Chief Typing Manager

  4

  4

  100

  Commandant

  1

  —

  —

  Comms. Officer 2

  1

  —

  —

  Comms. Officer 3

  15

  2

  13

  Consultant Voluntary Services Unit

  2

  2

  100

  Divisional Officer 1

  1

  —

  —

  Divisional Officer 2

  2

  —

  —

  Executive Officer

  2,122

  1,179

  56

  Farm Manager

  85

  1

  1

  Fireground Supervisor

  1

  —

  —

  Foreman

  1

  —

  —

  Governor 1

  39

  —

  —

  Governor 2

  86

  7

  8

  Governor 3

  117

  14

  12

  Governor 4

  313

  38

  12

  Governor 5

  440

  30

  7

  Governor 5 (APS)1

  25

  6

  24

  Grade 1 (PUSS)

  1

  —

  —

  Grade 2 (DUSS)

  8

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  28

  7

  25

  Grade 4

  3

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  95

  23

  24

  Grade 6

  102

  13

  13

  Grade 7

  615

  159

  26

  779

  Total

  Women

  Per cent.

  Graphics Officer

  14

  3

  21

  Graphics Technical Grade

  1

  1

  100

  Head of Department 3

  1

  —

  —

  Head of Department 4

  1

  —

  —

  Head of Department 5

  1

  —

  —

  Head of Department 6

  1

  —

  —

  Head Pharmacist

  1

  —

  —

  Higher Executive Off. (Development)

  28

  10

  36

  Higher Executive Officer

  1,194

  491

  41

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1

  —

  —

  Higher Instructional Officer

  28

  2

  7

  Higher Prof. and Tech. Officer

  132

  5

  4

  Higher Psychologist

  44

  32

  73

  Higher Scientific Officer

  178

  82

  46

  Higher Telecoms Tech. Off.

  18

  —

  —

  HM Chief Insp. of Fire Services

  1

  —

  —

  HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary

  1

  —

  —

  HM Insp. of Fire Services 1

  2

  —

  —

  HM Insp. of Fire Services 2

  7

  —

  —

  HM Inspector of Constabulary

  5

  —

  —

  Immigration Officer

  2,209

  824

  37

  Information Officer

  19

  13

  68

  Inspector (Immigration Service)

  70

  1

  1

  Inspector—Animals S. P. Insp.

  17

  2

  9

  Instructional Officer I

  1,031

  145

  14

  Instructional Officer II

  2

  —

  —

  Interpreter

  7

  2

  29

  Lecturer 2

  24

  6

  25

  Legal Officer

  4

  3

  75

  Librarian

  7

  5

  71

  Matron Housekeeper

  1

  1

  100

  Medical Officer

  86

  8

  9

  Medical Officer (P/T)

  108

  4

  4

  Night Patrol

  929

  81

  9

  Nursing Grade A

  4

  3

  75

  Nursing Grade C

  53

  49

  92

  Nursing Grade D

  117

  95

  81

  Nursing Grade E

  127

  87

  69

  Nursing Grade F

  109

  89

  82

  Nursing Grade G

  28

  20

  71

  Nursing Grade H

  6

  5

  83

  Personal Secretary

  495

  492

  99

  Pharmacist

  18

  13

  72

  Pharmacy Technician

  23

  21

  91

  Principal Lecturer

  3

  —

  —

  Principal Medical Officer

  5

  —

  —

  Principal Officer

  1,348

  44

  3

  Principal Officer (APS)1

  33

  9

  27

  Principal RC Chaplain

  1

  —

  —

  Prison Auxiliary

  1,593

  314

  20

  Prison Officer

  18,847

  1,800

  10

  Prison Officer (APS)1

  37

  19

  51

  Professional & Technology Off.

  98

  11

  11

  Psychological Assistant

  42

  28

  67

  Psychologist

  1

  —

  —

  Psychologist-Graduate Trainee

  28

  20

  71

  R.C. Chaplain

  16

  1

  6

  Regional Catering Manager

  5

  —

  —

  Research Officer (Social Sci.)

  16

  9

  56

  Scientific Officer

  115

  64

  56

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  8

  2

  25

  Senior Divisional Officer

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  432

  135

  31

  Senior Information Officer

  9

  4

  44

  Senior Inspector-Animals S.P. Insp.

  3

  —

  —

  Senior Instructional Officer

  2

  1

  50

  Senior Lecturer

  3

  —

  —

  Senior Legal Assistant

  2

  1

  50

  Senior Librarian

  2

  1

  50

  Senior Medical Officer

  40

  5

  13

  Senior Officer

  3,509

  116

  5

  Senior Personal Secretary

  42

  42

  100

  Senior Pharmacist

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Prof. and Tech. Officer

  147

  1

  —

  Senior Psychologist

  48

  29

  60

  Senior Research Off. (Social Sci.)

  11

  6

  55

  Senior Scientific Officer

  197

  31

  16

  Senior Telecoms Tech. Off.

  2

  —

  —

  780

  Total

  Women

  Per cent.

  Shop Assistant

  1

  1

  100

  Shop Manager

  1

  —

  —

  Staff Principal Pharmacist

  5

  —

  —

  Storeperson

  465

  21

  5

  Stores Officer Grade A

  1

  —

  —

  Stores Officer Grade B

  4

  —

  —

  Stores Officer Grade C

  1

  —

  —

  Stores Officer Grade D

  5

  1

  20

  Support Grade Band 1

  150

  103

  69

  Support Grade Band 2

  718

  435

  61

  Support Manager 1

  1

  —

  —

  Support Manager 2

  4

  3

  75

  Support Manager 3

  12

  11

  92

  Technical Grade 1

  14

  3

  21

  Technical Grade 2

  7

  3

  43

  Telecom Engineering Technician

  4

  —

  —

  Telecom Technical Engineer II

  4

  —

  —

  Telecoms Technical Officer

  1

  —

  —

  Temporary Prison Officer

  4

  4

  100

  Territorial Inspector

  4

  —

  —

  Trainee Graphics Officer

  1

  1

  100

  Trainee Typist

  1

  1

  100

  Typing Manager

  32

  32

  100

  Typist

  749

  748

  100

  Total

  47,584

  13,071

  27

  1 APS—Accelerated Promotion Scheme

  Campsfield House
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals are currently detained at Campsfield; and of these how many are(a) on hunger strike and (b) being force fed.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State being for the Home Department how many people are currently being held at Campsfield house; and how many have refused food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On Tuesday 15 March there were 191 people detained at Campsfield house; 118 were refusing food; none has been force-fed.

  Mr Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is responsible for the management of Campsfield house; who previously held such responsibility; how frequently Home Office officials visit Campsfield; and how reports on its management are made to Ministers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Since its opening on 29 November 1993 the Campsfield house immigration detention centre has been managed on behalf of the Immigration Service by Group 4 Total Security Ltd. under a total management contract. Home Office officials are based permanently at Campsfield house to oversee the management of the contract and report, through senior headquarters staff, to Ministers.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date a Minister in his Department most recently visited Campsfield house.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I visited Campsfield house today.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average it takes his Department to reach a decision on individual cases of those held at Campsfield house; and if he will make a statement.
  781
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that those held at Campsfield house are fully able to put their reasons to his officials for wishing to stay in the United Kingdom; what percentage of those held at Campsfield have been able to have qualified representatives to argue their case at the Home Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  All those detained under the powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971 have the reasons for that detention explained to them and they are informed of their right to legal advice and assistance, in a language which they understand. In addition, at Campsfield house there are posters advertising the free services available from the Immigration Advisory Service and the refugee legal centre and detainees are free to make and receive telephone calls. Legal representation may visit detainees between 9 am and 9 pm every day. Others may visit between 2 pm and 9 pm, every day. The permanent Immigration Service staff at the centre are also available to provide advice and assistance as necessary.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total policing costs associated with the recent visit to London of General Augusto Pinochet.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is a long-standing practice not to disclose the costs of security operations.

  Mr. Paul Bennett
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the procedural impropriety referred to by presiding Lord Justice Mann in the case of Mr. Paul Bennett and the subsequent discontinuance of the committal proceedings;

  (2) if the services of Mr. Paul Bennett were used or employed by any of the United Kingdom's police or Government agencies prior to committal proceedings being undertaken against him.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 16 March 1994]: Operational matters are entirely the responsibility of the chief officer of the police force concerned. Furthermore, it would not be appropriate to make any comment at this stage on the actions of the police since the case may be considered further by the courts. I understand that a formal complaint has been lodged with the Metropolitan police.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Management Systems
  Ms Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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 782
  of such systems accounts for the apparent rise in theft noted in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North (Mr. Campbell) of 16 February, Official Report, column 771.

  Mr. Hague
  Computers are used by those employed in facilities management as part of their day-to-day work. There is no reason to suppose any link between this and the number of thefts from the Department.

  Disability, Working Allowance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the reasons for the current level of take-up of the disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have commissioned research from the Policy Studies Institute as part of the evaluation of disability working allowance. The evaluation will examine take-up issues. The final report from the Policy Studies Institute is due in 1995. The final evaluation is due for completion in October 1996.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the value of the independent living fund 1993; what proportion has been allocated to date; and what proportion has been allocated to claimants in Wales.

  Mr. Scott
  Financial provision of £4 million was made for the Independent Living (1993) Fund in 1993–94. I am informed by the director of the fund that, as at 1 March, 17 per cent. of this amount had been spent.

  I am further informed that the total weekly payments to all United Kingdom clients stood at the same date at around £31,000, representing an ongoing commitment equivalent to 40 per cent. of this year's financial provision.

  Around 10.5 per cent. of the amount so far in payment to disabled people is being paid to applicants in Wales.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the assessment points for the cold weather payments trigger and the days on which the temperature fell below the trigger point in each case over the last calendar year.

  Mr. Scott
  A list of the Meterological Office weather stations used by the cold weather payment scheme, together with the temperature information used to determine triggers is held in the Library. Information is held only for the mean temperature over periods of seven days and is not available on a daily basis.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients currently in receipt of invalidity benefit are over the age of 58 years in the Doncaster area.

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

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current estimate of the average value of benefit to those in receipt of invalidity benefit in the Doncaster area.
  783
  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people in receipt of invalidity benefit in the Doncaster area for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the full range of information requested is not available. For that information which is available I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by Mr. Bichard on 3 December 1993 at columns 121–22.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him and his ministerial colleagues in February.

  Mr. Hague
  This Department received 2,522 letters from hon. Members during February. Of these, 259 were passed to chief executives of the Department's agencies for reply. A total of 1,656 replies, mostly to correspondence received in January, were sent by Ministers.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested for permanent staff employed by the Department, including its agencies, on 28 February 1994 is as follows:

  Grade (including equivalent professional and other grades)

  Total staff1

  Percentage of women

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  Grade 2

  4

  0

  Grade 3

  17

  18

  Grade 4

  9

  33

  Grade 5

  122

  24

  Grade 6

  315

  23

  Grade 7

  698

  22

  Senior Executive Officer

  1,476

  26

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  17

  35

  Higher Executive Officer

  5,950

  42

  Executive Officer

  25,439

  62

  Administrative Officer

  46,412

  75

  Administrative Assistant

  15,071

  69

  Others

  160

  73

  Total

  95,691

  67

  1 Including part-time staff paid for more than 10 hours a week.

  Notes:

  1. Total of 95,691 equates to 88,976 full time equivalent staff.

  The table excludes:—

  i. staff on loan or secondment and not being paid by the Department

  ii.staff on unpaid leave for more than three months or on unpaid maternity leave

  iii. casual staff.

  784

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Interviews
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the interviews he gave to(a) the broadcast and (b) print media on 8 and 9 March, respectively; and if he will arrange for transcripts of his broadcast interviews to be put in the Library.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On 8 March I gave formal radio and TV interviews to: ITN 5.40 pm news, Channel 4 news, BBC TV 6.00 pm news, Sky TV, BBC Radio PM programme and GMTV.

  On 9 March I gave interviews to BBC Radio Today programme, LBC, BBC Jimmy Young programme, Channel 4 news, HTV and BBC Radio Bristol. I was interviewed by NHK TV Japan on the Science White Paper.

  In addition I spoke to print journalists and broadcasters as I arrived at various engagements during the day.

  My Department does not hold transcripts of these interviews and they can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out the criteria and conditions he adopts in deciding whether to give full or abbreviated replies to parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I answer parliamentary questions on the basis set out in paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. David Davis
  The staff in post figures as at 15 March 1994 for the Cabinet Office, the Office of Public Service and Science, including CCTA, and the six executive agencies for which I am responsible—Chessington computer centre, Civil Service College, Occupational Health Service, the Recruitment and Assessment Services, COI and HMSO, are as follows:

  Grade band

  Total number of staff

  Percentage women

  Grade 1 (including 1A)

  3

  0.0

  Grade 2

  19

  10.5

  Grade 3

  26

  19.2

  Grade 4

  4

  0.0

  Grade 5

  70

  23.5

  Grade 6

  93

  19.3

  Grade 7

  347

  20.1

  SEO

  481

  26.2

  HEO(D) and AT

  17

  23.5

  HEO

  877.5

  32.3

  EO

  951

  40.9

  AO

  1,275

  67.6

  AA

  515

  67.2

  TOTAL

  4,678.5

  45.4

ENVIRONMENT

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

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

  Landfill Sites
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will conduct an urgent study into the extent of water pollution problems posed by landfill sites; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will conduct urgent studies into the connection between the landfill sites at (a) Docking, (b) Edgefield, (c) Hempton, (d) Mayton Wood, (e) Beetley„ (f) Attlebridge, (g) Blackborough End, (h) Costessey, (i) Harford, (j) Barrack road, (k) Helpston, (l) Wereham, (m) Rocklands, (n) Pakefield, (o) Norwich lane, (p) Buckden, (q) Bear's Pit and (r) Foxhall I and II, and water pollution;

  (3) what is the scientific basis for the criteria used by the Waste Regulation Authority to decide whether it is unlikely that pollution of the environment and water will occur from landfill sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment has carried out research for many years on the environmental aspects of landfilling. Since 1990 my Department has been funding specific research into the effects of landfilling on groundwater. This research is continuing.

  It has already enabled the Department to produce the monitoring protocols which will be included in statutory guidance to be published shortly with the Waste Management Licensing Regulations to be made under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This information will provide waste regulation authorities with a more precise means to decide whether a landfill site is unlikely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.

  The sites listed by the hon. Member are mostly old and/or closed. The waste regulation authorities concerned and the NRA are aware of them and additional studies have been or are being conducted, where they have judged these are appropriate. I see no need for any additional study by my Department over and above the research I have mentioned.

  Air Monitoring
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what basis sites for air monitoring were selected; if he will list the selected sites and the equipment used in respect of each; and when monitoring came into effect.

  Mr. Atkins
  The basis of site selection, the sites involved, the measurement methods and the dates of monitoring for urban monitoring sites funded by the Department of the Environment are given in the first report of the quality of urban air review group published in January 1993 which has been placed in the Library of the House. Similar information for rural monitoring of ozone is given in the first report of the photochemical oxidants.

  Local Government Superannuation
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the organisations and individuals who have responded to the report of the efficiency scrutiny of the local government superannuation scheme; and if he will place their responses in the Library;

  (2) which organisations and individuals who responded to the report of the efficiency scrutiny of the local government superannuation scheme supported the decentralisation of the local government scheme so as to allow local authorities to take responsibility for their own pension provision.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department's efficiency scrutiny report on the local government superannuation scheme was completed in July 1993. Over 1,000 copies were circulated widely in England and Wales, together with a discussion paper. Two hundred and forty responses were received from local authorities, other organisations and individual scheme members. A list of respondees has been placed in the Library, but no authority has been received to publish their actual comments. However, respondees may be willing to give an indication of their views if approached. The following organisations expressed varying degrees of support for the scrutineer's recommendation that local authorities should take responsibility for their own pension provision:

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  Somerset County Council

  Bradford Metropolitan Council

  Birmingham City Council

  Babergh District Council

  Cherwell District Council

  Woking District Council

  National Rivers Authority

  The Pensions Trust

  Association of British Insurers

  Bacon and Woodrow

  Clay and Partners

  Godwins Ltd.

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the reason for his projected progressive reduction in the expenditure projected on radioactive substances policy from £2.4 million in 1993–94 to £1.3 million in 1996–97 in figure 22 of his Department's annual report and expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1996–97, Cm 2507.

  Mr. Atkins
  The reduction in research expenditure on radioactive substances policy set out in figure 22 of Cm 2507 reflects the completion of the Department's current research and monitoring programme on radon. Research on other aspects of radioactive substances policy is being maintained on a stable basis, subject to normal year-to-year variations.

  Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what remaining assets the Commission for New Towns has to dispose of in Basildon; and when it will be wound up.

  Mr. Baldry
  In addition to the 2,444 rented and shared ownership dwellings and 10.7 acres of land due to be disposed of to the Basildon community housing
  787
  association before the end of March, the Commission for the New Towns retains the following assets for disposal in Basildon:

  390 acres of developable land;

  186,633 sq. feet of freehold commercial premises;

  6,700 sq. feet of freehold industrial premises;

  560,067 sq. feet of lease/leaseback industrial premises;

  13,190 sq. feet of other miscellaneous properties;

  54 commercial ground leases;

  3 residential hostels where negotiations are currently in progress with the managing agents;

  6 miscellaneous properties used for social/voluntary purposes.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 27 July 1993, the Commission for the New Towns is to be wound up by no later than 31 March 1998. In the mean time, the Basildon office of the Commission will close to the public on 31 March 1994.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the reason for the proposed reduction in expenditure between 1994–95 and 1995–96 on research and monitoring in the environment, as set out at figure 9 on environmental protection expenditure of his Department's annual report and expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1996–97, Cm 2507.

  Mr. Atkins
  Details of expenditure within the environmental protection programme are given in figure 22 of Cm 2507. Funding of environmental protection research and monitoring increased by about 50 per cent. since the 1990 White Paper, "This Common Inheritance". Year-to-year variations in funding, should be expected as projects move from start-up to completion. For example, the period between 1994–95 and 1995–96 is dominated by the procurement spend profile of the advanced along track scanning radiometer satellite instrument, which is due for launch in 1998.

  Liverpool Housing Department
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call for a report into complaints of corruption in the Liverpool city housing department; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  No. Local authorities are accountable to their electorate and, where necessary, to their auditor and to the courts for the conduct of their business. If the law has been broken it is a matter for the police.

  PM10 Particulates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to set a limit on acceptable levels of PM10 particulates in the air.

  Mr. Atkins
  The expert panel on air quality standards, a group of independent medical and scientific experts which recommends air quality standards to the Secretary of State for the Environment, is currently considering a standard for particulates.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the link between levels of PM10 particulates in the air and traffic levels.

  Mr. Atkins
  The recently published second report of the quality of urban air review group estimated that in 1991 788
  road vehicles contributed 27 per cent. and 42 per cent. of United Kingdom emissions of PM10 and black smoke respectively. In London, QUARG estimated the contribution of road vehicles to emissions of black smoke was 94 per cent.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, columns 294–95, which local authorities made representations to his Department seeking the use of nature of housing tenure as an indicator for the purpose of standard spending assessment distribution prior to his announcement of a provisional settlement for 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  Prior to consultation on the provisional revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95, as part the review of standard spending assessments, the following local authorities made representations in support of the use of nature of housing tenure as an indicator in the calculation of SSAs.

  Barrow Borough Council

  Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

  London Borough of Greenwich

  Leeds City Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Hazardous Chemicals
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he published his departmental discussion paper on reducing emissions of hazardous chemicals to the environment; how many copies have been prepared; at what cost; and to whom it has been circulated.

  Mr. Atkins
  The discussion paper "Reducing Emissions of Hazardous Chemicals to the Environment" was published on 7 March 1994. A total of 1,200 copies have been prepared at a cost of £25,800, which includes the cost of drafting the paper, the graphical work, printing and its distribution. The paper has been circulated within my Department, other Government Departments, relevant agencies and non-governmental organisations, industry and trade associations, all of which have interests in either the manufacture, supply and use of hazardous chemicals as well as their potential impact on human health and the environment.

  Air Pollution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received a copy of the Government Chief Medical Officer's report on asthma and air pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  No.

  The Department of Health's independent Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution has not yet reported on the effects of air pollutants on asthma. Their report is expected to be published this year.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he has made in charges payable by operators of industrial processes licensed by air pollution control authorities under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on 9 March 1994,Official Report, column 300.
  789
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has received since May 1992 from his advisory committee on releases to the environment; and what actions he has taken in response to the reports.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since 1 May 1992 the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has given advice to the Secretary of State on 20 applications to release genetically modified organisms to the environment, made under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992.

  For each application made under the regulations, all ACRE's advice has been considered by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to issue a consent to release a genetically modified organism.

  Details of each application and ACRE's advice relating to them are kept on a public register.

  Conservation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent meetings he or officials of his Department have had with the Business and Technology Education Council on its national vocational qualifications scheme on environmental conservation.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. However, the Department suppports the Council for Occupational Standards and Qualifications in Environmental Conservation, which is working with the Business and Technology Education Council to deliver environmental conservation national vocational qualifications.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support his Department gives to the Institution of Environmental Health Officers programme to improve energy efficiency in private sector housing.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has collaborated with the Institute of Environmental Health Officers on a series of workshops for IEHO members aimed at improving energy efficiency in private sector housing. We are currently considering other possible methods of collaboration.

  Acidity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of his departmental critical loads advisory group reports on critical loads of acidity in the United Kingdom; and what actions he plans to take arising from its recommendations.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government warmly welcome the reports of the critical loads advisory group and its various sub-groups. The reports contain a number of recommendations as to further research which the Department will be considering. The group's findings have been and will continue to be an essential element informing the Government's development of effects—based emission control policies and the Government's position in international negotiations designed to reduce transboundary air pollution.
  790

  Cadmium Plating
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent support his Department has given to assist research in the private sector or research establishments on clean production technologies to replace the use of cadmium plating in corrosion protection.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has recently offered a grant of up to £390,000 towards the costs of a three-year project initiated by the National Centre for Tribology, within AEA Technology. The centre will undertake the project along with a consortium of 20 or more companies. The project will investigate new technologies to replace cadmium plating in corrosion protection and in bearing materials.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of funding the careers service has received in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The available information is as follows:

  Government to local authorities in England in respect of Careers Service Administration

  £ million

  1979–80

  3.1

  1980–81

  5.2

  1981–82

  7.9

  1982–83

  11.4

  1983–84

  11.1

  1984–85

  12.0

  1985–86

  12.7

  1986–87

  13.9

  1987–88

  13.7

  1988–89

  16.8

  1989–90

  18.8

  1990–91

  23.2

  1991–92

  22.9

  1992–93

  24.5

  Aggregates
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many licensing applications have been intimated to his Department for marine dredging of aggregates in each year since 1989 for the purpose of obtaining a Government view.

  Mr. Baldry
  The numbers of licensing applications for marine dredging of aggregates intimated to my department in each year since 1989 for the purpose of obtaining a Government view are as follows:

  1989

  2

  1990

  none

  1991

  none

  1992

  4

  1993

  3

  1994

  1 to date

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many licence applications for the marine dredging of aggregates have received a favourable Government view in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  The numbers of licence applications for the marine dredging of aggregates within English waters which have received a favourable Government view in the years since 1989 are as follows:
  791

  1989

  —

  2

  1990

  —

  2

  1991

  —

  1

  1992

  —

  1

  1993

  —

  none

  1994

  —

  none to date

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total area of sea bed covered by(a) licensing applications for a Government view of marine dredging of aggregates and (b)licensing applications for the marine dredging of aggregates which have received a favourable Government view, in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total area of seabed covered by current licensing applications for a government view of marine dredging of aggregates is 196.08 sq km. The total area of seabed covered by licensing applications for the marine dredging of aggregates which have received a favourable government view, in each year since 1989 is as follows:

  1989

  —

  34.85km2

  1990

  —

  35.73km2

  1991

  —

  49.17km2

  1992

  —

  11

  1993

  —

  no favourite government views given.

  1994

  —

  no final decisions on government views given to date.

  1 The licensing application covered by the one favourable government view issued in 1992 was for a change in tonnage for two previously licence area: there was no increase in area.

  North Race Bank
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to give a decision on the Government's view of the production application by National Rivers Authority Anglia for the extraction of sand from the North Race bank.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department issued a letter on 15 March, stating that it was minded to issue a favourable Government view for limited extraction by NRA on Race bank, subject to the finalisation of strict conditions.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what payments have been made to date in respect of the City Challenge programme for Bolton; and what further authorisations are currently due.

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of £5.753 million grant has been paid to date in respect of Bolton's city challenge expenditure in 1993–94, the first year of the programme.

  Bolton city challenge partnership is forecasting a full spend of its £7.5 million funding allocation for 1993–94. A remaining £1.747 million grant is therefore due to be paid in respect of city challenge expenditure in this financial year.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend the home energy efficiency scheme to all people aged 60 years or over.

  Mr. Atkins
  Proposals to amend the regulations governing the home energy efficiency scheme which would extend eligibility for the scheme to those receiving disability living allowance and those aged 60 and over were laid before Parliament on 9 March.
  792
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will estimate how much it would cost to extend the home energy efficiency scheme to all pensioners and people with disabilities;

  (2) if he will estimate how much it would cost to extend the home energy efficiency scheme to all people aged 60 years or over.

  Mr. Atkins
  An extra £35 million per year is to be made available for the home energy efficiency scheme from 1 April 1994, when the scheme is to be extended to those receiving disability living allowance and those aged 60 and over.

  Water Disposal Areas
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to designate new areas as high natural water dispersal areas;

  (2) how many areas are designated as high natural water dispersal areas in other EU member states;

  (3) when those areas currently designated as high natural water dispersal areas were given that designation;

  (4) how many areas in the United Kingdom are designated as high natural water dispersal areas under the EC urban waste waters directive; and if he will list them;

  (5) what criteria are used for designating areas as high natural water dispersal areas;

  (6) what research is currently being conducted into high natural water dispersal areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  High natural dispersion areas will be identified on the basis of criteria adopted following a public consultation exercise in the United Kingdom in March 1992.

  No areas have yet been formally identified in the United Kingdom. An announcement will be made in due course. We do not have any information on other member states' intentions.

  Once the high natural dispersion areas have been identified, the comprehensive studies required by the directive will be carried out to demonstrate that primary treatment will have no adverse environmental effect in these areas.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities where persons in a lower council tax band may be paying a higher level of council tax than equivalent persons in a higher band due to the operation of the transitional relief scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  On the basis of information received so far it appears that some cases of this kind may arise in 1994–95 in Blyth Valley, Derwentside, Greenwich, Wakefield and Wandsworth, as a result of the decisions of these authorities to reduce headline levels of council tax considerably compared with 1993–94.

  Isle of Dogs
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount of capital and any other allowances claimed by companies in the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone; and how much of that total had been claimed by the time the deadline was extended after Canary Wharf went into administration.
  793
  Mr. Baldry
  The total cost of capital allowances for all enterprise zones in Britain, estimated at 31 March 1993, was approximately £1 billion in 1993–94 prices. No information on the cost of capital allowances is available for individual enterprise zones or developments within them.

  The total cost of rate relief on the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone, up to its expiry on 25 April 1992, was £113 million in 1993–94 prices.

  Civil. Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following information covers non-industrial staff in my Department, excluding PSAS;

  Grade

  Total

  Women (percentage)

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  Grade 2

  7

  43

  Grade 3

  34

  12

  Grade 4

  7

  0

  Grade 5

  140

  14

  Grade 6

  322

  9

  Grade 7

  788

  17

  SEO and equivalent

  759

  19

  HEO and equivalent

  979

  32

  EO and equivalent

  1,244

  44

  AO and equivalent

  1,569

  63

  AA and equivalent

  732

  67

  Totals

  6,582

  41

  "London: Making the Best Better"
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what(a) proportion and (b) number of the responses to the questionnaire accompanying the document "London: Making the Best Better", were from people with addresses outside London;

  (2) if he will publish a table giving the top 10 suggestions for how to improve London contained in the responses to the questionnaire accompanying the document "London: Making the Best Better";

  (3) what stage has been reached in assessing the responses to the questionnaire accompanying the document "London: Making the Best Better"; by what date the assessment will be complete; and when he will publish the full results;

  (4) what (a) proportion and (b) number of responses to the questionnaire accompanying the document "London: Making the Best Better", referred to a need for greater investment in London's transport system, on the basis of his preliminary assessment.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: The analysis of the replies to the consultation document "London: Making the Best Better" is complete, and we will publish a digest of the responses later this month.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a full list of all organisations, individuals and Government Departments sent details of his preliminary assessment of the responses 794
  to the questionnaire accompanying the document "London: Making the Best Better", together with the date on which details were sent.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: In accordance with normal practice my right hon. Friend is consulting ministerial colleagues on a draft text of a digest of the responses to the London questionnaire which will be published shortly. No other organisations or outside individuals have been consulted.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funds he has made available to the franchise director to implement privatisation in 1993–94; and what is his current estimate for 1994–95.

  Mr. Freeman
  Around £2 million has been provided in 1993–94 to cover the running costs of the office of passenger rail franchising. Estimated running costs in 1994–95 are £10 million.

  Government support for passenger services will continue to be provided. The estimated level of support in 1994–95 is £1,825 million, the greater proportion of which will be paid via the Franchising Director.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legislative steps the Government intend to take in connection with the jurisdiction of the transport police.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what change will take place on Railtrack's vesting day to powers of pursuit or arrest by the British transport police constables;

  (2) what change to powers of pursuit or arrest will be experienced by British transport police constables on the vesting day of any rail franchise;

  (3) what plans he has to introduce legislation relating to the powers of the British transport police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he now intends to take to protect the powers and scope of jurisdiction of the British transport police after 1 April.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government will introduce at the earliest possible opportunity a short Bill to clarify the jurisdiction of the British Transport police following discussions with British Rail and the chief constable.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has come to a firm conclusion on the future of vehicle inspectorate testing functions.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have decided, in the light of responses to the proposals outlined last May, and taking account of the work I subsequently commissioned from consultants Price Waterhouse, not to transfer the vehicle inspectorate's testing activities to the private sector.
  795
  The consultants concluded that while privatisation was feasible a number of my main objectives, including, in particular, the development of significant competition in the provision of testing services and the transfer of the freeholds of the testing sites to the purchasers, would not be possible if a successful sale was to be achieved. Moreover, their analysis drew attention to the possibility that privatisation might limit the scope for innovation in the future provision of testing services, a concern shared by the road transport industry. The consultants also confirmed the views previously expressed to me that most customers believe that they are well served by the vehicle inspectorate.

  In deciding that the whole of the inspectorate should remain an executive agency of the Department of Transport I have instructed the chief executive to develop plans which will build substantially on the organisation's current levels of efficiency and quality of service. I have asked the chief executive to report quickly to me on the scope for substantial future savings. I will also be taking forward an initiative to facilitate a significant expansion of the arrangements for on site testing by the inspectorate's staff at operators' own, suitably equipped premises. This featured in the industry's own response to my original proposals.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade during what periods since 1990 there has been a Government appointed director on British Aerospace's main board; who were the nominees; and if they receive payment for their services.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There has been a Government-appointed director throughout the period since 1990. The appointee is Mr. Keith Brown. He is a director of the company and has, therefore, received no payment from Government for his services.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what golden share provisions have continued to exist with British Aerospace since 1992; when the terms on which such shares were varied; and what golden shares provisions could apply to British Aerospace subsidiaries, after their disposal by that company.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government have held a special share in British Aerospace public limited company throughout the period since 1992. The rights attaching to the special share are set out in the company's articles of association. There has been no amendment to the articles to which these rights relate in this period. The Government do not hold a special share in any of British Aerospace's subsidiary companies, so no special share provisions apply to such companies.

  Manufacturing Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the import/export ratio for trade in manufactures with Brazil in 1993 to the latest available date and what was the corresponding surplus or deficit; what were the figures for 1970, 1979 and 1985 and the 796
  corresponding level of the real exchange rate compared to 1993; and if he will list the principal surpluses or deficits in 1993 together with the reasons therefore;

  (2) what was the import/export ratio for trade in manufactures with Switzerland in 1993 to the latest available date and what was the corresponding surplus or deficit; what were the figures for 1970, 1979 and 1985 and the corresponding level of the real exchange rate compared to 1993; and if he will list the principal surpluses or deficits in 1993 together with the reasons therefore;

  (3) what was the import/export ratio for trade in manufactures with Austria in 1993 to the latest available date and what was the corresponding surplus or deficit; what were the figures for 1970, 1979 and 1985 and the corresponding level of the real exchange rate compared to 1993; and if he will list the principal surpluses or deficits in 1993 together with the reasons therefore;

  (4) what was the import/export ratio for trade in manufactures with Finland in 1993 to the latest available date and what was the corresponding surplus or deficit; what were the figures for 1970, 1979 and 1985 and the corresponding level of the real exchange rate compared to 1993; and if he will list the principal surpluses or deficits in 1993 together with the reasons therefore;

  (5) what was the import/export ratio for trade in manufactures with Sweden in 1993 to the latest available date and what was the corresponding surplus or deficit; what were the figures for 1970, 1979 and 1985 and the corresponding level of the real exchange rate compared to 1993; and if he will list the principal surpluses or deficits in 1993 together with the reasons therefor.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on United Kingdom trade in manufactures, defined as sections 5 to 8 of the Standard International Trade Classification, is published regularly by the Central Statistical Office in the Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Since the beginning of 1993, the publication appears in two parts: overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom with countries outside the European Community, extra-EC trade; and overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom with countries within the European Community, extra-EC trade: Intrastat. These publications are available from the Library of the House.

  Information on real exchange rates is not available.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number, grade and destination of civil servants in his Department who were seconded to manufacturing industry in 1993 and in 1994 to date.

  Mr. Eggar
  The numbers of DTI staff who were on long-term secondment to business organisations, including manufacturing industry, in calendar year 1993 and in 1994 to date are as follows:

  Number

  1993

  54

  11994

  34

  1to date

  Additional details on each of these secondments cannot be provided other than at disproportionate cost.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the membership of the working group set up by his Department to consider what lessons might be learned from the operating experience now being accumulated on wind farms; and on what dates the group has met.

  Mr. Eggar
  The working group is concerned only with wind turbine noise. Its membership is:

  Mr. R. A. Meir

  Chairman

  Department of Trade and Industry.

  Dr. D. I. Page

  ETSU.

  Dr. M. B. Anderson

  Renewable Energy Systems.

  Dr. A. Bullmore

  Hoare Lea and Partners.

  Mr. M. Jiggins

  Carrick District Council.

  Dr. J. Warren

  National Wind Power.

  Mr. H. A. Thomas

  Isle of Anglesey Borough Council.

  Dr. M. L. Legerton

  Secretary ETSU.

  Dr. H. G. Parkinson

  ETSU.

  Mr. B. F. Berry

  National Physical Laboratory.

  Mr. M. Hayes

  The Hayes McKenzie Partnership.

  Dr. P. Musgrove

  National Wind Power.

  Mr. D. J. Spode

  North Cornwall District Council.

  Ms Emily Tornalin

  EcoGen Ltd.

  Mr. M. Trinick

  Bond Pearce Solicitors.

  It has met on 27 May 1993, 9 August 1993, 11 October 1993 and 10 January 1994.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish the terms of reference of the nuclear review; and if it will include a review of the disposal of waste and the merits of dry storage versus reprocessing.

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

  British Shipbuilders
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on British Shipbuilders' external financing limit for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  British Shipbuilders' external financing limit for 1993–94 was set at minus £7.8 million as recorded in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96" published in February 1993, Cm 2204. The planned EFL has increased slightly due to a decrease of £0.6 million in British Shipbuilders' income on interest. However, this effect has been offset by the transfer to BS of £0.32 million residual balance from its now-dormant subsidiary Sunderland Enterprise and Training Ltd. The net effect is a small increase in the EFL to minus £7.5 million.

  Regional Development
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the business plans of the English regional development organisations; and what level of financial support he proposes to offer for 1994–95.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have studied the current performance and future plans of the six English regional development organisations. I am pleased to say that they continue to make a significant contribution to the work of my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, to the overall success of the United Kingdom in attracting inward investment, and in particular to the performance of their region. In recognition of this, I have today offered £5.605 million of grant in aid for their inward investment promotion activities for 1994–95. In total this is an increase of £50,000 on last year. Last year was an increase of £550,000 on 1992–93. I have allocated the grant aid as follows:

  RDO

  1994–95 grant £'000

  Per cent, share of total grant

  Northern Development Company (NDC)

  1,461,5

  26.0

  INWARD Ltd (in the North West)

  1,173

  20.9

  Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association (YHDA)

  1,088

  19.4

  West Midlands Development Agency (WMDA)

  818,25

  14.6

  East Midlands Development Company Ltd (EMD)

  400

  7.1

  Devon and Cornwall Development Bureau (DCDB)

  664,25

  11.8

  These individual grants are very slightly smaller than last year except for the East Midlands Development Company Ltd., and reflect in part the need to respond to changes in assisted area coverage within the total available funding provision for all the English regions.

  Grant is offered on an annual basis according to past performance, ability to absorb additional funding effectively, and for an agreed programme of future activities, with proper regard to value for money. It is Government policy to encourage direct inward investment to the United Kingdom because it contributes significantly to economic growth. Inward investment brings benefits both to the country as a whole and more specifically to the assisted areas.

  New-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received for energy projects under each type for the third tranche of the non-fossil fuel obligation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that the non-fossil purchasing agency has received around 230 applications in respect of the wind band; 100 in respect of the hydro band; 140 in respect of the landfill gas band; 100 in respect of the municipal and industrial waste band; and 100 in respect of the energy crops band.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many rules and regulations his Department has passed in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 March 1994]: The number of statutory instruments made by the Department in the past three years was as follows:

  Number

  1991

  151

  1992

  104

  1993

  86

  Redundancy Arrangements
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the redundancy arrangements applicable to staff employed at the National Engineering Laboratory and Warren Spring Laboratory.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 16 March 1994]: The handling of staff surpluses arising in the Department of Trade and Industry, including its agencies, is covered by the departmental redundancy agreement. Copies of the current agreement have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Compensation payments are set out in the principal civil service pension scheme section of the civil service pay and conditions code.

  Units of Measurement
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to table legislation which will implement the units of measurement directive; and what time has been allowed for the industries affected to make the necessary plans for compliance.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 2 March 1994]: It is the Government's intention that before the summer recess a complete set of implementing measures will be laid in Parliament. Discussions are continuing with trade associations about plans for compliance.

WALES

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to visit Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.

  Mr. Redwood
  I plan to visit Meirionnydd Nant Conwy again later this year.

  Female Workers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many female(a) chief executives and (b) chief officers there are in (i) local government service and (ii) the NHS in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  According to the 1993 "Chief Executive/Chief Officers Salaries and Numbers Survey", conducted by the Local Government Management Board, among the 41 Welsh authorities, out of 45 which responded, there were no female chief executives and 20 female chief officers in post on 1 April 1993.
  800
  None of the general managers of health authorities and family health service authorities is female. One of the NHS trust chief executives currently in post is female and two of the NHS trust chief executive-designates, for NHS trusts which become operational on 1 April 1994, are female. Chief officers may be defined in different ways within the NHS and consistent information is not, therefore, available centrally.

  Environment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the environmental initiatives he has taken on green matters within his Department further to chapter eight of the annual report and departmental expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1996–97, Cm 2515, on environmental services provided by his Department.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Relevant information is given in chapter 10 on page 117 of the departmental report, Cm 2515. Further details will be provided in the third annual report on follow-up to the 1990 Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance", which the Government will be publishing shortly.

  Exhaust Fumes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evidence he has of a correlation between levels of PM10 particulates in the air and hospital admissions in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A study conducted in Birmingham of the period 1988 to 1990 and published earlier this year has shown that levels of particulates measured as British standard black smoke are a significant predictor of hospital admissions for asthma and all other acute respiratory disorders.

  The Department of Health is currently funding a study into the health effects of the London air pollution episode in December 1991. This research will provide useful background into the relationship between hospital admissions and levels of air pollutants.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the Committee on Medical Effects report into the health threat posed by PM10 particulates in the air in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution has not yet reported on the adverse health effects of PM10 particulates in the air. The Government are seeking definitive advice on this issue and the Committee have set up a sub-group to assess the latest evidence on the health effects of all particulate matter.

  Levels of PM10s are monitored continuously at the Government's air monitoring network site in Cardiff. When the advice from the committee becomes available we shall be better able to assess the possible health effects of particulates in the air in Wales.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by month for the last 12 months, the number of working hours he has spent in the Principality.

  Mr. Redwood
  In the 10 months to the end of March, I will have spent 67 working days in Wales on government
  801
  and political business. My duties for Wales require me to be in London on Tuesdays and Thursdays for Cabinet Committees and Cabinet. On most Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays I am required to be in London for parliamentary business in the evening.

  Electricity
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the gross consumption of electricity in Wales in 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information for 1993 is not yet available. Estimated total sales of electricity in Wales were 16,363 GW/H in 1992.

  Housing Expenditure
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the reason for the projected reduction between 1993–94 and 1994–95 in housing expenditure in Wales as set out at figure 7.01 in his annual report and expenditure plans for 1994–95 to 1996–97, Cm 2515.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As figure 7.01 of the Welsh Office departmental report indicates, total provision for housing programmes in 1994–95 has been set at £634.9 million, an increase of £27 million over 1993–94 plans and £32.9 million over 1993–94 forecast outturn. The table does not include private sector contributions to the Housing for Wales programme. These, together with transfers from local authorities, are expected to take total housing association capital spending to some £200 million in both 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Open Government
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the implications for the operation of his Department of the code of practice on open government.

  Mr. Redwood
  The code of practice on open government will reinforce and build on my Department's existing arrangements for the provision of information. Operational details will be made public in due course.

  Rechem
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he received the latest consultants report on the environmental and health consequences of the Rechem incineration plant at Pontypool, commissioned by his Department; how many copies of the report have been printed; to whom they have been made available; and if he will make a statement on its conclusions.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest report on further monitoring of PCB levels around the Rechem plant in Pontypool was published on 10 March. Eighty copies were printed and distribution included the four local MPs; the chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs; the European Commission; Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; the Health and Safety Executive; Rechem; Torfaen borough council and other local interests. Copies have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated in his recent letter to the hon. Member, the report generally confirms results obtained in the main study. The area of higher concentrations of PCBs and dioxins previously
  802
  identified near the Rechem plant has also been narrowed down to a strip of land about 200 m wide to the east of the plant.

  School Leavers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of female school leavers left school with five or more GCSE's at grades A to C in Mid Glamorgan in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is given in table 9.11 of "Statistics of Education and Training in Wales: Schools" No. 2, 1994, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of third and fourth year children in Mid Glamorgan are in maintained sector education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The proportion of national curriculum year three and four pupils in maintained sector education in Mid Glamorgan at January 1993 was 99.2 per cent.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to this answer to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) of 3 March,Official Report, column 792, if he will publish in the Official Report the notes on order 24 in the Supreme Court Practice concerning public interest immunity.

  The Attorney-General
  No. It would not be appropriate to publish in the Official Report lengthy extracts from published works which are widely available. I have, however, placed a photocopy of the relevant pages of the Supreme Court Practice in the Library for ease of reference—deposited paper No. 10250.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General in what circumstances the actual documents to which Ministers have stated that public interest immunity should apply are not themselves made available to the judge.

  The Attorney-General
  The court will decide, having regard to relevant case law, whether to inspect documents which are the subject of a claim for public interest immunity, and will always do so in a criminal case.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the recent public statements by law officers concerning Crown privilege and public interest immunity.

  The Attorney-General
  I have no such list, but I refer to my answers to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold):

  15 December 1993, Official Report, column 640

  20 January 1994, Official Report, column 726

  3 February 1994, Official Report, column 833

  3 March 1994, Official Report, column 792

  15 March 1994, Official Report, column 576

  803

  Disclosure Guidelines
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General when he proposes to revise his guidelines on disclosure.

  The Attorney-General
  The recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice relating to prosecution disclosure are at present being considered. The Government stated in their interim response to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice that they intend to produce a package of measures which would then be the subject of legislation at the earliest available opportunity.

  Makanjuola v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the implications for Government Ministers of Lord Justice Bingham's judgment in Makanjuola v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and if he will publish in the Official Report the relevant paragraphs of the judgment.

  The Attorney-General
  The judgment is relevant to my evidence to Lord Justice Scott on 24 March. It is published at page 617 vol. 3 of the "All England Law Reports" for 1992 which is in the Library.

  CPS Charges
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General how many charges have been reduced by the Crown Prosecution Service following the defendant's electing for trial by jury for the latest period of 12 months for which figures are available.

  The Attorney-General
  This information is not available and cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the occupation by Indonesia of East Timor in 1975.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The invasion of East Timor in 1975 was condemned, with our support, in Security Council resolutions at the time. We have not recognised Indonesia's annexation of the territory. We are encouraging Indonesia and Portugal to continue to work together, under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General, to find a solution to East Timor.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to promote a motion critical of Indonesia's human rights record at the current session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The British delegation to this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights worked hard to secure agreements between Portugal and Indonesia on the consensus statement on East Timor.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received recently from the Indonesian Government.
  804
  Mr. Goodlad
  None.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has recently taken to encourage the Indonesian Government to comply with its human rights obligations.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Indonesian Government are well aware of our views. Most recently, we supported efforts at this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to secure a consensus statement on East Timor which encourages Indonesia to live up to its human rights obligations.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the total number of civilian casualties sustained in East Timor for each year since 1979 and in total; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There is no reliable and independent source for information on this matter.

  Cuba
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in Cuba.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Cuba is one of the few remaining communist countries. Some economic reforms have been introduced to counter recent sharp economic decline. But there have been no significant reforms leading to political pluralism. Human rights continue to give cause for concern.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Using the latest available figures, the number of persons and the percentage of women employed in each grade in this Department, including agencies, is:

  Total number of persons employed

  Percentage of women employed

  Open structure

  Grade 2

  1

  —

  Grade 3

  4

  25

  Grade 4

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  67

  16

  Grade 6

  102

  8

  Grade 7

  353.5

  16

  Occupational groups

  Senior executive officer

  95

  24

  Higher executive officer (D)

  3

  —

  Higher executive officer

  247.5

  34

  Executive officer

  444

  45

  Administrative officer

  722.5

  60

  Administrative assistant

  118.5

  44

  Senior economic assistant

  2

  —

  Economic assistant

  1

  —

  Senior information officer

  11

  55

  Information officer

  31

  65

  Assistant information officer

  10

  50

  Senior librarian

  3

  100

  805

  Total number of persons employed

  Percentage of women employed

  Librarian

  6

  100

  Assistant librarian

  18

  72

  Museum curatorial Grade D

  2

  100

  Museum curatorial Grade E

  1

  100

  Museum curatorial Grade F

  2

  —

  Senior P and T officer

  45

  4

  Higher P and T officer

  49

  2

  P and T officer

  19

  —

  Technical Grade 1

  8

  —

  Higher mapping and charting officer

  1

  —

  Mapping and charting officer

  1

  —

  Mapping and charting tech Grade 1

  1

  100

  Typing manager

  10

  100

  Personal secretary

  150

  100

  Typist

  82

  99

  Senior scientific officer

  81

  21

  Higher scientific officer

  62

  37

  Scientific officer

  35

  37

  Assistant scientific officer

  22

  59

  Catering manager 1

  1

  —

  Catering manager 2

  1

  —

  Catering manager 3

  3

  33

  Higher photographic officer

  1

  —

  Photographic officer

  1

  —

  Higher graphics officer

  1

  100

  Graphics officer

  1

  100

  Dep Reg Vet officer

  2

  —

  Agricultural officer 1

  18

  —

  Agricultural officer 2

  5

  —

  P and GS Grade B

  3

  —

  P and GS Grade C

  5

  —

  P and GS Grade D

  9

  —

  P and GS Grade E

  11

  —

  Stores officer Grade B

  1

  —

  Stores officer Grade C

  2

  50

  Stores officer Grade D

  5

  —

  Support manager 1

  4

  —

  Support manager 2

  9

  67

  Support manager 3

  45

  44

  Support grade band 1

  222

  36

  Support grade band 2

  271

  45

  Senior TTO

  18

  —

  Higher TTO

  70

  1

  TTO

  102

  1

  Assistant TTO

  95

  4

  Communications Officer IV

  1

  100

  Industrial grades

  55

  38

  Departmental groups

  Senior grade

  135

  4

  Diplomatic service grade 4

  268

  4

  Diplomatic service grade 5

  428

  13

  Diplomatic service grade 6

  260.5

  12

  Diplomatic service grade 7M

  424

  22

  Diplomatic service grade 7D

  112

  33

  Diplomatic service grade 8

  57

  16

  Diplomatic service grade 9

  784

  51

  Diplomatic service grade 10

  446

  41

  Legal adviser

  1

  —

  Second legal adviser

  1

  —

  Deputy legal adviser

  2

  —

  Legal counsellor

  7

  43

  Senior assistant legal adviser

  9

  33

  Assistant legal adviser

  4

  50

  Research counsellor

  3

  —

  Senior principal research officer

  14

  29

  Principal research officer

  28

  46

  Senior research officer

  32

  28

  Research officer

  1

  —

  Diplomatic service grade 8C

  14

  —

  Diplomatic service grade 9C

  7

  —

  Diplomatic service grade 5T

  1

  —

  Diplomatic service grade 6T

  1

  —

  Diplomatic service grade 7T

  20

  —

  Diplomatic service grade 8T

  45

  2

  Diplomatic service grade 9T

  15

  —

  806

  Total number of persons employed

  Percentage of women employed

  Secretary 1

  106

  100

  Secretary 2

  441

  100

  Secretary 3

  7.5

  87

  Chief overseas security officer

  41

  —

  Overseas security officer

  146

  1

  Nurse

  4

  100

  Doctor

  5

  20

  Senior lecturer

  10

  70

  Senior field investigating officer

  1

  —

  Field investigating officer 2

  16

  19

  Translator 1

  1

  —

  Translator 2

  5.5

  82

  Translator 3

  2

  50

  Chief cypher superintendent

  3

  —

  Cypher superintendent

  12

  —

  Cypher supervisor

  31

  —

  Telecommunications and cypher officer

  103

  6

  Operator technician

  1

  —

  Queen's messenger

  27

  —

  Queen's messenger escort

  4

  —

EMPLOYMENT

  Manufacturing Employment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in employment in United Kingdom manufacturing in absolute and percentage terms since the United Kingdom joined the EC; and what is the corresponding figure for other industrial countries.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Comparable information for all G7 countries is only available for the production and construction industries combined, of which manufacturing is the largest component. Changes since June 1973 are shown in the following table. The shift from manufacturing towards services is a trend shared by all western industrial nations. Nonetheless, the output of United Kingdom manufacturing industry increased by 1.5 per cent. between 1973 and 1993. This reflects a substantial improvement in productivity, up by 77.4 per cent. over the same period.

  Changes in civilian employment in production and construction industries in the major 7 nations (G7) between June 1973 and September 19931

  (Thousands)

  Absolute Change

  Percentage Change

  Canada

  +204

  +8

  United States of America

  +1,071

  +4

  Japan

  +2,797

  +14

  France

  -2,675

  -32

  West Germany

  -2,005

  -16

  Italy

  -715

  -10

  United Kingdom2

  -4,121

  -39

  Source: OECD, except United Kingdom (Employment Department).

  1 Latest available data.

  2 Figures exclude participants in work related Government training programmes (for which separate industry estimates are not available).

  Finance Sector Employees
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in banking, insurance and finance in the Yorkshire and Humberside
  807
  region in the last quarter for which figures are available; and if he will give the equivalent quarter figures for 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information is given in the following table:

  Numbers employed in Yorkshire and Humberside in banking, finance, insurance and their auxiliary activities (including employees and self-employed only)

  Thousands

  Quarter

  Employees and self-employed

  Spring 1989

  57

  Spring 1990

  64

  Spring 1991

  70

  Spring 1992

  79

  Summer 1992

  78

  Spring 1993

  79

  Summer 1993

  77

  Source: Labour Force Survey (not seasonally adjusted).

  Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council Funding

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94 to 30 January 1994

  £

  £

  £

  Careership (youth training)

  13,349,000

  10,632,000

  12,834,000

  Adult training

  7,448,000

  7,778,000

  7,026,500

  Trainees finding employment

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94 to 30 January 1994

  16 to 18 years

  n/a

  1,537

  1,134

  18 to 24 years

  n/a

  293

  217

  Long-term unemployed

  1,136

  1,185

  1,099

  The Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) were financed by the Government to commission these programmes and sub-contract them to local providers in the Barnsley and Doncaster area; information on the Doncaster area alone is not available.

  (b) The European Community, through the European Social Fund (ESF) provides support, on a national and regional basis, for unemployed young people aged under 25 years and for long-term unemployed adults aged 25 and over. Details of ESF support for unemployed people in the age ranges 16 to 18 and 18 to 24 and for the long-term unemployed in any specific locality, and information on organisations financed to commission and conduct programmes, are confidential to TECs and local authorities.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what follow-up survey has been conducted by his Department of people who have participated in training courses supported by the European social fund; what are the latest results regarding outcome available broken down by sector and region, and separately for male and female, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Follow-up surveys cover all leavers from training for work and youth training programmes, which are supported by the European social fund. Results from these surveys are published monthly in the Employment Gazette. To complement these arrangements, in June 1993 the Department implemented a
  808

  Training
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been spent by(a) his Department and (b) the European Community on training (i) unemployed youths aged 16 to 18 years, (ii) 18 to 24-year-olds and (iii) the long-term unemployed in the Doncaster area; how many such trainees subsequently found employment; and which organisations were so financed to (1) commission and (2) conduct the programmes in each of the last four years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The answer is as follows:

  (a) Employment Department:

  follow-up system for people participating in ESF courses run by the non-government sectors. Results will be produced annually and we expect the first analysis of 1993 data towards the end of this year.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the number of accidents on youth training broken down by fatal, major and minor for the latest available three-month period, shown by region; and how many youth training providers had contracts terminated(a) in that period and (b) in the three preceding months for reasons of inadequate health and safety.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Table A gives the latest available youth training accident figures for the quarter October—December 1993.

  Region

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  South East

  0

  3

  17

  London

  0

  4

  15

  Eastern

  0

  7

  18

  South West

  0

  9

  29

  West Midlands

  0

  8

  32

  East Midlands

  0

  4

  26

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0

  9

  69

  North West

  0

  6

  69

  Northern

  0

  2

  9

  Scottish Enterprise

  0

  4

  35

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  1

  0

  1

  Welsh Office

  0

  2

  15

  National total

  1

  58

  335

  Notes:

  (a) Employment Department (ED) figures for YT trainees have been

  809
  compiled on a similar basis to those for employees by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). However, the ED's figures also include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments, and road traffic accidents, which would not have been reportable to HSE for employees.

  (b) Major and minor injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR).

  Information on YT provider contracts terminated by training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies for reasons of inadequate health and safety is not held centrally.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the male rate of unemployment in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) the USA and (e) Japan for each year since 1979; and if he will indicate the reasons for changes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  International comparable unemployment rates for males are available from 1987 and can be found in "Eurostatistics", which is published by the Statistical Office of the European Community and is available in the Library. Changes in unemployment rates are due to many factors which vary in their effect from country to country, one of which is the particular point reached in a country's economic cycle. The latest monthly figures from the SOEC indicate that the United Kingdom is the only country from the European Community, Japan and the USA where the rate of male unemployment is falling.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of unemployment among men in December 1993 in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) Italy and (d) France.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the following table. No figures are available for the unified Germany.

  Internationally comparable ILO unemployment rates for men (December 1993 seasonally adjusted)

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  11.9

  Italy

  7.9

  France

  9.5

  Source: Statistical Office of the European Community (SOEC) monthly Unemployment Bulletin.

  The United Kingdom is the only European Community country where the rate of male unemployment has fallen over the year to December 1993.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were placed in employment by jobcentres in the Doncaster area in each month since April 1992; and what percentage of the unemployed in the Doncaster area this represents.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on jobcentre placings can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library. Employment information below regional level is only available from the census of employment for 1991.
  810
  During 1993 jobcentres in the Doncaster area placed over 400 people into employment each month.

  Earnings
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees earned between 0 and 10 per cent. below, and between 0 and 10 per cent. above the national insurance lower earnings limit.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is estimated that in an average week approximately 220,000 employees earn between 0 and 10 per cent. below the national insurance lower earnings limit and approximately 190,000 employees earn between 0 and 10 per cent. above the LEL.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women currently earn less than the national insurance lower earnings limit.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) on 9 February 1994,Official Report, column 292.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what hours are worked per week on average by employees earning less than the national insurance lower earnings limit.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is estimated that in April 1993 employees earning below the national insurance lower earnings limit worked an average of 11.6 hours a week.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the average weekly earnings of employees earning less than the national insurance lower earnings limit.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is estimated that the average gross weekly earnings of employees earning less than the national insurance lower earnings limit is approximately £24.

  Open Government
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the implications for the operation of his Department, and the Health and Safety Commission, of the code of practice on open government.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department and the Health and Safety Executive already answer many hundreds of thousands of inquiries each year, through, for example, their "public enquiry point" service. The code of practice will reinforce and build upon existing arrangements for the provision of information to the public.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 201, how many people were employed in banking, insurance and finance in Greater London, including those not resident in Greater London, in the latest quarter for which figures are available and the equivalent quarters of 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is given in the following table:
  811

  Employees in employment in banking, finance, insurance and business services and leasing (SIC division 8): Greater London

  Number

  December 1989

  798,000

  December 1990

  773,000

  December 1991

  726,000

  December 1992

  699,000

  December 1993

  712,000

  Employment Service
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the reasons for the introduction of the new regional, district and area management structure of the Employment Service; how will it differ from existing arrangements; what are the implications for awarding and monitoring contracts entered into with external organisations operating job clubs; how it relates to and affects PACT—placing assessment and counseling—teams and other services for unemployed people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 17 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the new introduction of the Employment Service management structure.
  The Employment Service (ES) is setting up a structure of Districts in order to focus more effectively on the delivery of services to its clients, and provide better value for money. Districts will consist of a number of local offices serving discreet local labour markets, and they will be managed through the existing network of ES Regions.
  The new arrangements become operational from April 1994, when the Area tier of management will cease. The new structure will ensure that more senior managers will be directly responsible for managing resources and performance within districts. The existing network of local offices will remain in place, and continue delivering services to clients.
  District Managers will be responsible for awarding contracts to external organisations operating Jobclubs, and for ensuring that these contracts are monitored. In this they will be assisted by programme contracting specialists.
  The specialist disability service delivered by Placing, Assessment and Counselling teams (PACTs) will be strengthened by the appointment of Regional managers. Their role is to maximise the potential of PACTs, establish effective working relationships with local offices in the new districts and ensure that the appropriate specialist programmes and services are available for clients.
  They will also work with District Managers to provide appropriate help for clients with disabilities who do not need specialist help in funding or retaining work.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women are employed by the Employment Service; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total work force of the Employment Service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  812
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mrs. Ann Clwyd, dated 17 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of women employed by the Employment Service and what percentage of the total workforce this represents.
  I have looked at the latest available staff-in-post figures taken at 1 January 1994. These show that we presently employ 49,061 staff. Of this figure 35,119 are women, which represents 71 per cent. of the total workforce.
  I hope this is helpful.

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

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 March 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the following number of statutory instruments in the last three years:

  New instruments

  Other instruments

  1991

  25

  10

  1992

  29

  12

  1993

  27

  9

  "Other instruments" cover those which amend, replace, or revoke existing instruments, or are commencement orders.

  Not all instruments impose requirements or regulations on business.

  Self-financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment 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. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 March 1994]: None.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women are employed at each civil service grade in his Department as a whole; and what percentage of each grade is constituted by women.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The numbers and percentages of women in each grade in the Employment Department Group at 1 January 1994 are set out in the following table:

  Women in the Employment Department Group at 1 January 1994

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  Administrative assistant

  2,234

  74.7

  Administrative officer

  24,402

  75.3

  Typist

  663

  99.7

  Executive officer

  11,107

  67.8

  Administrative trainee

  5

  71.4

  Management trainee

  36

  65.5

  Higher executive officer(D)

  9

  45.0

  Higher executive officer

  1,771

  43.1

  Senior executive officer

  338

  27.5

  813

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  Grade 7

  182

  24.2

  Grade 6

  14

  10.3

  Grade 5

  21

  18.8

  Grade 4

  0

  0.0

  Grade 3

  1

  4.2

  Grade 2

  1

  20.0

  Grade 1

  0

  0.0

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Records
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the 30-year rule applies to the handwritten records of each Cabinet meeting; and, after the lapse of this time, whether they will be open to public scrutiny.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Secretary's handwritten records of Cabinet meetings are regarded as subject to the Public Records Acts which make provision for the release of public records after 30 years. Section 3(4) of the 1958 Act permits the retention of such records for longer than 30 years, subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval.

  The question of the release of the notebooks was considered in the summer of 1993, in accordance with a recommendation in the Wilson committee's report on "Modern Public Records", Cmnd. 8204. The Lord Chancellor has approved the continued retention of the notebooks. It is proposed that a further review will take place in 10 years' time.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many square miles of coast have been lost to the sea since 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  Recent studies suggest that the average annual rate of coastal erosion is probably in the range of 0.08 to 0.2 sq m per year. Much of the material lost as a result of this erosion contributes to coastal accretion or the formation of beaches or banks which provide protection to other coastal areas.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average net annual income of farm owners in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  The farm business survey collects data from a sample of farms throughout the United Kingdom which 814
  are classified as full-time holdings. Results are not readily available for the United Kingdom as a whole, but the table provides information on the occupier's net income for wholly owner-occupied farms in each of the four home countries in 1992–93.

  Occupier's net income on wholly owner occupied farms 1992–931

  Average for all types of farm £ thousand

  England

  19.1

  Wales

  14.6

  Scotland2

  16.7

  Northern Ireland

  9.1

  1 Occupier's net income represents the return to the principal farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and investment in the farm business.

  2 Includes holdings which are wholly and mainly owner occupied.

  French Fishing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has made to the European Commission about the French emergency aid package for the French fishing industry; how much of this aid is new money; for what purposes it is paid; and what assessment she has made of the resulting advantage of French industry over the United Kingdom industry.

  Mr. Jack
  According to the announcement by the French Government, the aid package takes a variety of forms, including the rescheduling of loans, social payments to fishermen's families, advancement of reimbursement of market withdrawal costs, government-funded promotion of fish, and reduced national insurance contributions. The European Commission has responsibility for assessing state aids and for overseeing their compliance with articles 92 and 93 of the treaty. We have written to the Commission asking them to consider urgently whether the aid package gives French fishermen an unfair economic advantage and whether all its elements are in accordance with EU legal provisions. I understand that the Commission is actively pursuing this.

  Farmers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the numerical difference between the number of United Kingdom citizens whose primary economic activity is farming and the number of public employees and private contractors employed by her Department.

  Mr. Jack
  No figures are available on the number of United Kingdom citizens whose primary economic activity is farming.

  EU Enlargement (Agricultural Protection)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the notional loss to United Kingdom agricultural producers as a result of the transitional agricultural protection allowed to Austria, Sweden and Finland on their accession to the European Community.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom agricultural industry should benefit from the immediate abolition of border
  815
  controls as a result of the agreement by the applicant countries to introduce CAP support prices from the date of accession. While the European Union has authorised Austria, Finland and Norway to introduce transitional, degressive national aids where support levels for particular commodities are significantly reduced, such aids should not adversely effect United Kingdom producers. These arrangements will be approved and supervised by the European Commission to ensure that competition is not distorted.

  Farm Animals (Poland)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are carried out to ensure that farm animals coming from Poland are free from radioactive contamination.

  Mr. Soames
  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 737/90 lays down conditions governing imports into the European Community of agricultural products, including live animals, originating in third countries following the Chernobyl accident. The regulation specifies maximum permitted levels of radioactivity in imported products and requires checks to be made at the point of entry to the Community. In the United Kingdom such checks are the responsibility of port health authorities, acting under the Imported Food Regulations 1984.

  Food Imports
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the overall value of all food and food products imported from other EU countries; and what proportion, in cost terms of these imports from(a) France and (b) Germany were of (i) meat and (ii) dairy products in 1980, 1990 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  The following is the information requested:

  Imports of food and food products into the United Kingdom from other EU countries

  Year

  EU 11 £ million

  France £ million

  Germany £ million

  1980

  2,611

  356

  210

  1990

  6,659

  1,043

  621

  1992

  7,597

  1,252

  773

  Food imports from France and Germany that were meat products and dairy products

  From France

  From Germany

  Year

  Meat per cent.

  Dairy per cent.

  Meat per cent.

  Dairy per cent.

  1980

  9.6

  8.8

  12.6

  16.0

  1990

  15.3

  11.3

  11.2

  22.0

  1992

  16.9

  11.3

  8.8

  20.6

  Aggregates
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and food in respect of how many licensing applications for marine dredging of aggregates her Department has commissioned research into the implication for fisheries of such applications in each year since 1989.
  816
  Mr. Jack
  Applications for dredging licences are made to the Crown Estate, but the Department is consulted under the Government view procedure because of our concerns about the impact of dredging operations on the marine environment and fisheries. We look to licence applicants to produce a properly researched and comprehensive environmental statement in support of their applications and the Ministry's directorate of fisheries research has recently issued guidelines to indicate the range of issues which need to be considered. Copies of these guidelines have been placed in the Library of the House. In addition from time to time the Department's scientists carry out specific research of their own. Since 1989 they have initiated the following studies relating to marine aggregate extraction:

  Migration of sole across Hastings Shingle Bank;

  overwintering of crabs;

  recolonisation of benthos in dredged areas;

  the importance of Race Bank to the North Sea crab population;

  physical effects on the seabed.

  Some of the work is still in progress.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research her Department has commissioned into the implication for fisheries of the production application by the National Rivers Authority, Anglia, for a licence to extract aggregate from North Race bank—area 405; and when the results of the research are expected to be finalised.

  Mr. Jack
  To enable the Department to make its contribution under the Government view procedure on an application from the NRA to dredge sand from Race bank the Department has required a series of studies to be undertaken. These include a one-year programme of work being carried out by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies of Hull university under contract to NRA, in conjuction with MAFF scientists. Studies of the turbidity of the area to be dredged, the benthos and epibenthos and plankton surveys are all included. A series of potting surveys will be undertaken and two have already been carried out. Longer-term work will be undertaken on crab migration using tags and survey trawls will be undertaken of demersal and pelagic fish species.

  Additionally MAFF undertook its own study of crab larval distribution in the southern North sea in July 1993 with particular emphasis on the Race bank and north Norfolk areas. Further physical studies by MAFF are continuing. These include current measurements, sidescan sonar, and underwater TV surveys of the benthos and epibenthos. We shall also be undertaking work on the particle size of sediments in the area.

  Much of the work has already been completed and most of the outstanding results will be available later this year. In addition some of the longer-term work, such as the crab migration study, will continue to generate information over the next few years.

  Mycoplasma Bovis
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farm holdings in the United Kingdom have been affected by mycoplasma bovis before and after the introduction of the single market in each year since 1990; how many cattle are currently infected; how and when the disease was introduced into the United Kingdom; and from where it came.
  817
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Mycoplasma bovis was first recorded in the United Kingdom in 1975. It is not a notifiable disease and comprehensive data is not maintained. There are no records of the total numbers of infected animals. The numbers of cases recorded by the veterinary investigation laboratories in the United Kingdom for the years concerned are:

  Year

  Farms

  1990

  61

  1991

  56

  1992

  36

  1993

  29

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which EU member states mycoplasma bovis is a notifiable disease.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Mycoplasma bovis is not a notifiable disease under EC legislation. We have no information on whether member states require notification under their own national legislation.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the Government are taking to combat mycoplasma bovis.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no statutory powers in respect of mycoplasma bovis.

  Days at Sea
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of the dispute over the legality of the days at sea regime under the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  Following a hearing between 1 November and 5 November 1993, and in accordance with its judgment of 2 December, the High Court has referred a number of questions on the days at sea regime to the European Court of Justice. The court's order includes a request for expedition, and the Government hope that the court in Luxembourg will recognise the need for a ruling within a reasonable timescale. Meanwhile, as I announced on 14 December, implementation of days at sea has been suspended.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agreements have been made under the decommissioning scheme; on what date the agreement was finalised for the last fishing vessel to be decommissioned; and what is the schedule for the next sequence of decommissioning agreements.

  Mr. Jack
  Under the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993 135 vessels have been decommissioned: all claims were submitted before 1 March, as required by the scheme.

  Decommissioning formed part of a package of conservation measures which is being reviewed following the decision to suspend implementation of days at sea controls, and I am not yet in a position to announce a further scheme.
  818

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the position of the German Government regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the importation of British cattle and beef into Germany.

  Mr. Jack
  Every necessary measure has been taken to protect both animal and public health in the United Kingdom and in our trade with the European Union. These measures have been endorsed not only by the European Commission and the Scientific Veterinary Committee in Brussels but by the World Health Organisation and its veterinary equivalent the OIE.

  I have warned the German authorities that I would regard any unilateral action as contrary to Community law and technically indefensible.

  The Commission has already told the German authorities that it shares my assessment of the adequacy of the current arrangements for both cattle and beef and that it would take appropriate action in the event of unilateral action.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list for each civil service grade in her Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. Jack
  The information set out as at 1 March 1994 relates to non-industrial staff in MAFF, excluding agencies.

  Total staff

  Percentage women

  Grade 1

  1

  0.0

  Grade 2

  5

  0.0

  Grade 3

  22

  4.5

  Grade 4

  8

  0.0

  Grade 5

  91

  11.0

  Grade 6

  101

  11.9

  Grade 7

  697

  19.7

  SEO

  457

  20.1

  HEO

  943

  34.7

  EO

  1,428

  45.2

  AO

  1,886

  64.5

  AA

  2,011

  66.8

  Total

  7,650

  49.5

  The figures are given by grade equivalent and include all permanent staff, casuals and staff on temporary release. Part-time staff are counted as 1.0.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Duncan-Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the additional cost to EAGGF guarantee spending of the Breydel agreement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Breydel agreement concluded between the EU and the United States in the closing stages of negotiations on the Uruguay round agreement allows for greater flexibility in the phasing of cuts in subsidised agricultural exports over the period of the agreement's implementation. As a result, there will be an increased
  819
  possibility of the export of wheat and wheat flour, cheese, beef, pigmeat, poultrymeat, wine, raw tobacco and incorporated foods between 1995 and 2000.

  It is not possible, however, to estimate the precise cost to EAGGF guarantee since the cost of increased expenditure on export subsidies would, in the absence of the Breydel agreement, have had to be offset by some increase in expenditure on intervention or subsidised internal disposal for some of the commodities and quantities involved. In that the Breydel agreement opened the way for the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round it also avoided the very heavy budgetary costs which would have followed from the failure of the round.

TREASURY

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average daily arrears of value added tax for each year since 1980(a) in absolute terms in (i) cash and (ii) current values and (b) as a proportion of tax liability.

  Sir John Cope
  Information for the years 1986 to 1993 is shown in the table:

  Table of average daily arrears at 31 March

  Year

  Amount (absolute) £ million

  Current values £ million

  Percentage of payment liability

  1986

  1,351.6

  1,973.3

  6.5

  1987

  1,218.6

  1,706.0

  5.4

  1988

  1,060.3

  1,442.0

  4.2

  1989

  1,085.2

  1,367.4

  3.8

  1990

  1,168.7

  1,355.7

  3.6

  1991

  1,623.5

  1,753.4

  4.3

  1992

  1,927.8

  1,985.6

  4.4

  1993

  1,993.9

  2,013.8

  4.4

  31 December 1993

  1,897.2

  1,897.2

  3.7

  Current values represent absolute amounts inflated in line with the retail prices index to prices current at March 1994.

  This measure was introduced in the year 1985–86, and no reconstruction can be done for previous years.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amount of value added tax outstanding for each year since 1980(a) in absolute terms in (i) cash and (ii) current values and (b) as a proportion of tax liability.

  Sir John Cope
  Information for the years 1988 to 1993 is shown in the table.

  Table of value added tax outstanding at 31 March

  (a) Amount (absolute)

  Current values

  (b) Percentage of payment liability

  Year

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  1988

  837.2

  1,138.6

  3.3

  1989

  884.2

  1,114.1

  3.1

  1990

  1,180.0

  1,368.8

  3.6

  1991

  1,466.6

  1,583.9

  3.8

  1992

  1,628.9

  1,677.8

  3.7

  1993

  1,572.6

  1,588.3

  3.5

  820
  Current values represent absolute amounts inflated in line with the retail prices index to prices current at March 1994.

  Prior to the year ended 31 March 1988 information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the outstanding balance for collection of the value added tax default surcharge for each year since 1986(a) in absolute terms in (i) cash and (ii) current values and (b) as a proportion of surcharge liability.

  Sir John Cope
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Table of default surcharge outstanding balances at 31 March

  Year

  (a) Amount (absolute)

  Current values million

  (b) Per cent. of default surcharge liability

  £ million

  £ million

  1988

  50.7

  69.0

  —

  1989

  61.7

  77.7

  —

  1990

  74.9

  86.9

  —

  1991

  102.7

  110.9

  —

  1992

  132.3

  136.3

  57

  1993

  116.3

  117.5

  59

  Current values represent absolute amounts inflated in line with the retail prices index to prices current at March 1994.

  No information is held on the surcharge outstanding for 1986 and 1987, or the surcharge liability for 1986–1991.

  The absolute amount outstanding is a year-on-year cumulative total.

  The percentage of default surcharge liability is based on the total surcharge assessment issued during that year.

  Economic Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the reasons for the scale of(a) the United Kingdom deficit and (b) the German surplus in table 6.4 of "Eurostat Basic Statistics of the Community in 1993"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  A country's visible trade balance depends on the strength of its own domestic demand and that of its trading partners, and on the level of its competitiveness.

  Capital (Rate of Return)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the rate of return on capital required by industry to justify investment in new manufacturing capacity solely for import saving and export and of the premium demanded to insure against an appreciation of the currency as a result of the Government's monetary and exchange rate policies.

  Mr. Nelson
  The upward movement of equity prices over the past couple of years does not necessarily signal any increase in industry's required rates of return. The January CBI "Industrial Trends Survey" showed, for the first time since July 1989, that on balance manufacturers are planning to increase investment in plant and machinery over the next 12 months.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conclusions Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have drawn on whether United Kingdom citizens are permitted to purchase alcoholic liquor abroad, pay duty in that country and have the goods delivered by a third party to a United Kingdom addresss; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Goods subject to United Kingdom excise duty which have been bought duty paid in another member state of the EU may be brought into the United Kingdom without further duty payment only if they have been purchased by a private individual for personal use and have been personally transported to the United Kingdom by the purchaser. Purchases made in a country outside the EU in excess of a traveller's allowance are subject to United Kingdom duty however they are transported.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in the number of weekly hours worked in manufacturing industry since 1989; and what has been the impact on(a) shareholders, (b) the Exchequer and (c) the living standards of the British people.

  Mr. Nelson
  Statistics on the weekly hours of manual workers in the manufacturing sector are published each month in the Employment Gazette, table 1.12. Manufacturing productivity performance has been exceptionally good in recent years, and this sector is well placed to continue contributing to sustained economic recovery.

  European Community
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has of the extent to which the economic losses from EEC membership foreseen in the economic assessment White Paper of 1970—Cmnd. 4289—have been offset by gains; what the gains have been; and what he now assesses as being the balance of advantages.

  Mr. Nelson
  As paragraph 104 of the White Paper said, this is not a question to which any calculations could give a precise mathematical answer. Further, there have been major changes since 1970 in the economic, financial and trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the EC. A full update of all the contents of the White Paper could be undertaken only at a disproportionate cost.

  Open Government
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the implications for the operation of his Department of the code of practice on open government.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury will use the code of practice to build on its current arrangements for the provision of information. Details of the administrative arrangements will be available shortly.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average rate of economic growth per annum in the United Kingdom in the period from 1964(a) until the United Kingdom joined the EEC and (b) since the United Kingdom joined the EEC.
  822
  Mr. Nelson
  Average growth rates for gross domestic product can be found in table 16.10 of the 1993 edition of the CSO Blue Book: "United Kingdom National Accounts", which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that VAT is imposed only on fuel consumed after 1 April, and not before this date.

  Sir John Cope
  Transitional rules already exist giving fuel suppliers the option not to charge VAT on supplies made before 1 April. Customs have had meetings with British Gas and the electricity companies and arrangements are in the place for these suppliers to apportion bills straddling 1 April to take account of estimates of zero-rated supplies made before 1 April.

  The Oval
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what powers the Treasury may object to any proposal by the Duchy of Cornwall to sell the freehold of the Oval.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Duchy requires Treasury approval under section 11 of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863 for any sale or disposal of Duchy land or property. Before approving any such transactions, the Treasury needs to be satisfied that the Duchy will receive the full commercial value of the land or property being disposed.

  Under section 7 of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982, upon application by the Duchy, the Treasury can approve a sale or disposal at less than full value where the latter would be conducive to the good management of the Duchy. In exercising its authority, the Treasury has to take into account any effect on persons living on, or in the vicinity of, the land and to have regard to the interests of future Dukes.

  If the Duchy does not satisfy the conditions for an approval under section 11 of the 1863 Act or under section 7 of the 1982 Act, the Treasury would object to the proposed transaction.

  The Duchy of Cornwall is responsible for the day-to-day management of its assets, and for seeking Treasury approval to a sale or disposal of any land or property.

  Funding Policy
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for funding policy in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Chancellor has decided to set an annual remit for the Bank of England's operations in the gilt market to clarify responsibilities between the Treasury and the Bank, and to explain the Government's intentions to the markets. The remit will be published before the start of each new financial year.

  Every year, the Government aim to sell enough gilts and national savings products fully to fund the PSBR, maturing debt that needs to be refinanced, and any net increase in the

  823
  United Kingdom's foreign exchange reserves. There is no change to the Government's funding policy as set out in the November 1993 medium-term financial strategy.

  The Treasury is responsible for all borrowing for the National Loans Fund, under the terms of the National Loans Act 1968. The Bank of England has long been the Government's adviser and agent in the gilt market, where the bulk of these funding operations are carried out.

  The Chancellor will also give the Bank guidelines for the detailed operation of its remit. In the past, individual decisions on funding were taken after discussion between Treasury Ministers, Treasury officials, and the Bank of England. In future, any operations the Bank proposes that fall within the remit and the guidelines will normally be approved by Treasury officials. The Bank will send a monthly report to Treasury Ministers on progress, and there will be regular review meetings between the Treasury, the Bank and the Department for National Savings.

  The remit for 1994–95 is as follows:

  Funding requirement

  As set out in the November 1993 Financial Statement and Budget Report, the Government will continue to operate a full fund policy.

  The PSBR for 1994–95 was forecast in the Budget to be £38 billion. Some £9 billion of gilts are expected to mature in market hands and need to be refinanced. Maturing and withdrawn National Savings products will be netted off the National Savings contribution to funding, rather than included in the funding requirement. It is not possible at this stage accurately to forecast net changes over the year in the foreign currency reserves, so these will be assumed to remain unchanged on balance. Any overfunding in 1993–94 will reduce the funding requirement in 1994–95, and any underfunding increase it. The funding outturn for 1993–94 is not yet known.

  The funding requirement for 1994–95 is currently forecast to be around £47 billion, adjusted for any over- or under-funding carried forward from 1993–94, and subject to any changes in the Reserves.

  National Savings

  The net contribution of National Savings to funding (including accrued interest) is assumed to be around £3½ billion. this is not a target, but an estimate based on experience in previous years and forecasts for 1994–95.

  Other debt sales

  Net sales of government debt instruments other than gilts and National Savings are expected to make a negligible contribution to funding.

  Sales of gilts to banks and building societies

  As announced at Budget time, the sales of gilts to banks and building societes in 1992–93 will be taken into account before the end of 1994–95. These amount to £6.8 billion, and the required level of gilt sales will be reduced by that amount.

  Quantity of gilt sales

  The Bank of England will aim to meet the remainder of the funding requirement by selling gilts to the private sector on the government's behalf. On the basis of the Budget forecast, this means selling approximately £37 billion of gilts, adjusted for any over or under-funding carried forward from 1993–94, and any change in the Reserves.

  Pace of funding

  The Bank should aim to sell at a broadly even pace through the year.

  Methods of sale

  Auctions will continue to form the backbone of gilt-edged funding. They will be held at broadly monthly intervals, each normally on the last Wednesday of a calendar month. Each auction should be between £2 and 4 billion of stock.
  824
  The remainder of gilt sales may be made by ad hoc taps and tenders.

  Review

  This remit may be reviewed and, if appropriate, revised by Her Majesty's Treasury from time to time. Revisions will be published.

  G7 Jobs Conference
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will report on the G7 jobs conference in Detroit.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Secretary of State for Employment and I attended the G7 jobs conference in Detroit on 14 to 15 March. Finance and Labour Ministers of the G7, together with some Economics Ministers and representatives of the European Union, attended this meeting, which was opened by President Clinton and presided over by Vice-President Gore. It was the first meeting of G7 Finance and Labour Ministers.

  In his keynote opening speech President Clinton said that, in a world of accelerating technological advance, the major countries had to face a choice between protectionism and following the path of change. He said that America had chosen the latter. The President emphasised that people needed to be prepared for a higher skill world; to be ready to change jobs many times in a career; and to change attitudes towards employment of both the young and the old. In conclusion, he believed that the industrialised countries should discuss these issues because it would become easier for them to adopt the right policies at home if they were a part of an international consensus.

  There was widespread support for these sentiments throughout the rest of the conference. None of the Ministers supported protectionism. The Secretary of State for Employment and I emphasised the need for sound macroeconomic policies to achieve sustainable growth, open and competitive economies with no protectionism to encourage innovation and enterprise, the importance of improved education and training and active labour market policies, together with flexible labour markets, the need to reduce the costs of employment, and the vital role of small and medium-sized enterprises.

  US Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen read out a chairman's statement on behalf of the G7 at the end of the conference. A copy of this has been placed in the Library of the House. The chairman's statement supports the principles and policies that the Secretary of State for Employment and I advocated. It ends with a request for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to examine the relationship between productivity, job creation and technology, especially information technology; and to expand its analysis of data on job creation and job loss. The Ministers present agreed to send employment experts to learn about the employment and training programmes of the others.

  I believe that this unique conference was very valuable. It will ensure that policies to reduce unemployment will be high on the agenda of G7 Governments, and will be discussed by Heads of Government at the forthcoming G7 economic summit in Naples. Examining and assessing the policies of other countries and achieving a wide measure of agreement on the way ahead will help our Governments to implement the policies necessary to reduce unemployment. The UK Government are absolutely committed to

  825
  co-operating with this policy agenda in the G7 and the European Union, and to strengthening policies that will reduce unemployment.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of gross domestic product and gross domestic product per head, for(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom; and if he will indicate the appropriate percentages of the United Kingdom average in each case from (a) to (d).

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest available estimates were published in the December 1993 issue of "Economic Trends", available in the House of Commons Library.

  Tax Coding Notices
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number and proportion of incorrect notices of tax coding for 1994–95 which the Inland Revenue has sent out; what are the principal reasons for the errors; and what action is being taken to ensure more accurate notices of coding in future.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: Code numbers based on the latest information available to the Indland Revenue are issued in January and February each year. They may subsequently need to be amended if updated information is received or if the Inland Revenue has made an error. It is therefore too soon to estimate the number and proportion of 1994–95 code numbers that for any reason will need amending. The Inland Revenue is constantly striving to improve the quality of service it gives to taxpayers. It is setting targets for getting tax affairs right first time and has systems in place to monitor its performance.

SCOTLAND

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of staff and the percentage of women in post in the Scottish Office and associated departments as at 1 January 1994, excluding the Scottish Prison Service, are shown by grade equivalent in the table.

  Grade (and equivalents)

  Women

  Total staff

  Percentage of Women

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  9

  —

  3

  4

  27

  14.8

  4

  3

  18

  16.7

  5

  18

  131

  13.7

  6

  36

  194

  18.6

  7

  86

  484

  17.8

  Senior Executive Officer

  57

  477

  11.9

  Higher Executive Officer

  290

  960

  30.2

  Executive Officer

  504

  1,154

  43.7

  Administrative Officer

  931

  1,363

  68.3

  Administrative Assistant

  905

  1,413

  64.0

  Industrial Staff

  18

  491

  3.7

  Total

  2,852

  6,722

  42.4

  Slopping Out
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each prison in Scotland his plans for ending slopping out.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under the chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. John McFall, dated 17 March 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about slopping out in Scottish prisons.
  With the recent completion of the installation of in-cell toilets at Inverness and Aberdeen Prisons, there are 6 prison establishments, out of the total of 20 in Scotland, which in varying degrees require further sanitation facilities. These are Barlinnie, Dumfries, Edinburgh, Perth, Perterhead and Polmont YOI. (Greenock Prison has 4 cells without sanitation but these are held for observation purposes only).
  A high priority is being attributed to the ending of slopping out, as indicated in the Estates Strategy for the Service (contained at Chapter 9 of, and Annex B to, the Scottish Prison Service Corporate Plan, a copy of which was deposited in the Library in August of last year). Work is continuing to be undertaken through a rolling programme which, among other things, has to take account of the feasibility of cells being taken out of use for this purpose at a time of high prisoner numbers.
  Work is currently underway in installing an electronic locking system, to provide access to night sanitation, throughout a large part of the cellular accommodation at Polmont YOI and it is planned that this will be followed up by projects to provide in-cell toilets in the remaining accommodation.
  In the coming financial year, sanitation work is planned to commence in Perth (E Hall), Edinburgh (D Hall), Dumfries (C Wing) and, provisionally, in the latter part of the year, in Barlinnie (D Hall). If we can maintain subsequent progress I would expect the programme to be completed by the end of the 1990s at the latest. Prisoner numbers will however have an important influence on how quickly work can be undertaken.

HEALTH

  Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in(a) life expectancy and (b) infant mortality in the last 10 years in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) other OECD countries.

  Mr. Sackville
  Death rates in almost every age and sex group in the United Kingdom have been steadily declining over the period 1982 to 1991. This has resulted in increases in life expectancy.

  From 1982 to 1991 the United Kingdom life expectancy at birth has increased: males from 71.1 years in 1982 to 73.3 years in 1991, an increase of 2.2 years; and females from 77.0 years in 1982 to 78.8 years in 1991, an increase of 1.8 years. For the same period the United Kingdom infant mortality rate has decreased from 1,098.1, per 100,000 livebirths, in 1982 to 735.0 in 1991, a decrease of 33 per cent. Further information is shown in the table.

  The information for other Organisation of Economic Co-operation Development countries will be placed in the Library.

  827

  Life expectancy and infant mortality rate for the United Kingdom 1982–1991

  1Life expectancy

  Infant mortality

  Year

  Males

  Females

  2Rate

  1982

  71.1

  77.0

  11.0

  1983

  71.4

  77.2

  10.2

  1984

  71.5

  77.4

  9.6

  1985

  71.7

  77.5

  9.4

  1986

  71.9

  77.6

  9.5

  1987

  72.2

  77.9

  9.1

  1988

  72.4

  78.0

  9.0

  1989

  72.7

  78.3

  8.4

  1990

  73.0

  78.5

  7.9

  1991

  73.3

  78.8

  7.4

  1 At birth.

  2 Per 1,000 livebirths.

  Source:

  Population Trends (Tables 8 and 12), for 1982–1990.

  World Health Organisation Statistics Volume 1992, for 1991.

  Nurse-patient Ratio
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 514, if she will provide figures for the ratio of qualified nursing and midwifery staff to patients (a) by region and (b) by district in each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Disability Symbol
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to encourage health authorities and trusts to qualify for the disability symbol.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts and health authorities are free to work with their local employment service placing, assessment and counselling team to qualify for registration on the approved PACT list of disability symbol users.

  Ovarian Cancer
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths of women for each of the last five years for which information is available were due to ovarian cancer; what is the latest estimate of the risk of death within five years of the onset of this disease; and what steps are being taken by her Department, and by hospital trusts, to improve detection in the earliest possible stages.

  Mr. Sackville
  Deaths from ovarian cancer in England and Wales for the years 1988–92 are shown in the table. The average relative five-year survival rate after diagnosis of ovarian cancer is 28 per cent. based on cancers registered in 1981. Early diagnosis of ovarian cancer offers the best prognosis. Research to develop an effective means of ovarian screening in reducing mortality is being undertaken by the Medical Research Council which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who spent £318,000 on ovarian cancer research in 1992–93; as well as by national health service bodies and cancer charities.828

  Deaths from ovarian cancer in England and Wales in the years 1988–92

  Year

  Deaths

  1988

  3,798

  1989

  3,934

  1990

  3,995

  1991

  3,866

  1992

  3,880

  PM10 Particulates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of the Committee on Medical Effects' report into the health threat posed by PM10 particulates in the air;

  (2) what is her estimate of the annual number of deaths caused by PM 10 particulates;

  (3) what assessment she has made of the link between (a) cardiovascular and (b) respiratory disease and levels of PM10 particulates in the air;

  (4) what assessment she has made of the link between respiratory disease and particulates of less than 2.5 micrometres across.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution has not yet reported on the adverse health effects of PM10 particulates in the air. In 1992, the Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes concluded that particulate levels were low and not thought to pose a significant threat to health. They stated that this conclusion was tentative and noted gaps in the available information.

  COMEAP has since stated that there appears to be sufficient evidence from recent studies in a number of countries to give cause for concern about the possible effects of current levels of fine particles upon health. This is a complex area and it is not yet clear what role changes in low levels of particles play vis-a-vis changes in levels of other pollutants and temperature and humidity in causing the changes in indices of mortality recorded in a number of studies. Despite these difficulties, reductions in levels of fine particles should be welcomed.

  In response to a request from the Department for definitive advice on this issue COMEAP has set up a sub-group on particles to assess the latest evidence on the health effects of all particulate matter and advise on needs for further research.

  Deaths are not recorded as caused by exposure to particulate matter. The sub-group examining the assumptions underlying the published calculations of mortality and will advise the Department as to whether an estimate of deaths due to particulates can be determined.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the health benefits of a limit on acceptable levels of PM10 particulates in the air.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is advised by the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution, which have set up a particulates sub-group specifically to advise on the health effects of particulate matter. Additionally, the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards makes recommendations on these to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. EPAQS and the Department of the Environment are considering a standard for particles.

  Some members of COMEAP also serve on EPAQS and the professional staff from the Department are members of the secretariat.
  829
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the link between asthma and PM10 particulates in the air.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes reported in 1992 that suspended particulate matter contains acidic components which, in laboratory studies, have produced inconsistent changes in indices of lung function in asthmatic subjects. The Department has asked for further advice from the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution and they have set up a sub-group to assess the relationship between asthma and all air pollutants.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has of a correlation between high levels of PM10 particulates in the air and hospital admissions.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is funding a study into the health effects of the London air pollution episode in December 1991. This study will relate hospital admissions to levels of air pollutants. A study conducted in Birmingham of the period 1988 to 1990 and published earlier this year has shown that levels of particulates measured as British standard black smoke are a significant predictor of hospital admissions for asthma and all other acute respiratory disorders.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expansion there has been in the facilities during the last three years at the Doncaster royal infirmary and Mexborough Montagu hospital trust for treating children with brain tumours and other cancers.

  Mr. Sackville
  The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Mr. C. Bryant, for details.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken by(a) her Department, (b) Trent regional health authority and (c) Doncaster health authority into the incidence of brain tumours or the incidence of cancers within the Trent regional health authority and Doncaster health authority areas.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional cancer registries are the major source of information on cancer incidence rates. The Department funds the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to produce data on national incidence rates, but does not fund analysis of this data on a regional basis. The Department also funds the Childhood Cancer Research Group at the University of Oxford through which research is carried out into childhood cancers of all kinds. This research is largely carried out on a national basis and provides data on national incidence rates of childhood cancers.

  Analysis of cancer incidence rates at a regional or district health authority level can be carried out by the Regional Cancer Registry, if requested by regional or district health authorities. Last year, the director of public

  Number of dentists who have deregistered patients and number of patients deregistered 3 July to 4 March 1994, by regional health authority area

  Region

  Number of dentists deregistering adult patients1

  Number of adult patients deregistered

  Number of dentists deregistering child patients1

  Number of child patients deregistered

  Northern

  51

  19,519

  14

  256

  Yorkshire

  218

  31,476

  27

  276

  Trent

  153

  38,658

  19

  48

  East Anglia

  113

  41,235

  9

  114

  North West Thames

  101

  17,057

  6

  65

  830
  health for the Doncaster health authority obtained data from the Trent Regional Cancer Registry about the occurrence of brain tumours, both in the Doncaster district and in the Trent region, for the period 1982–88. These data showed that the rate of ocurrence of brain turnouts in Doncaster is consistent with the rates in Trent and in England and Wales, since 1982.

  Dentistry
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 159, what information her Department has available centrally on (a) the number of dental surgeons (i) providing national health service treatment and (ii) not providing national health service treatment and (b) the division of costs between NHS and non-NHS treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Available information is shown in the table. The table shows, for the Avon family health services authority area, national health service expenditure on gross fees paid to dentists providing general dental services and the number of dentists in contract with Avon FHSA to provide NHS dental treatment.

  Gross fees and number of dentists—Avon Family Health Services Authority, 1983–84 and 1988–89 to 1993–94

  Year

  Gross fees (including patient charges)1 (£ million)

  Number of dentists2

  1983–84

  12.9

  336

  1988–89

  19.4

  364

  1989–90

  19.3

  374

  1990–91

  21.3

  372

  1991–92

  25.6

  374

  1992–93

  25.7

  374

  1993–94

  3—

  382

  1 Fees paid to dentists for provision of NHS treatment, including patient charges.

  2 Includes principals, assistants and vocational trainees at 30 September.

  3 Information not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been deregistered by their dentists in each regional health authority area in England and Wales during each of the last four years; and how many dentists in each of the regional health authority areas have been involved in the deregistration.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested, which has been collected centrally for England since 3 July 1992, is shown in the table. Over the period July 1992 to December 1993 there was a net increase of over 600,000 patients registered with dentists and 264 dentists in contract with family health services authorities.

  Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  831

  Region

  Number of dentists deregistering adult patients1

  Number of adult patients deregistered

  Number of dentists deregistering child patients1

  Number of child patients deregistered

  North East Thames

  119

  22,872

  15

  126

  South East Thames

  444

  87,433

  28

  316

  South West Thames

  139

  67,454

  1

  4

  Wessex

  120

  62,226

  1

  2

  Oxford

  220

  74,036

  4

  30

  South Western

  331

  113,584

  33

  441

  West Midlands

  121

  28,477

  13

  57

  Mersey

  106

  8,071

  6

  19

  North Western

  254

  30,962

  78

  214

  1 Some dentists may have deregistered both adult and child patients.

  Patient Charges
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount of revenue raised annually from charges to patients within the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total amount of revenue raised in England in 1992–93 from charges to patients within the national health service was £844,166,453. This figure covers the whole range of charges which may be made to patients by NHS bodies and includes; prescription charges; dental charges; the sale of dried baby milk under the welfare food scheme; and charges to patients in both NHS trust hospitals and directly managed units, including private patients in NHS hospitals.

  Limb Defects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions her Department has held with the Trent regional health authority and Doncaster health authority concerning the incidence of upper limb defects in children within the Trent regional health authority and Doncaster health authority areas.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on 1 March at column 678.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what contacts have taken place during investigations of limb defects in the area of the Trent regional health authority and Doncaster health authority between the authorities and the British Medical Association and other organisations;

  (2) which agencies in the Trent regional health authority are charged with monitoring the incidence of limb defects in children born within the health authority's area.

  Mr. Sackville
  These are matters for the Trent regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle, the chairman, for details.

  NHS Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how copyright can be used to protect the NHS number; and whether copyright would prevent the NHS number from being used by other Government Departments, the police or security services.

  Mr. Sackville
  Copyright infringement, of the use of the national health service number system outside of the NHS, will be taken up by the Controller Her Majesty's Stationery Office, by way of injunction and damages.
  832
  Copyright does not cover the use of the NHS number by other Government Departments. However, there is no intention to use the NHS number for anything other than NHS purposes.

  Doncaster Family Health Services Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the amount, recipient and date of all grants made by Doncaster family health services authority by year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information in the annual accounts of Doncaster family health services authority is shown in the table.

  Year

  Grants to General Medical Service Trainers £

  Practice Teams and Premises—Improvements REVENUE £

  Practice Teams and Premises—Improvements CAPITAL £

  1990–91

  38,498

  —1

  12,491

  1991–92

  42,399

  13,886

  76,444

  1992–93

  27,472

  50,130

  100,514

  Notes to table:

  1In 1990–91 the expenditure was reported on a different basis to that in subsequent years i.e. as "Improvement Grants", not analysed between revenue and capital.

  2. 1992–93 figures are subject to National Audit Office approval.

  Source:

  Doncaster Family Health Services Authority's annual accounts.

  Complaints
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if all health authorities and NHS hospitals have yet published details of both the number of complaints received and how long it has taken to deal with them; and what progress has been made in centrally collecting and publishing this information.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All district health authorities have published annual reports on patients charter performance, including data on the right to complain. This means that information is available locally on the handling of complaints. We will be reviewing the information we collect on complaints and publish centrally, in the light of recommendations of Professor Wilson's independent review committee on national health service complaints procedures, and those made by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
  833

  International Year of the Family
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to review their plans and policies for supporting family life in the international year of the family.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government recognise the importance of the family as providing the essential environment for bringing up children and we give every priority and encouragement to the family in the development of policies. It seeks to ensure that all policies take account of their impact on families.

  Government policy seeks to enable families to be self-supporting.

  The role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be to explain how the Government's policy initiatives affect the family.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will continue to handle the day-to-day co-ordination of the Government's contribution to the United Nations International Year of the Family.

  Marriages
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) 16-year-old, (b) 17-year-old and (c) 18-year-old people got married in each of the last three years.

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

  The numbers of men and women who married at ages 16, 17 and 18 during the last three years for which the information is available are:

  England and Wales

  Year of marriage

  Age

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Men

  16

  46

  50

  35

  17

  357

  259

  203

  18

  1,974

  1,598

  1,258

  Women

  16

  814

  647

  516

  17

  2,549

  2,028

  1,723

  18

  8,657

  6,934

  5,724

  Source: Marriage and divorce statistics, England and Wales, Series, FM2, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, HMSO.

  GPs (Practice Administration)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hours weekly on average were spent by general practitioners on practice administration in(a) 1985–86, (b) 1989–90 and 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In the 1985–86 and 1989–90 surveys of general practitioners' workload, the reported average weekly time spent on practice administration associated with the provision of general medical services was 1.78 hours and 2.48 hours respectively. A further such survey ran for a year from November 1992; interim results, based on the first seven months' data, give a reported average of 3.53 hours a week.
  834

  Health Promotion Clinics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will make a statement on the value of health promotion clinics in general practice.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  New arrangements for health promotion in general practice, based on modern authorative medical opinion and in line with "The Health of the Nation" strategy, were introduced on 1 July 1993. Practice-based health promotion programmes play an important part in helping people to improve their health.

  NHS Drugs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much profit in the last year was made from the prescription of drugs and other items which cost the NHS less than £4.75.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The concept of "profit" has no meaning when applied to prescription charges.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 346, on general practitioner fundholders preparatory allowances, what information she has received from regional health authorities in relation to the number of general practitioners who have received the preparatory management allowance in two or more years running.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 10 February at column 419.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy in respect of general practitioner fundholders both prescribing and dispensing drugs; what proposals she has to change this policy; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In areas where patients do not have convenient access to a community pharmacy, dispensing by general practitioners—whether they are fundholders or non-fundholders—provides an important service. There are no plans to change this policy.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the total number of psychiatric beds in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 16 February at column.860.

  Open Government
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the implications for the operation of her Department of the code of practice on open government.

  Mr. Sackville
  The code of practice will reinforce and build on my Department's existing arrangements for the provision of information. Operational details are being finalised and will be available in due course.

  Sex Education
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recommendations she has made to the Secretary of State for Education in relation to sex education in the school curriculum.

  Mr. Sackville
  The content of the curriculum, including sex education provision in schools, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education about sex education in schools.

  Mr. Sackville
  Ministers in both Departments are in regular touch on a number of issues including sex education.

  Orthodontic Treatment
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the current waiting lists for all types of orthodontic treatment for children in Huddersfield and Dewsbury.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting times for in-patient and day case treatment by specialty for district health authorities and trusts is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England". The latest published figures are for September 1993 and copies are available in the Library. Although information is available on waiting times for various paediatric specialties, orthodontic treatment for children is not separately listed.

  Electricity Pylons
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the policy which allows electricity pylons to be sited near homes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice to Government, including both this Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, about radiation matters is provided by the National Radiological Protection Board. New electric lines above ground, with the exception of connections to individual customers and certain very minor developments, require the consent of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade who may also grant deemed planning permission.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 February at columns 40–41 concerning the question of any health risk.

  Private Medical Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place a copy of her Department's written evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on private medical services in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's evidence is summarised in paragraphs 10.2 to 10.9 of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on private medical services, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  NHS Patients (Private Treatment)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has issued regarding the offer by NHS staff employed by trusts of private treatment to NHS patients in hospital accident and emergency departments; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. We are not aware of any such offer. The national health service will remain available to all on the basis of clinical need, not the ability to pay.

  NHS Consultants
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS consultants, by specialty, undertaking work in the private sector have failed to meet fully their contractual obligations to the NHS for each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service employers are responsible for satisfying themselves that consultants are fulfilling their contractual obligations. The information requested is not available centrally.

  Hospital Beds, London
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number of hospital beds she now determines are required in the capital so that London has the appropriate number of beds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for hospitals themselves to determine the number of beds required locally taking account of the requirements of local health authorities and general practitioner fundholders.

  Private Hotels
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued to regional health authorities, district health authorities, family health services authorities and trusts on the use of private hotels.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. National health service bodies are expected to apply value-for-money judgments on the use of such facilities.

  Morning-after Pill
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions her Department had on making the morning-after pill available on request from a pharmacist.

  Mr. Sackville
  Any change to the legal classification of such medicines to allow them to be supplied by pharmacists without prescription would be subject to statutory consultation with all interested organisations.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental patients have been deregistered in each family health service authority since July 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table. Since July 1992 there has been a net increase of over 600,000 patients registered with 264 dentists in contract with family health services authorities.
  837

  Number of dental patients deregistered, from 3 July 1992 to 11 March 1994, by Family Health Service Authority England

  FHSA

  Number of patients deregistered

  All FHSAs

  647,593

  Cleveland

  2,636

  Cumbria

  13,403

  Durham

  347

  Northumberland

  2,665

  Gateshead

  725

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  —

  North Tyneside

  3

  South Tyneside

  16

  Sunderland

  —

  Humberside

  10,949

  North Yorkshire

  9,710

  Bradford

  —

  Calderdale

  876

  Kirklees

  691

  Leeds

  8,790

  Wakefield

  936

  Derbyshire

  19,235

  Leicestershire

  13,161

  Lincolnshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  4,853

  Barnsley

  —

  Doncaster

  23

  Rotherham

  394

  Sheffield

  1,492

  Cambridgeshire

  5,264

  Norfolk

  29,038

  Suffolk

  7,187

  Bedfordshire

  1,317

  Hertfordshire

  7,113

  Barnet

  4,871

  Brent and Harrow

  1,551

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  35

  Hillingdon

  —

  Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea

  2,288

  Essex

  14,947

  Barking and Havering

  3,858

  Camden and Islington

  313

  City and East London

  751

  Enfield and Haringey

  981

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  2,214

  East Sussex

  15,304

  Kent

  54,585

  Greenwich and Bexley

  4,392

  Bromley

  13,206

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  446

  Surrey

  27,404

  West Sussex

  35,481

  Croydon

  1,945

  Kingston and Richmond

  1,016

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1,756

  Dorset

  22,886

  Hampshire

  24,365

  Wiltshire

  11,525

  Isle of Wight

  3,634

  Berkshire

  26,057

  Buckinghamshire

  18,818

  Northamptonshire

  3,124

  Oxfordshire

  26,240

  Avon

  15,478

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  14,729

  Devon

  27,721

  Gloucestershire

  52,618

  Somerset

  4,042

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,181

  Shropshire

  684

  Staffordshire

  7,801

  Warwickshire

  9,676

  Birmingham

  2,268

  Coventry

  1,598

  Dudley

  —

  Sandwell

  —

  838

  FHSA

  Number of patients deregistered

  Solihull

  2,507

  Walsall

  —

  Wolverhampton

  —

  Cheshire

  6,474

  Liverpool

  430

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  19

  Sefton

  590

  Wirral

  604

  Lancashire

  25,440

  Bolton

  632

  Bury

  675

  Manchester

  298

  Oldham

  —

  Rochdale

  1,904

  Salford

  151

  Stockport

  1,279

  Tameside

  742

  Trafford

  245

  Wigan

  —

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each civil service grade in her Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information shows the position on 14 March 1994:

  Total number of staff employed in the Department of Health

  Grade (including grade equivalents)

  Total

  Women (percentage)

  UG1

  3

  0

  UG2

  8

  0

  UG3

  25

  18

  UG4

  28

  39

  UG5

  204

  38

  UG6

  136

  32

  UG7

  575

  26

  SEO

  402

  29

  HEO

  724

  45

  EO

  972

  58

  AO

  1,333

  74

  AA

  529

  57

  Others1

  166

  42

  Total

  5,110

  52

  1 There are a number of grades, mainly on Youth Treatment Service, which do not easily equate to Unified Grades.

  Note: Casual staff have been excluded, as have staff on loan to other government departments, on maternity leave of more than three months, and on unpaid career breaks/study leave.

  Private Medical Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings she has held over the past year with representatives of private medical service providers; and if she will give details of the identity of participants and the nature of the discussions.

  Mr. Sackville
  One, with the Independent Healthcare Association, where I met the chairman, chief executive and two board members at their request, at which they expressed their views on a number of issues.

  NHS Trusts (Amenity Beds)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether charges levied by NHS trusts for amenity beds include a notional amount to cover, when appropriate, the additional cost of providing a better menu and exclusive use of television, telephone or bathroom.

  Mr. Sackville
  The charge levied by national health service trusts for amenity beds should cover all appropriate additional costs of facilities provided.

  Health Benefits Scheme
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the review of the health benefits scheme including the availability of free prescriptions is now completed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on 15 February at column 669.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many male persons were committed to prison in Northern Ireland for defaulting on a fine in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage of the total number of male persons committed to prison this represents.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, 1,671 male persons were received into prison in Northern Ireland for fine default, comprising 34 per cent. of all males received into prison in that year. However, since fine defaulters spend, on average, a much shorter time in prison than other categories of prisoner, they accounted for only 2 per cent. of the average daily population. Approximately one third of those received pay the outstanding fine in whole or in part at the time of reception or shortly afterwards.

  Medical Consultants
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to improve consultancy cover in the medical specialties to the level recommended by the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services.

  Mr. Ancram
  Additional consultant posts have been created and further posts will be established in the coming year through the Department's initiative on junior doctors hours. Consultant numbers will also increase as a result of the implementation of the Calman report, and rationalisation of acute hospital services should result in improved consultant cover in all specialties.

  Draft Children Order
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to publish the revised draft Children Order.

  Mr. Ancram
  I do not wish to prejudice the consideration which my noble Friend will be giving to the 840
  comments made during the consultation period and in the recent debate in the Northern Ireland Committee. However we hope to have the order laid before the House rises for the summer recess.

  Cross-border Security
  11. Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further progress has been made with the Government of the Irish Republic about cross-border security co-operation.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Irish security forces have continued to achieve very positive results against the terrorists, including for example the interception of a primed Mk 15 mortar in Donegal two weeks ago. As the Chief Constable of the RUC made clear yesterday, practical co-operation is at an all-time high and both the British and Irish Governments remain committed to working closely together to maintain and enhance that co-operation.

  Political Talks
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for re-starting talks to determine new political structures for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he is making in convening talks between the political parties in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the talks he has had with the parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government relating to Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) earlier today.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the basis of the talks between the Northern Ireland political parties and with the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 16 March 1994]: The Government's bilateral discussions with three of the Northern Ireland constitutional political parties and their dialogue with the Irish Government, are taking place in accordance with the statement of 26 March 1991 and upon the platform represented by the joint declaration issued on 15 December 1993.

  Prospects For Industry
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about future prospects for industry in Northern Ireland.
  841
  Mr. Tim Smith
  I have received a number of representations about future prospects for industry in Northern Ireland. The number of people employed now stands at 551,200. This is a new record for the Province. Together with recent good news about inward investment, it confirms the excellent prospects for industry in Northern Ireland.

  Joint Declaration
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position relating to the joint declaration.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) earlier today.

  Security Situation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of the current security situation in the Province.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The level of threat from terrorists remains high, but the security forces have been conspicuously successful in preventing attacks and apprehending suspects. Over the last month there have been over 170 arrests of suspected terrorists, 42 people have been charged with scheduled offences, and 16 weapons and 1,075 lb of explosives have been recovered.

  Community Care
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on community care policy.

  Mr. Ancram
  The community care reforms introduced in Northern Ireland on 1 April 1993 were first promulgated in the Department's 1990 policy document "People First", which is the equivalent of "Caring for People". These new arrangements for the provision of community care services by health and social services boards are intended to ensure that, as far as possible, people are cared for and supported in community-based settings rather than hospital.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of inward investment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  So far this year the Industrial Development Board has secured seven new inward investment projects involving a total investment of approximately £213 million and promising 1,476 new jobs. I am confident that there will be further announcements before the end of the financial year.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of school leavers are now entering further and higher education in Northern Ireland; and what the figures were in 1979.
  842
  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 58.2 per cent. of school leavers in Northern Ireland entered further and higher education in 1991–92. The figure for 1979–80 was 33.2 per cent.

  Building Workers
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he proposes to reduce unemployment among building workers in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Government policy is to create the conditions which produce economic growth leading to demand for construction workers and other employees. In Northern Ireland violence continues to be one of the greatest impediments to such growth. Nevertheless programmes are available from the Training and Employment Agency to help unemployed building workers re-train or find employment.

  Interrogation Procedures
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for extending to Northern Ireland the tape recording of interrogations and access to legal advice for suspects.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Both these issues have been raised by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper in his first report as Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres. His report will receive careful consideration.

  Interviews with suspects detained under the Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 1989 are currently tape-recorded. The Government remain firmly of the view that recording of interviews with terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland would not be in the overall interests of justice.

  Integrated Education
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the growth of integrated education in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Parental demand for integrated education continues at a high level. Twelve new integrated schools have been established since 1989, when legislation to encourage and facilitate its development was enacted. 4,000 pupils now attend 21 integrated schools, primary and secondary, throughout Northern Ireland. The Government will continue to respond positively to viable proposals.

  Legislative Procedures
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the reform of current legislative procedures for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The basic procedures for legislating for Northern Ireland are well understood but my right hon. and learned Friend is always prepared to consider reasonable proposals for improvement. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs will be able to provide additional scrutiny.

  Police Authority
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in new appointments to the Northern Ireland Police Authority.
  843
  Sir John Wheeler
  The term of office for the current Police Authority for Northern Ireland expires on 28 June. Nominations for potential members have been invited from a wide range of interested organisations. Thirty-two bodies, including 23 district councils, have so far put forward nominations.

  Housing
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what terms and conditions two blocks of flats at Camross park, Rathcoole, Co. Antrim were leased to Newtownabbey community project by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I am advised by its chief executive that two blocks of flats at Camross park, Rathcoole, have been let to Newtownabbey community project, subject to the following terms and conditions:

  1. The tenant shall vacate the premises when required to do so by the Landlord.

  2. The tenant shall be responsible for maintenance and repair of the dwelling.

  3. The tenant is responsible for payment of rates.

  4. The tenant shall be responsible for ensuring that the persons using the premises act in a reasonable manner, both in respect of the treatment of the building and adjoining property and that they avoid conduct likely to cause a nuisance to others, and for ensuring that the dwelling is in a reasonable condition at the termination of tenancy.

  5. Written permission from the Housing Executive is required for the following matters:

  (a) To carry out structural alterations and to erect any structure on the grounds of the dwelling.

  (b) To assign or sublet the dwelling.

  6. The Newtownabbey Community Project hereby agrees:

  (a) Not to use or permit the premises to be used for any purpose which is in breach of or contravenes any law, order, or regulation for the time being in force.

  (b) Not to use or permit the premises to be used for any purpose which will cause damage to the premises or injury to any person using the. premises.

  (c) Not to sell or permit the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on the premises.

  (d) To use the premises only for the lawful business of the community project.

  7. The Executive reserves the right on notice being given (save in the case of emergency) for the Executive's duly authorised representatives to inspect the premises at any reasonable hour.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if approval was obtained from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to sub-let flats at Camross park, Rathcoole, Co. Antrim to a pigeon club by Newtownabbey community project.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I am advised by its chief executive that no approval was obtained from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to sub-let flats at Camross park, Rathcoole to a pigeon club, by Newtownabbey community project.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future security of tenure of a pigeon club in Northern Ireland Housing Executive property at Camross park, Rathcoole, Co. Antrim, sub-let by Newtownabbey community project group.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I am advised by its chief 844
  executive that Newtownabbey community project, in permitting the use of all or part of the premises to the East Way Housing Pigeon Society, is in breach of the tenancy agreement. The Housing Executive was notified of the breach of tenancy on 9 March 1994 and a formal letter instructing the project to take immediate action to terminate the sub-let to the Pigeon Society was issued on 11 March 1994.

  Compensation
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the proposed tariff regime for compensation in England to the victims of crime to Northern Ireland; and if he has plans to consult interested organisations in the Province.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I am currently considering what lessons might be learnt for Northern Ireland from the forthcoming changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme in Great Britain, details of which were published recently by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  If, as a consequence, I consider that changes should be made to the current compensation scheme in Northern Ireland, I am committed to public consultation with interested parties in the Province.

  Hume-Adams Agreement
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek a copy of the agreement between the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Mr. Gerry Adams.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  No. I believe, and the hon. Member for Foyle has stated, that the Downing Street declaration sufficiently sets out the principles that must govern the future. They establish that in Northern Ireland there can be no place, and no justification, for politically motivated violence, whether of the kind still being perpetrated by the Provisional IRA with Mr. Adams' justification or at all.

  School Sports Facilities
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schools have(a) some playing fields and (b) artificial games areas, excluding playground areas; what were the figures (i) five, (ii) 10 and (iii) 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, information compiled in 1989 indicates that some 325 schools had grass pitches and 314 had hard surface games areas; some schools had both types of provision.

  Blood
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was(a) the number of blood donors, (b) the quantity of blood donated and (c) the amount of blood required for each health board for each month since April 1993.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: The Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service is a regional service and figures are not collected by board but on a province-wide basis.
  845
  The number of blood donors on the Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service panel is 82,138, while the quantity of blood donated over 1992–93 totalled 63,848 units.

  Information on the amount of blood issued for each month since April 1993 is currently not available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Legislation (Amendments)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will give examples of small and less controversial amendments to primary legislation, which would be unlikely to be made due to time constraint, which could not be made in the same manner as those contained in chapter II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, as indicated in his evidence before the Procedure Committee on 16 February.

  Mr. Newton
  Chapter 3 of the booklet "Deregulation—Cutting Red Tape" identifies 55 measures which the Government believe would be suitable for the order-making power in clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill. One example which I quoted in my evidence to the Procedure Committee was an amendment to the Patents Act 1977 and the Registered Designs Act 1949 to enable the Patent Office to accept documents in forms other than paper, such as electronic filing. The deregulation initiative is a rolling programme and more measures are expected to come forward in the future.

  Exhibitions (Upper Waiting Hall)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to Lancashire Aerospace to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 9 May to Friday 13 May.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the sesquicentenary of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 25 April to Friday 29 April.

EDUCATION

  Adult and Further Education
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the number of enrolments of students aged under 19 years for adult education courses and further education colleges with the Inner London education authority in 1989 and for its successor bodies for each year since.
  846
  Mr. Boswell
  The number of enrolments by students aged under 19 years on further education courses in adult education centres and further and higher education colleges funded by ILEA in 1989 or by its successor bodies in subsequent years are shown in the following table:

  The number of enrolments as of 1 November of the appropriate year by students aged under 19 on further education courses in adult education centres and in further and higher education colleges in Inner London

  Academic Year

  Number of Enrolments (thousands)

  1989–90

  31

  1990–91

  29

  1991–92

  27

  1992–93

  29

  Staffordshire Schools
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on how many occasions he has visited schools in Staffordshire; if he will give details; and when he next expects to visit schools in Staffordshire.

  Mr. Patten
  I have not visited any schools in Staffordshire, and at present I have no plans to do so.

  Science Education
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the percentages of young people aged 18 to 21 years in full-time education studying a science subject in each of the member countries of the OECD.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The readily available information is given in the table.

  Students1 enrolled on higher education science2 courses as a proportion of the population aged 18–25 in 19913

  Per cent.

  Belgium3

  3.6

  Canada

  8.4

  Denmark

  8.3

  France

  7.8

  Germany, FRG

  10.4

  Greece3

  7.0

  Ireland

  7.1

  Italy

  7.4

  Japan3

  4.8

  Netherlands4

  6.5

  Portugal

  3.9

  Spain3

  6.9

  United Kingdom3 4

  7.7

  United States of America

  11.9

  1 Full and part-time students.

  2 Science includes Natural Science, Mathematics and Computer Science, Medical and Health related, Engineering, Architecture and Town Planning and Trade Craft and Industrial programmes.

  3 1990 data for Belgium, Greece, Spain and Japan and 1992 for the United Kingdom.

  4 Excluding Open University enrolments in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

  5 The sources used are:

  UNESCO Statistical Yearbook, 1992 and 1993;

  United States Digest of Education Statistics, 1993;

  Data supplied by OECD for Education at a Glance, 1993;

  Education Statistics for the United Kingdom 1992 and 1993.

  Nursing
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether mandatory awards will be offered to lecturers in nursing who are being required to upgrade their qualifications to degree level.

  Mr. Boswell
  Lecturers in nursing who enrol on designated courses and who seek a mandatory award are subject to the same conditions in respect of personal eligibility and previous study as apply to other students.

  Primary Schools (Surplus Places)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will initiate a survey by local education authorities of some, or all, of their primary schools which under his criteria possess surplus places of between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. of those notional place numbers, to assess the impact on their activities prohibiting any use of that proportion of their space currently in use.

  Mr. Forth
  We have no plans to require local authorities to undertake such a survey. It is for local authorities in the first instance to make plans for the removal of surplus capacity, including the scale and method of rationalisation.

  School Premises
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if his formula for a school place in secondary schools permits each pupil within its specified pupil total to possess inside an all-purpose class, or similar room, a personal desk or locker of minimum cubic capacity.

  Mr. Forth
  The formula for measuring the capacity of schools used in the implementation of the more open enrolment provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 does not cover this level of detail. It is up to schools how they use and furnish their teaching accommodation.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if, in his assessment of school occupancy, he includes classrooms, workshops or other buildings of a temporary character; and when his policy was last changed and reviewed;

  (2) what adjustments have been made in the minimum standards in relation to a school place in secondary schools in the last 15 years; for what reasons; and what assessment he has made of any change in pupil space requirements consequent on the introduction of the national curriculum;

  (3) if he will state the latest official criteria of what constitutes a school place in (a) maintained primary and (b) maintained secondary schools; and what comparative studies have been made between the minimum standards laid down in (b) and any group of schools whose heads are members of the (i) headmasters or (ii) headmistresses conferences.

  Mr. Forth
  The more open enrolment provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 mean that schools must, in most cases, admit pupils until they are full. Each school has a standard number, or an approved admission number in the case of a grant-maintained school, which reflects previous levels of intake or the school's physical capacity as measured against a prescribed formula. All suitable permanent and temporary accommodation is taken into account in the assessment of standard numbers or approved admissions numbers.
  848
  The provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 and the advice contained in departmental circulars 11/88, Admissions to County and Voluntary Schools, and 6/91, Implementation of More Open Enrolment in Primary Schools, represent the latest steps in a process of continual refinement in the calculation of school capacity.

  I am not aware of any comparative studies covering independent schools.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice, or requirement, he makes in approving capital consent for new secondary buildings in respect of(a) the need for split, or smaller, teaching groups for certain classes held in rooms deemed capable of accommodating 30 or more pupils and (b) the need for a significant proportion of space to remain empty in order to construct an educationally efficient timetable.

  Mr. Forth
  Capital support for new or extended secondary schools is made available through annual capital guidelines to LEAs, and by grant aid for voluntary aided and self-governing GM schools, according to the assessed need for new places in an area. The level of support is based on cost multipliers which reflect the average cost of providing new places. The cost multipliers are based on costs actually achieved in LEA building projects.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what cost limits applied to newly built primary and secondary schools, respectively, in respect of costs per place of the building, net of site costs, and the name, date and authorisation of any official publication advising on how minimum space requirements could be obtained within the limits without prejudice to other costs, including future maintenance.

  Mr. Forth
  There are no cost limits in respect of expenditure per place on individual LEA schools, although limits may, in the case of voluntary aided schools, be placed on the levels of our grant aid. Under the capital finance system LEAs are free to spend what they like on individual projects. In determining the basic need—that is, the requirement for new school places in areas of population growth—element of the 1994–95 annual capital guidelines, the Department used per place cost multipliers, valued as follows:

  £

  Primary

  3,747

  Secondary

  5,116

  Secondary (16+)

  6,128

  These are based on actual LEA projects providing places in new schools and extensions. They include the cost of the buildings, external works, furniture and equipment and professional fees. They do not include the cost of site purchases or VAT. The cost in each case represents a level of achievement being met by about a third of LEAs. The teaching standards adopted in the project are about 15 per cent. above the regulation minimum for a 210-place primary school, and about 8 per cent. above the minimum for a typical secondary school.

  The Department's most recent guidance in respect of new primary, schools, published in 1989 and called "St. John's School Sefton: the design of a new primary school," illustrated lower teaching area standards than those indicated above. No recent comparable publication has been produced related to secondary schools.
  849
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what study he has made, or is planning, of the amount of space available per secondary pupil in any group of independent schools, which are charitable foundations, which are making economical use of their premises.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  School Leavers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of female school leavers left school with five or more GCSEs at grades A to C in Merseyside in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The percentage of female school leavers estimated to be leaving maintained schools with five or more GCSEs at grades A to C in Merseyside in 1992 was 33.6 per cent. The latest year for which the information is available is 1991–92, when the school examinations survey was undertaken with a reduced sample of 3 per cent.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. Boswell
  The figures are as follows:

  Total in grade

  Women as a percentage of total

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  Grade 2

  3

  0

  Grade 3

  12

  0

  Grade 4

  4

  25.0

  Grade 5

  46

  26.1

  Grade 6

  15

  13.3

  Grade 7

  153

  28.1

  SEO and Equivalent

  112

  34.8

  HEO and Equivalent

  369

  49.6

  EO and Equivalent

  501

  60.5

  AO and Equivalent

  628

  74.7

  AA and Equivalent

  382

  66.2

  Total

  2,229

  58.5

  These figures include 367 staff in post in the Teachers Pensions Agency of which 71.7 per cent. are women.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to announce changes to cash limits on votes within his responsibility for 1993–94.

  Mr. Patten
  The cash limit for class X, vote 1, schools, research and miscellaneous services, will be reduced by £1,500,000 from £708,982,000 to £707,482,000. The reduction will be used to offset an increase in the non-voted cash limit DFE local authority capital to meet increased expenditure on supplementary credit approvals in respect of urgently needed school building projects. The local authority capital cash limit will therefore be increased by £1,500,000 from £48,922,000 to £50,422,000.

DEFENCE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will provide substantive answers to the questions from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton of 21 January, and 27 January, concerning the membership of non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Hanley
  The delay in answering has been caused by the need to establish whether members would be content for their names to be published, particularly where NDPBs deal with sensitive issues. I am now in a position to answer a number of the questions referred to and will answer the remainder once all individuals concerned have replied to my Department.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the Review Board for Government Contracts.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  Sir Peter Webster (Chairman)

  Sir Laurence Airey KCB

  Sir Alan Bailey KCB

  Derek Kingsbury CBE

  Dr. Alan Watkins

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Royal Air Force museum.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]:The information requested is as follows:

  Sir Michael Beetham GCB CBE DFC AFC FRAeS (Chairman)

  Sir Thomas N. Risk

  Mr. Barry Pinson QC

  Group Captain Sir Gordon Pirie CVO CBE JP DL (Recd)

  Dr. Basil Greenhill CB CMG FRHists FSA

  Sir John Cuckney

  Sir Ralph Robins FENG FRAeS

  Sir Cohn Marshall

  Sir Hector Monro AE JP DL MP

  Sir Colin Chandler

  Sir John Blelloch KCB

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the meteorological research sub-committee.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  Professor H. Charnock

  Professor B. Fender

  Professor J. Harries

  Professor A. Hollingsworth

  Professor B. Hoskins

  Dr. M. Vaughan

  Dr. J. Woods

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the Services Sound and Vision Corporation.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The members are:

  General Sir Geoffrey Howlett, KBE, MC

  David E. Hatch, JP, MA, DipEd, FRSA, CIMgt (Vice Chair)

  851

  Brian Tesler, CBE

  Frederick P. Turner

  Dr. Bryce McCrirrick, CBE, DSc, FEng, FIEE, FRTS

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the oil and pipelines agency.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  Geoffrey Richards (Chairman)

  Christopher Finch

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the meteorological committees.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January]: The information requested is as follows:

  Professor R. L. Bell

  Mr. D. A. Davis

  Mr. D. Filkin

  Ms A. Gammidge

  Professor B. J. Hoskins

  Dr. H. Hughes

  Baroness Jay

  Professor M. H. Pesaran

  Baroness Platt

  Mr. C. M. Stuart

  Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Royal Navy submarine museum, Gosport.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. D. Patch

  Mr. R. D. Wilson

  Dr. Robert Bud

  Mrs. P. L. Lee BA

  Captain R. Channon RN (Retd)

  Rear Admiral A. J. Whetsone CB

  Captain G. C. W. Hayhoe RN (Retd)

  Commander G. Turner RN (Retd)

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the board of of the Royal Marines museum, Southsea.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]:

  Mr. Brian Ashby

  Mr. Barrie C. Johnston OBE FPMI FRSA

  Mr. Nick Sonas DL

  Mr. Derek J. Martin

  Mr. Nigel S. E. Martin

  Mr. Michael N. E. Ware FRPS FMA

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Fleet Air Arm museum.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The board of trustees as established by the trust deed and subsequent amending scheme consists of:

  Mr. Michael Cobham

  Mr. Desmond Cracknell

  Sir Donald Gosling

  Sir Stanley Grinstead

  Mr. Jeffrey Smith

  Doctor Thomas Wright

  Dame Margaret Weston

  852
  The trustees meet twice a year mainly to review and approve the strategic plan. The director exercises day-to-day management under the aegis of the management committee of the chairman, deputy chairman, director, deputy director and museum administrator.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional non-operational staff have been taken on by his Department to execute the new objective of market testing as set out at paragraph 3 of his Department's annual report and expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1996–97, Cm 2501.

  Mr. Aitken
  Up to 30 additional staff are being recruited on fixed-term appointments for a variety of contract duties. Eight have been appointed.

  Additionally, two industrial advisers have been seconded for a period of one year.

  Appraisal Strategy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what appraisal strategy he has set in place to monitor the effectiveness of his achieving availability, reliability and maintainability standards, as set out at paragraph 59 of his departmental annual report, Cm 2501.

  Mr. Aitken
  A comprehensive data collection system is being implemented in each of the services, to monitor the effectiveness of achieving availability, reliability and maintainability standards.

  Green Matters (Responsibility)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which departmental Minister is responsible for reporting to the House on green matters within his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence is responsible for environmental matters within the Department. I answer to the House on his behalf.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations he has made into the assertion by Mr. B. J. Habibie, director of Indonesia's armaments procurement programme, to assure himself that the Hawk jets bought from British Aerospace last year by Indonesia will be used for ground attack purposes.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have received assurances from the Indonesian Government that the Hawk aircraft will not be used for internal security.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation he has made of the use to which Hawk jets sold to Indonesia by British Aerospace last year have been put.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Hawks purchased by Indonesia last year have not yet been delivered.

  Chemical Weapons Testing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what follow-up has been conducted in the last 10 years by his Department as to the long-term health effects
  853
  arising from experiments conducted on service men from RAF Kinloss in the 1950s at the Porton Down chemical warfare establishment to establish antidotes to chemical warfare agents.

  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Llew Smith, 17 March 1994:
  Parliamentary Question 29, Order Paper 9 March 1994
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, asking what follow up has been conducted in the last 10 years by his Department as to the long term health effects arising from studies conducted on servicemen from RAF Kinloss in the 1950s at the Porton Down to develop antidotes to chemical warfare agents has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use service volunteers to:

  (a) assess the ability of service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  (b) develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and

  (c) evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. The procedure in respect of Service volunteers is that on arrival at CBDE each volunteer is given a medical examination to see if they are fit for the proposed study. The nature of the study is explained to them and they are told that they may withdraw from the study without any explanation at any stage. At the end of the study they are given a second medical examination and the fact that they have participated at CBDE in a volunteer study is recorded on their medical records.
  4. From time to time, Service volunteers have been recalled so that checks on their medical health can be made. There is no particular frequency or pattern to such recalls. In addition some volunteers return voluntarily to CBDE to take part in subsequent unrelated studies. There is no evidence that Service volunteers have had any deterioration in their health as a result of their participation as a volunteer in a human study.
  5. Our records are not collated in such a way as to allow us to readily identify volunteers from. RAF Kinloss in the 1950s. There has been no particular reason to carry out a follow up in respect of these volunteers and none has been carried out.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies and tests have been done by the chemical warfare establishment at Porton Down to assess a nerve agent which penetrates skin and clothes quicker than the G agents and VX; when these experiments were done; and what was the conclusion of the assessment.

  Mr. Hanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 January 1994, c. 305]: I have asked the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment to write a further letter to the hon. Member.

  Letter from G. Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 17 March 1994:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 22, ORDER PAPER 18 JANUARY 1994
  854

  1. Further to my answer (Official Record, 26 January 1994, Column 305) to your question about agents which penetrate skin and clothing quicker than the G-agents and VX, my attention has been drawn to a report available in the Public Records Office about work carried out at this Establishment in the early 1960s. This work was to seek organophosphorus anticholinesterases which have the chemical and physical properties likely to make them more effective agents than GB and VX eg compounds which may penetrate human skin more rapidly. The information provided in the report does not provide the additional information that you sought on when these experiments were done and what was the conclusion of the assessment; it would require a disproportionate amount of effort and cost to see if this information is available elsewhere.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used by an aggressor against them. This work necessitates the study of potential chemical and biological agents that might be used by an aggressor so that the effectiveness of the available protective measures can be evaluated against potential agents and, where appropriate, the protective measures improved.

  3. Work is currently being carried out, and has been for many years, to examine the potential hazard from chemical compounds that might be used as a chemical warfare agent by an aggressor; such compounds may be identified through intelligence or as a result of advances in chemistry.

  4. In my answer of 26 January 1994, I said that our records did not indicate that any tests or studies had been carried out to assess a nerve agent which penetrates skin and clothing quicker than the G-agents and VX. When a parliamentary question concerning work on a particular subject is asked, information is sought from all readily available sources which include the library at CBDE to see if there are any reports on the subject, and the Superintendents of the Divisions at CBDE in which such work is being or may have been carried out, who in turn make enquiries of their senior staff. If these searches reveal no information I then reply stating that our records do not indicate any work into this subject.

  5. It would require a disproportionate amount of effort and cost, every time a Parliamentary Question is asked, to initiate a search into the past records at the Public Record Office or elsewhere to see if there was information on a particular subject. We need to concentrate on providing the UK Armed Forces with effective protective measures against the current hazards should chemical or biological weapons be used against them wherever they may serve worldwide.

  6. The report from the Public Record Office also refers to other materials that have been the subject of parliamentary questions. I will write further letters as soon as the newly available information has been considered.

  "Green Forces"
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many copies of his departmental video "Green Forces" have been produced; at what cost; to whom they have been distributed; and what arrangements exist to obtain a copy of the video for hon. Members.

  Mr. Hanley
  Some 2,750 copies of the video "Green Forces" have been produced for free distribution, on request, to schools, colleges, libraries, other national and international organisations with an interest in environmental issues, and members of the public. To date, production, copying, marketing and distribution costs amount to some £94,000, excluding VAT. Two copies of "Green Forces" are being placed in the Library of the House. Hon. Members can also obtain a copy of the video by writing to the head of publicity, room 0384, Main building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those facilities where his Department has invoked Crown immunity or defence exception for(a)

  855
  national security or (b) operational effectiveness to override routine compliance with United Kingdom environmental legislation, as mentioned in general terms at paragraph 79 of his departmental annual report and expenditure plans for 1994–95 to 1996–97.

  Mr. Hanley
  Following the enactment of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, there have been no instances where MOD has formally invoked Crown immunity or defence exemptions to justify noncompliance with the requirements of the Act or other United Kingdom environmental legislation to regulatory authorities. A statement of MOD policy in respect of its exemptions from the health and statutory nuisance provisions of part III of the Act has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  RAF Machrihanish
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by year for the last four years, and this year to date(a) the number of times RAF Machrihanish was used by the United States navy maritime patrol aircraft assigned to Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic; and what were the type and make of aircraft.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total number of times RAF Machrihanish was used by the United States maritime patrol aircraft since 1 July 1990 is as follows:

  Number

  From 1 July to 31 December 19911

  31

  1991

  80

  1992

  103

  1993

  103

  1 January to 28 February 1994

  0

  1 Detailed records before 1 July 1990 no longer available.

  The type and make of aircraft involved were the Lockheed P3 Orion and the Lockheed S3 Viking.

  Large Aircraft
  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 each of the airports or aerodromes that his Department owns or controls in Yorkshire and Humberside, other than RAF Finningley.

  Mr. Hanley
  No records are available for Church Fenton, Dishforth or Topcliffe. The largest military aircraft to have landed at, or taken off from, RAF Leeming is a Lockheed C141 Starlifter; the largest civilian aircraft to have done so is a Boeing 737. No records are available for civilian aircraft landing at, or taking off from, RAF Linton-on-Ouse; the largest military aircraft to have done so is a Nimrod MR2.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which is the largest civilian aircraft that could be landed in normal operating conditions from each of the airports or aerodromes that his Department owns or controls in Yorkshire and Humberside, other than RAF Finningley.

  Mr. Hanley
  Adequate performance data for civilian aircraft is not available in respect of RAF Linton-on-Ouse.856
  The relief landing grounds at Church Fenton, Dishforth and Topcliffe are now suitable only for light aircraft. The largest civilian aircraft that could be landed at RAF Finningley in normal operating conditions is a Boeing 707.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent on improving accommodation assigned to(a) commanding officers, (b) other officers and (c) other ranks in each of the last four years at RAF Finningley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Figures are not available prior to 1991 when works management was untied from the Property Services Agency and delegated to local budget areas. Figures from financial year 1991–92, which include both single and married accommodation, is as follows:

  Year

  Commanding Officer

  Other Officers

  Other Ranks

  £

  £

  £

  1991–92

  Nil

  4,800,000

  759,000

  1992–93

  Nil

  483,000

  1993–94

  2,725

  160,000

  135,000

  The £4,800,000 was spent over financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93 on a single project for a major refurbishment of officers' married quarters. The other expenditure largely relates to: Food Act improvements and health and safety fire measures in the officers', sergeants' and airmen's messes; the refurbishment of two barrack blocks for airmen in 1991 and 1992; and double-glazing for the commanding officer's residence.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review there has been into the requirements of(a) RAF Finningley and (b) each other airport or aerodrome in Yorkshire and Humberside for military purposes (i) before and (ii) since the publication of "Options for Change".

  Mr. Hanley
  No formal review was conducted into the requirements for military purposes of either RAF Finningley or any other RAF airport or aerodrome in Yorkshire and Humberside prior to "Options for Change". Following "Options for Change", the RAF airfield at Church Fenton was declared surplus to requirements and the station was closed in April 1992, although the airfield remains in use as a relief landing ground for RAF Linton-on-Ouse. Currently, the complete RAF flying training requirement is the subject of a review which will include consideration of the use of all flying training airfields within the United Kingdom. More generally, the requirement for all RAF airfields is currently under review as part of the defence costs study "Front Line First".

  Accommodation Improvement
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent on improving accommodation assigned to(a) commanding officers, (b) other officers and (c) other ranks in each of the last four years at airports and aerodromes owned or under his Department's control in Yorkshire and Humberside, other than RAF Finningley; and if he will make a statement.
  857
  Mr. Hanley
  There is no RAF-maintained accommodation at Church Fenton, Dishforth or Topcliffe. For RAF Linton-on-Ouse, figures are only available for the last two years, as follows:

  Commanding Officer

  Other Officers

  Other Ranks

  Year

  £

  £

  £

  1992–93

  Nil

  Nil

  62,727

  1993–94

  Nil

  105,686

  43,760

  For RAF Leeming, figures are available for all four years, as follows:

  Commanding Officer

  Other Officers

  Other Ranks

  Year

  £

  £

  £

  1990–91

  2,000

  58,700

  12,033,000

  1991–92

  1,700

  122,700

  457,200

  1992–93

  2,000

  229,700

  403,800

  1993–94

  16,500

  180,200

  281,000

  1This expenditure includes the completion of new housing

  Runway Capacity
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the airports or aerodromes that his Department owns or controls in Yorkshire and Humberside other than RAF Finningley; if he will list the length of each airport or aerodrome runway; and if he will list the annual volume of flights in and out of each location for each of the last four years and the current year to date.

  Mr. Hanley
  The only airports or aerodromes other than RAF Finningley owned or controlled by the Ministry of Defence in Yorkshire and Humberside are RAF Leeming and RAF Linton-on-Ouse; RAF Linton-on-Ouse also has the use of the airfield facilities at the former RAF stations of Church Fenton, Dishforth and Topcliffe, which are used as relief landing grounds. Runway lengths are as follows:

  Airfield

  Length metres

  RAF Leeming

  Only one operational runway

  2,292

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  Runway 04/22

  1,835

  Runway 10/28

  1,339

  Church Fenton

  Runway 06/24

  1,759

  Runway 16/34

  1,666

  Dishforth

  Runway 16/34

  1,858

  Runway 10/28

  1,362

  Topcliffe

  Runway 03/21

  1,837

  Runway 13/31

  1,262

  The number of movements at each airfield, since 1990, is as follows:

  Movements by Year

  Airfield

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  RAF Leeming

  —2

  36,674

  41,221

  33,793

  6,510

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  71,531

  76,549

  66,382

  56,485

  8,937

  Church Fenton

  —2

  —2

  33,618

  24,602

  5,885

  858

  Movements by Year

  Airfield

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  Dishforth

  43,035

  43,961

  32,519

  32,277

  5,712

  Topcliffe

  23,285

  29,141

  14,540

  15,529

  3,332

  1 figures to date

  2 figures not available

  World War Two Munitions
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what areas in the Irish sea, northern channel and off the coast of Northern Ireland have been used in the disposal of world war two munitions since 1964; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many discarded world war two munition devices have come ashore on the British mainland over the last five years; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make a statement on sea disposal of surplus world war two munitions since 1964; if the disposal included chemical weapons and gas canisters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no records of world war two vintage munitions having been disposed of by sea dumping after 1964. In the last five years Royal Navy clearance diving units have conducted 3,268 munitions clearance tasks below the highwater mark on the British mainland. Available records do not identify the type, origin or number of devices dealt with.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table giving the number of low-flying sorties conducted over Wales in every year since 1978(a) in total, (b) below 250 ft and (c) at 100 ft.

  Mr. Hanley
  Records are not held of low-flying sorties conducted over specific locations or the number of low-flying sorties flown below 250 ft. However, the number of low-flying movements below 250 ft authorised into the central Wales tactical training area in each year since 1979, the earliest year for which figures are available, are set out in the table. Operational low flying may be authorised down to a minimum level of 100 ft, but records do not distinguish between movements flown below 250 ft and at 100 ft.

  Number of movements carried out below 250 ft down to a minimum height of 100 ft in the Central Wales Tactical Training Area

  Year

  Number

  1979

  123

  1980

  171

  1981

  59

  1982

  4

  1983

  21

  1984

  64

  1985

  44

  1986

  63

  1987

  242

  1988

  60

  1989

  89

  1990

  265

  1991

  90

  1992

  174

  1993

  192

  Light Dragoons Reconnaissance Squadron
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the commanding officer of the Light Dragoons Reconnaissance Squadron, Major Oliver Ellwood, did not accompany his troops when they left base in Germany for Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Major Ellwood departed Germany for Bosnia on the first flight and with the first group of his squadron on the evening of Saturday 12 March 1994.

  Overseas Contracts
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates on which memoranda of understanding have been drawn up with overseas Governments on matters relating to defence contracts in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Aitken
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 9 February,Official Report, column 254.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each year since 1979, and in total at constant 1993 prices, the total value of arms sales to(a) Indonesia and (b) Tanzania.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our policy to reveal details of arms sales to individual countries.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 29 November 1993,Official Report, columns 371–76.

  Yugoslavia
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the total number of United Kingdom service personnel currently serving in the former Yugoslavia and on sanctions activities in the Adriatic and on the Danube and (b) his estimate of the comparable figures for other Western European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently some 3,300 United Kingdom service personnel deployed on the ground in the former Yugoslavia. Around 600 Royal Navy personnel are serving in the Adriatic in support of NATO-WEU sanctions monitoring and enforcement operations. The military contribution of other nations to these operations is a matter for their national Governments and for the United Nations. Due to fluctuations in the actual level of troop contribution from a wide range of countries, it is not possible at this time to estimate comparable figures for other NATO and WEU countries.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on plans for the new management arrangements for the Ministry of Defence's married quarters estate.

  Mr. Hanley
  Following an open competition, Mr. James Michael Robinson, presently co-ordinator and chief executive of Bristol city council, has been selected for the post of chief executive designate of the new housing organisation. Mr. Robinson will take up his appointment shortly.

  Following a separate competition, Price Waterhouse has been appointed as the lead consultant to assist Mr. Robinson in developing the operational and business plans for the new organisation.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Wool sack.

"Convener"
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage the wider use of the word "convener" (as in Scotland) to describe the occupant of the chair in meetings of central and local government committees, of parliamentary committees and of other public bodies.
The Paliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, in meetings of public bodies the title of the occupant of the chair is generally a matter for those involved to decide. It follows that government intervention in such matters is inappropriate. I would have no less faith in the abilities of the chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Children, my noble friend, should she wish to be described differently.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that in your Lordships' House, in the other place and indeed in the country as a whole many women take the chair of committees? Some women—some women only—object to being called "chair"; and wooden in the head though I may sometimes be, I do not have wooden arms, wooden legs or wooden anything else. The word "convener" is used, very rightly I believe, in Scotland to mean the chairman. What legal measures would have to be taken in your Lordships' House to alter the name chair or chairperson to convener?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it was a Member of another place who described the use of the word "chair" as not so much feminism as furniturism. As regards our own committees and Committees of the House, it would be a matter for the House itself to decide. I suggest that my noble friend takes it up with the usual channels, but it would require a change in Standing Orders. I imagine that most people would be perfectly satisfied with continuing with the use of the word "chairman", which, as we all know, covers both men and women. I honestly do think that it is a matter for any individual body to decide exactly which title it should use.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his noble friend Lady Faithfull speaks for a good many women in the House and, I am sure, elsewhere? I am not very keen either on being addressed as if I were an item of furniture. The term "convener" has an honourable history in industrial relations elsewhere and I have had the pleasure of being
380
a convener of shop stewards from time to time. I would suggest that we have a similar arrangement in the House. I see no reason why not.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, it is not a matter for the Government. We already have one convener in this House. I think, certainly from the noises behind me, that most people would prefer to stick with the word "chairman", which is perfectly satisfactory and covers both sexes.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to join other members of the Government to consult the Convener of the Cross-Bench. Peers, who could no doubt give advice from experience on this matter which he would find helpful?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we would always be prepared to consult the Convener of the Cross-Bench Peers. But whether the convener could bind her colleagues on the Cross Benches is a matter for the Cross-Benchers themselves to decide. I suspect that our consultations might have to go somewhat wider than just the convener herself.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can we not come to terms with the fact that in the English language "man" has two quite separate meanings? One is a human being, as in, "Man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward"; the other is a male human being. Most other languages have separate words for the two. Would it not be better to come to terms with that fact instead of always trying to be politically correct?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would be the last to wish to be politically correct. My noble and learned friend is quite right, in that, as I said, "man" will cover both in this case. I do not actually think it is a matter of any great importance. If I may, I would refer you all to the very famous lines from Shakespeare:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet".
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if we are going to start along this path, will the noble Lord put as a high priority getting rid of the hateful word "spokesperson"?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think the House noted and generally supported the noble Lord's comments. I have no very strong views on this matter. The Government do not feel it is appropriate that we should intervene in what, for example, no doubt the party opposite would refer to its spokesmen as.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one can take this "person" business too far? Is he aware that on a certain student occasion a friend of mine whose name was Guy Chapman was referred to as Person Person Person?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in my youth, which was admittedly a very long time ago, to describe anybody as a person was highly derogatory?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lady is quite correct. I understand that her youth was in fact not quite as long ago as the noble Lady would like to think.

Health Checks for the Elderly
3.6 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the implementation of the annual screening by their GP of people aged 75 and over is being monitored and whether the information about the health of the older population emerging from the screening scheme is being gathered and evaluated centrally.
The Paliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the purpose of screening people of 75 and over is to enable general practitioners to provide them with the best possible care. Local monitoring of general medical services is carried out by family health service authorities. There is no requirement to collect the information centrally.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Can she confirm that the requirement to carry out the screening tests was inserted into GPs' terms of reference in 1990? In fact it was explicitly mentioned in the Patient's Charter that people had a right to an annual visit if they were 75 or over. Is she aware that various surveys and reports which have recently come to light show that there has not been universal implementation of the checks? Can that be confirmed by the department and can pressure be brought to bear on those GPs who are not carrying out the checks? What is important is that the information gleaned from the checks should be used to enable us to plan future services and resources for the health and care needs of the elderly.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I understand the position, everyone over 75 is offered an invitation to have a health check. But the way that the check is done is not standardised. It is done in different ways in different places. We are reviewing it at the moment and there will be a submission to Ministers in due course.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that where the annual screening of people over 75 reveals a need for the provision of services, both the health service and care providers have an obligation to provide individuals with those services? Are the Government satisfied with the situation revealed by the recent survey of the Royal College of Nursing? It showed that one in four of the elderly people most at risk are not receiving any form of statutory service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when needs are detected in people over 75 and, indeed, at other ages it is up to social services and health authorities to try to meet those needs within the resources available.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, has the noble Baroness no way of finding out how many GPs are not informing their patients of 75 years of age of the right to request
382
attention under these provisions? To my knowledge there are very many patients who do not know about these provisions and whose GPs take no steps to inform the patients of their rights.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall certainly look into that matter. As I understand the position, if a person aged 75 or over is on a GP's list, then that person is invited to the local practice for a check.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is important for the information to be collected and evaluated so that provision can be made for the patient's care in the community or acute hospital care? Does she further agree that if the tests are not done, the evaluations are not brought forward? How, therefore, can the Government plan the services for them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the main purpose of the check is to enable GPs to give appropriate care to elderly patients on an individual basis. Some family health service authorities are collecting the information on local needs and using it in terms of purchasing. Other research is taking place. At the moment the Medical Research Council is conducting a trial. Professor Phillips, now at Sheffield University, did some research in Southampton. Professor Idris Williams, a professor of general practice at Nottingham Medical School, is also undertaking some research. In addition, some local research is being done in north Kensington. I know that there are other schemes as well. So, although the information is not being collected centrally, it is certainly being used in research projects. But we have to be careful. If we ask GPs to collect more and more information and to submit more and more central returns, it means that they have less time to give to patients. We are anxious to reduce the bureaucracy.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, can the noble Baroness advise me whether these tests are available from the doctor who looks after the Palace of Westminster? If that is the case, would he need to employ extra staff to take care of your Lordships' House?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the test covers sensory functions, mobility, mental condition, physical condition, social environment and the use of medicines. When I look around the Chamber, I believe that noble Lords are in excellent condition.

School Closures
3.12 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the maximum number of schools which they have estimated may be closed under their plans for the rationalisation of school places.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government have made no such estimate. It is for local education

383
authorities to take action to rationalise their provision of school places. The means by which they do this will depend on local circumstances.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is widespread anxiety that within the DFE there is a hit list of local authorities, with specific schools indicated, on which the Secretary of State intends to move after the spring local elections, as his draconian powers take effect? Can the Minister say whether or not such a list exists? If it does, can she say how many local authorities and schools are on it, how many are grant-maintained and how many are local education authority schools? Will she give a categorical assurance that any proposals under consideration will be made public before the elections and not after them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no such list exists.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, in that case, on what criteria does the Secretary of State take a decision to shut a school other than because of numbers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it very much depends on the case which is put to the department by the local authority. It will be for the local authority to come forward with a plan either to reorganise the schools, to amalgamate them, to change the organisation in some way or indeed to close a school. It will be on the merits of the case presented to my right honourable friend by the local authority which will influence him in his determination.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness is doubtless aware that one reason that schools go grant-maintained is to avoid closure because of excess placings. Does she therefore agree that rationalisation and going grant-maintained are, to a degree, alternatives and which of these represents the Government's objective?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there have been 85 applications to my department for grant-maintained status where those schools have been subject to closure proposals by the local authority. Of that number, 50 have been accepted for closure. Therefore, I can say that my right honourable friend does look at the merits of the case.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, was the Minister entirely correct when she said that the Secretary of State had not given notice to local authorities? He has given quite definite instructions to the Birmingham local authority as to how many schools it has to close.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. I need to make a distinction between the issue of surplus places and whether my right honourable friend has a specific list with named schools in named local authorities. What my right honourable friend is doing, and has taken the power to do in the Education Act 1993, is to require information to come from local authorities and from the Funding Agency for Schools, when it is established on 1st April, to say how many places they have in their authority and
384
how many children occupy those places, which gives a figure of how many surplus places there are. That information leads on to the pupil projections both for primary and secondary schools. The question which follows from that will be as to what percentage of those places it would be practicable to move. That must be work done by the local authority.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister has told us that there is no specific list. Does that mean that the Government have no intention of implementing a pattern of closures? If the Government do riot have any intention of implementing a pattern of closures, what on earth do the Government need the powers for?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, according to the 1991 survey, there were about 1.3 million spare places in the country. Those spare places cost the state money in local and national taxes to the tune of about £300 million simply to keep the buildings heated, lit and maintained. That is a very considerable sum of money. My right honourable friend has a fallback power under which local authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools, when it is established, at least look at ways of making sure that that money is diverted to children in the classroom rather than being used for classrooms without children. Where a local authority drags its feet and refuses to accept its responsibilities in this matter, my right honourable friend has a fallback power: first, a directional power. He can direct a local authority to address the issue. He has another power which allows him to bring forward his own proposals, which would be an extreme use of those powers. If he ever did that it would be subject to public inquiry.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is evidence of overcrowding in some classes? In those circumstances, will the Secretary of State and the Minister be extremely careful as to what is done about that? Is she further aware that, on paper, some of the worst cases concern village schools? I believe that all Members of your Lordships' House will be aware of the great value of village schools—I am glad to see the Minister is nodding in agreement—where the workload for teachers is very heavy indeed? I hope that the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Government will be extremely careful about decisions which are taken to close those schools even though it appears that there are vacancies in them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance that the case for retaining schools in rural areas is the strongest. Distance factors and isolation of those schools are very important and are matters which my right honourable friend will certainly take into account. As regards overcrowding, at the top of the priority list for bids for capital is the need to provide places for children in schools either in overcrowded conditions or where in fact there are no places for children.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, would the Government consider using some of these schools which they are closing for nursery education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, that is a very important point and a matter for local authorities. If they wish to use spare places for nursery provision, that is their decision. My department has not yet turned down a request for extended nursery provision.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we have noted very carefully her assurance that no such list exists? Will she give us an equally categorical assurance that no proposals will be brought forward after the spring elections? Can she also assure us that, whatever considerations are made in the future in consultation with local authorities, there will be space for real parental choice, which must require some surplus places if parental choice is to be exercised?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said at the beginning that it was a question of what percentage of that million or so places can be removed in a practical way. As regards choice, if it is a question of sending children to a half-filled unpopular school, it might be better for a local authority to consider expanding a popular school and giving the children in the unpopular school a much better chance of education. So it is important that local authorities link quality as well as school places. I cannot give the noble Lord any assurances about how my right honourable friend will use his powers in the future, but the local authorities must be seen to be in default of their own duties before my right honourable friend will take those powers.

Visible Trade Balance: Prospects
3.20 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the prospects for the visible trade balance in the light of the figures reported on 12th March.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the prospects for visible trade remain good. Unit labour cost performance is excellent and competitiveness is much improved. The latest figures show that exports to non-EC countries are doing well.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the recently published figure of £13.5 billion for the visible trade deficit for last year is unacceptably high? Is he not further disturbed by the comment made by the Central Statistical Office when presenting those figures that it thought that the trend was likely to increase—that is, that the gap will further widen—even though the pace of economic recovery is fairly slight at present? Are we not then back in the old familiar cycle that as soon as the economy starts to recover, we move rapidly into a balance of payments crisis? Does the Minister recall that in 1985 the Aldington Report on overseas trade drew attention to precisely that problem? What have we been doing in the past 10 years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that the figures are high. They are higher than the original estimate. The figures that we announced last week, particularly for the month of December, were particularly high. We need to
386
be fairly cautious about reading too much into just one month's figures. Further, we ought to be aware that there have been considerable problems with the new system for measuring trade with our EC partners, which accounts for a little over half of our total. The noble Lord ought to note that revisions have been made to earlier months almost every time that a new set of figures has been produced under that new system; and, further, that the figures have been very erratic within 1993. Therefore, it might be rather rash to take just one month's figures, particularly as those December figures were the worst for a year. However, August's figures were the best for some six-and-a-half years. I think that that puts the figures in context. I do feel that there are good signs: the fact that our trade to non-EC countries is improving. The fact that they are weak in relation to Europe is not surprising given the weak activity there, but I believe that we are in a very strong position to benefit from any growth in activity there when that comes.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that opting out of the social chapter has given us the edge on competitiveness? It has enabled us to control our unit costs of production far more than our competitors. Indeed, our export record is extremely good compared with Japan and the USA. Does my noble friend agree that while visible trade is extremely important, we should not overlook the value of our invisible trade, which is doing extremely well against all competition?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to stress the importance of competitiveness. Noble Lords opposite ought to remember that. We have to produce the right goods at the right time. We have seen considerable cost competitiveness improvements of some 20 per cent. since we left the ERM, partly due to the lower exchange rate, but also due to a very good and improved unit labour cost performance. Further, my noble friend stressed the importance of invisibles. At the moment, we have only the final year figures for visible trade; but I can assure my noble friend that when one adds the surplus on invisibles to the deficit on visibles for 1992, that reduces the deficit from £13.4 billion to £8.5 billion. Therefore, the performance of invisibles in this sector is of crucial and vital importance.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I agree that it is dangerous to take the figures for just one month. However, is the Minister aware that our £13.5 billion trade deficit with the rest of the world last year included a trade deficit of no less than £4 billion with the European Community, and that the average deficit with the EC over the past three years has been £4 billion per annum while over the past 12 years it has been £7.5 billion? Will the Minister ask his right honourable friend, who is at the moment in delicate negotiations in Brussels, to bear that in mind together with the fact that we pay £2.5 billion out of our own Exchequer into the EC? Will he be a little more robust when dealing with criticism from the Foreign Office of Luxembourg and with some unelected and unaccountable members of the Commission?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I doubt whether I could be quite as robust as the noble Lord. I can assure the noble Lord, that, yes, there is a deficit in our trade with Europe. That is regrettable. As I said earlier, we have to treat the figures for the past year with some caution because the new Intrastat system is just bedding down. If the underlying message of the noble Lord is that by pulling out of the European Community we shall dramatically improve our trade figures with Europe, I think that the noble Lord is quite mistaken.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I accept that one should not put too much emphasis on one month's figures and that of course invisibles have always improved the visible trade deficit. Nonetheless, I find that the Minister's answers verge on the complacent. It is not a question of one month; it is a question now of a cumulative deficit over several years. To have that size of deficit at the hesitant beginning of a trade recovery would, frankly, terrify me if I were in charge of the Treasury. How is it possible to reconcile that persistent weakness in the balance of payments with the claim that the British economy has been improved out of all recognition in the past 10 years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally reject the noble Lord's allegations of complacency. What I was trying to emphasise was that although the figures are bad—and although they are bad particularly in relation to Europe —there are more reliable figures than Intrastat for our trade with non-EC countries which show exports growing and doing rather well. In the three months to January 1994, export volumes to non-EC countries were up 10 per cent. on the same three months a year previously. Further, more recent evidence from the CBI survey of exports, which is a very reliable survey, does not indicate such poor export performance. After a slight dip in the summer and autumn of last year, the balance of firms with export orders above normal has improved and is well above the long-run average. We expect export deliveries to continue to show that improvement.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, if the Government achieve the level of growth this year which many of us would like to see, but if that comes from consumer-led growth, does the Minister think that that will help the visible trade balance or not?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that we shall have to wait to see exactly what will happen. It is difficult to say precisely what is being imported at the moment. Some of it is manufactures, which implies a growth in consumer expenditure. Some of it is semi-manufactures and some raw materials. The semi-manufactures and raw materials are needed to help industry as it recovers, and to help with further exports as they are processed and sent on.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what the Government are doing to encourage those firms which are making better products in Britain so that we can reduce our imports as well as increase our exports?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the DTI does a great deal to assist exports and to assist industry generally. The reorganisation of DTI export promotion services provides a better focus on the United Kingdom's top 80 export markets. Further, particular help has been given to exporters through the ECGD. In the last Budget—November 1993—measures were introduced to reduce premiums for exports to Mexico, India and Turkey this year and next, with an increase in cover for 1996ߝ97 of some £200 million on top of the provision of some £3 billion for markets where exposure is already high.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Budget Red Book contains projections of the PSBR up to 1999? Is he aware—I am sure that he is —that it would have been technically impossible for the Treasury to make those projections without taking a view as to the path of the current account of the balance of payments, and hence of visible trade, up to 1999? The Treasury must have made those estimates. Will he share them with the House?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is always very difficult to make any estimates. Our estimates about the PSBR prove my exact point. From yesterday's figures it appears that we are going to be well within our targets on the PSBR, which is in fact wide of the Question on the Order Paper. As likely as not, it will be well below the £50 billion that was originally forecast in the Budget Red Book in the PSBR.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the point I was making was not about the PSBR, but that the estimate of the PSBR must technically also involve an estimate of the current account. One cannot do one without estimating the other. Since the Treasury must therefore have estimated current account and visible trade balances up to 1999, will the Minister share with us those estimates of the current account?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the point I was making was that any estimate, by definition—as it is an estimate of something that is going to happen in the future—can change, and will not necessarily be the same in the end as one originally forecast. As I pointed out, the PSBR looks, from yesterday's figures—I should welcome some praise from the noble Lord—as if it will be well below the original level set by the Government.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the view is widely held in industry that it is a wanton handicapping of our competitiveness to transfer to industry social costs such as statutory maternity pay, which have hitherto been borne by government? Before he says that national insurance changes compensate for that, will he consider the argument that exchanging a temporary concession for a permanent cost is literally selling one's birthright for a mess of pottage? In the light of those points, will he concede that the noble Lord, Lord Clark, is only relatively right?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Earl believes that, perhaps he will persuade his party to rescind its support for the social chapter, which would put on industry the very cost about which the noble Earl is complaining.
3.31 p.m.

British Railways (No. 4) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Sustainable Development: Select Committee
3.32 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee—

L. Barber of Tewkesbury,

L. Beaumont of Whitley,

V. Blakenham,

L. Chapple,

L. Chorley,

L. Gregson,

L. Jenkin of Roding,

E. Lindsay,

B. Nicol,

L. Skidelsky,

L. Tombs (Chairman);

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday, 29th March at a quarter-past three o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord Chairman can help with regard to what is said about minutes of evidence. It seems that they are all to be printed, but it is only if the committee thinks fit that they are to be delivered out, whatever that means. It is an unusual phrase, and it is something up with which the late Sir Winston Churchill would not have put.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is with the greatest hesitation that I have to say that I fear that the noble Lord is mistaken. Those are perfectly usual and normal words which are used on such occasions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend what "sustainable development" means.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wants me to give the long or the short answer. I suspect that the shorter one would probably please the House more. This is a matter of immense complexity. Perhaps we may leave it to the Select Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 21 [Acceptance of gifts and loans]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 15, line 9, at end insert:
(" ( ) The Secretary of State shall not take account of the amount of any gift or loan accepted by the police authority under this section in determining the amount of grant to be made to the authority under section 31(2) of this Act.
( ) A police authority shall not take account of the amount of any gift or loan accepted by it under this section in issuing a precept or calculating its budget requirement under sections 40 and 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
( ) The Secretary of State shall preclude the acceptance under this section of any gift or loan which may interfere with the operational independence of the chief constable or the impartial discharge of his duties.
( ) The Secretary of State shall require every police authority to publish in its annual report the identity of those making gifts or loans under this section and the amounts thereof.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the clause that we are debating is to allow a police authority to accept gifts of money and gifts or loans of other property. According to subsection (2), the terms upon which the gifts or loans are accepted can include,
"the commercial sponsorship of any activity of the police authority or of the police force maintained by it".
As the House will recall, we debated this issue on 21st February. When asked by a number of us why it was that the clause had been incorporated in the Bill, the noble Earl said that it merely formalised the existing position as regards gifts and sponsorship accepted by some police forces as part of crime prevention campaigns. Of course, none of us has any objection to support from private individuals or commercial concerns for crime prevention campaigns. Indeed, a few days ago I had the opportunity to see one in Newcastle where, as a result of a substantial amount of support from the private sector, closed circuit television had been installed in many areas of central Newcastle, which had proved to be of considerable benefit to the police.
All that I would say on that point is that I have found no one in the police service who has expressed to me any doubt about the legal basis of support of that character. I should therefore be immensely grateful if the noble Earl could give the House some examples of where police authorities or chief officers had indicated some doubt about the legal basis for receiving such support.
However, let us assume that the clause is necessary. As the Minister will recall, a number of us—not least the noble Lord, Lord Knights, speaking as a former president of ACPO and a chief constable of wide experience—expressed concern about what could happen. The Minister assured us that there would be a code of practice, spelling out in general terms what would be accepted and what would not. The Minister

391
agreed with us, for instance, that it would be wrong for an authority to accept money if the purpose of that money was to ensure that one particular area of a police authority received more intensive policing than another area. Of course I welcomed that assurance, as indeed did others.
want to ask the Minister whether that particular point will be spell: out in the code of practice. The Minister may say, "Well, we have not drafted the code of practice as yet". Indeed that undoubtedly is almost certainly true, but, if he accepts that it would be wholly wrong for a police authority to accept money on such a basis, I can see no conceivable grounds which would prevent him from assuring the House that this principle will be installed in the code of practice.
Next, I ask the Minister for an assurance relating to the risk that, at a time of severe financial constraint applied to a police authority so far as concerns its spending, an authority might in such circumstances urge its chief officer to establish financial targets for commercial sponsorship. That would be wholly objectionable. I hope that the Minister will agree with me It would be wrong to encourage senior police officers virtually to take collecting boxes around the local community—to commercial organisations or private individualsx2014;in such circumstances. It would be even more objectionable if performance related pay, which is being established in the Bill for the first time in the history of the British police service, was in any way linked to that. When I put those points to the Minister, he replied to the other points, but he did not reply to that one.
Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House whether that too will be dealt with in the code of practice. Many of us who are doubtful about the clause will be reassured if we are told that this particular issue will be addressed in the code of practice. After all, the Government are asking for Parliament's approval of the clause and it is perfectly reasonable that we should ask for such anxieties to be dealt with at this stage.
Finally, I turn to the first two subsections of the amendment. Their purpose is to clarify the intentions of the Government. Will gifts or loans made to an authority as a result of this clause be for additional expenditure or, if an authority attracts funds on a significant scale, will that lead simply to a reduction in the financial grant from the Government?
The Government are asking for new powers and it is right that the House should have these particular anxieties addressed by Ministers. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, there is a long history in the police service—in my experience it goes back 30 years—of accepting minor sponsorship for community activities such as crime prevention. I remember that in Bethnal Green, Watneys, the local brewers, sponsored a first-aid quiz for local schools. It donated a shield for the local schools to compete for. Similarly, in relation to crime-prevention quizzes between local schools, local firms donated small cups or prizes. For many years the London-wide five-a-side football competition, in which thousands of London schoolchildren took part, was
392
sponsored by a variety of commercial firms which saw that they could benefit from the advertising involved. However, there was no direct benefit to any aspect of police duty; it was more to do with community relations and improving the lot of some children from deprived parts of London.
I had some qualms when the principle was extended to the idea of a confidential crime line where commercial firms could combine together to provide rewards of money for information leading to the solving of serious crimes. The Bill provides for a further extension of such sponsorship beyond the purely ancillary aspects of police duty. It formalises and legalises in a disturbing way the possible sponsorship of core police activities.
The Bill provides that gifts and loans can be accepted:
"for the commercial sponsorship of any activity of the police authority or of the police force maintained by it"
I wonder whether that means that we shall be seeing neighbourhood beat officers who are sponsored by McDonald's or Wimpey's and who are required to wear their logos on the backs of their uniforms? The Bill as drafted allows for such extreme possibilities to occur. The whole idea that the core activities of police might in this way be sponsored on a commercial basis, is disturbing. It has great potential for distorting the police role and of appearing to accept inducements to police certain areas or premises to a favourable extent.
We should like to see these amendments on the face of the Bill. They would ensure that all such loans or sponsorship were published every year, which would be a form of accountability to the local community. They also restrict to some extent the kind of sponsorship and gifts which the police service will be allowed to accept. It is an important measure of principle that the police service should maintain its position of neutrality and dispassion in discharging its duties. fear that commercial sponsorship to any extent will distort that impartial discharge of police duties.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is an odd amendment, and in particular the first two paragraphs. Why should not the Secretary of State take account if a generous donation is given to a local police force? Surely, when the Secretary of State is considering the competing needs of various police forces, the fact that one is receiving substantial donations is a relevant consideration which he should take into account. Equally, why should the police authority not take account of such payments? I appreciate that there are dangers in such payments but, equally, I am sure that there are circumstances in which they are thoroughly appropriate. If they are made—and the amendment accepts that they will continue to be made—why on earth should not the competent authorities take them into account in assessing the needs of their particular police force?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand why your Lordships are anxious that the matter should be made clear. I assure your Lordships that there is nothing sinister in the clause. The provision regularises a

393
practice that has occurred for a number of years but which was not envisaged 30 years ago when the previous Police Act was brought into operation. It formalises the existing procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that he had spoken to many chief constables. That does not surprise me. He said that they have experienced no difficulties about this. That does not surprise me either. It is the Government's view that the legal basis for gifts and sponsorships is uncertain. Therefore, we thought it appropriate to put the matter right in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, sent her imagination into overdrive when she suggested that beat officers would be wandering around having been sponsored by McDonald's or Wimpey with suitable logos attached to their helmets. The idea is extremely funny but totally farcical, and that is certainly not what is intended by the clause.
In Committee I mentioned examples of such cases. It involves gifts, loans and sponsorship—for instance, support for regional neighbourhood watch conferences, which I understand General Accident has sponsored. There may also be loans of cars which are fitted with crime prevention devices, which Vauxhall has provided. Publicity booklets and schools liaison information packs could also be funded in this way. That is what we have in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, sent his imagination into overdrive when he envisaged chief constables wandering around their patches with collecting boxes trying to raise money for the funding of their forces. He went further, and said, "What is more, we have to be careful that their performance-related pay is not related to the amount of money which they get in their collection boxes". Again, that was funny but rather farcical.
The purpose of the provision is to clarify what is happening at the moment. The amendment draws attention to four different points. In relation to the first substantive point, we do not propose that gifts, loans and sponsorship should be taken into account for the purposes of calculating government grants to the police authority. Government grants are made for the policing to be carried out and if sponsorship is given, that is an additional facility which police forces will be able to enjoy and make use of.
It is obvious that there must be controls on this kind of activity. However, we do not believe that the right way to do this is in the Bill or for the Home Office to make detailed regulations. We believe that the sensible way is to address all these practical issues by producing a code of practice, which might specify in greater detail than we are able to on the face of the Bill, what should and should not be permitted.
With regard to the second substantive point, for the same reasons I do not think that it is necessary to include a provision in the Bill for police authorities not to take account of gifts or loans in issuing a precept or calculating the budget requirement. As well as the criteria which will be contained in a code of practice to be issued by the Secretary of State, police authorities may wish to draw up their own policies, including their
394
own criteria for the acceptance of gifts, loans and sponsorship. It seems unlikely that police authorities would ever want to reduce the amount of the precept by the amount of money which they will have gained by sponsorship because, by so doing, they will have reduced—and not increased—the money available to them for policing.
The third point of the amendment seeks to ensure that the operational independence of the chief constable and the impartiality of the force is maintained. I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit behind the amendment. Indeed, in previous debates on this clause, I have said that I understand the worry that improper use might be made of gifts or loans, or that those giving them might want to use them as a means of influencing a police force. It is for that reason that it is intended that the code of practice will pay careful attention to issues of probity and propriety and will address the main concerns in greater detail than would be possible in the Bill.
The fourth point of the amendment suggests that the Bill should include provision for police authorities to publish details of gifts and loans in their annual reports. I agree that it is important for proper records of the value and source of gifts and loans received to be maintained and published, and the code of practice will give guidance to the police authorities and forces over this matter.
To include in the Bill a statutory requirement to publish details in the annual report would seem a touch heavy handed. The value of gifts and loans, which are received by forces at present, amounts only to a tiny proportion of overall expenditure. In fact in some forces it amounts to less than £50,000 a year. We do not anticipate large increases in gifts, loans and sponsorship as a result of this particular piece of legislation, and it would seem inappropriate to provide by statute that specific details relating to even one small item of income or expenditure should be necessarily included. Police authorities should, however, be able to provide details if required, and I would expect them to do so.
I understand the issues which lie behind the amendment. I believe that they can be satisfactorily addressed in a code of practice issued under Clause 11 of the Bill and not by amending Clause 21. I would re-emphasise that the whole purpose of the clause is not to highlight or to create some new and hitherto unpractised source of income but merely to put on a clearer statutory basis practices which occur at present. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, that there is nothing mischievous behind the clause and that it is perfectly straightforward.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it seems to me wholly sensible to issue a code of practice. That is an appropriate means of dealing with the matter. Is it intended to introduce a provision in the Bill which enables the code of practice to go before Parliament for approval, either by the negative or affirmative procedure? This is an important question. It could, in the minds of some of us, warrant parliamentary approval.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Home Office would normally draw up such a code of practice to be given to chief constables and police authorities. It would not normally come before Parliament for approval.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he will no doubt recall that in other fields of legislation, where codes of practice have been used, although the code of practice terms are not directly enforceable, whether or not parties comply with a code of practice can be used in evidence in any case which is brought. I believe that that is an extremely important power with regard to the effectiveness of the code of practice.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is right. As happens so often on these occasions, one has second thoughts. I believe that the information I gave to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was incorrect. The codes of practice will be laid before Parliament and will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Baroness Trumpington: Neither.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am receiving conflicting advice of an extremely unhelpful nature. I can tell my noble friend that non-compliance with the code is unlikely to be used in court proceedings. In fact, the code of practice will be laid before your Lordships' House and will be subject to parliamentary procedures.
Lord Harris, of Greenwich: My Lords, the exchanges between the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, give a fairly clear indication of the careful way in which the Bill has been thought through by the Government. "Yes", "no", "maybe", "perhaps", appear to be the answers given by the noble Earl.
The noble Earl recognises that we are concerned because for the first time in law there is to be a section of an Act of Parliament which provides, according to subsection (2) of Clause 21, for,
"the commercial sponsorship of any activity of the police authority or of the police force maintained by it".
In the past, we have found no need for any such statutory provision There has been plenty of support from the private sector and from individuals in crime prevention initiatives.
I told the noble Earl that I had asked a number of chief officers whether they had found any difficulty about the existing law and they said that they had found no such difficulty. Why is the provision required? The noble Earl has given no answer to that question. We can establish no legal uncertainty whatever and the noble Earl has not given a single illustration of any problems in this sphere.
I have no passionate opposition to a provision of this kind. I merely asked why we need to have the clause at all as no justification for it appears to have been advanced by the noble Earl on the basis of uncertainty experienced by any police force in this country.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was answered by the noble Earl. The Government have no intention of taking account of any
396
loan or grant of money and therefore the point which the noble Lord made did not seem to me to have a great deal of weight.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord has been good enough to refer to me, and perhaps I may reply to him. There is all the difference in the world between government policy which takes account or not of particular payments and specifically excluding that by statute. It was to the latter that I objected.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as there appears to be no problem it seems to me that the noble Lord is on to a thoroughly bad point. The noble Earl indicated that the Government have no intention of taking account of any loan or grant. Therefore, the noble Lord's anxieties appear to be without a shred of justification.
I should like to know—I am sure that the Minister will be glad to clear up the matter if he is now able to do so—whether there will be some form of affirmative or negative resolution procedure in connection with the codes of practice. That is my first point.
Secondly, I asked the Minister specifically whether performance-related pay would be dealt with in the code of practice. For the first time in the history of the British police service, performance-related pay is to be introduced. Will it be made absolutely clear in the code of practice that performance-related pay can in no way be linked to the success or otherwise of senior police officers in obtaining loans or grants from private citizens or commercial sponsors? That seems to me a reasonable question. The noble Earl has not answered it. I understand that he may not be in a position to do so today but I should be grateful if he could let me have an answer before Third Reading.
I believe that we are entitled to know in outline—not in detail—what will be in the code of practice. Also, the situation may arise in which one area of a police force is dealt with differently from other areas because a commercial sponsor offers a substantial sum of money for that particular area to have a more intensive degree of policing. When we last discussed the matter, the noble Earl said that that would be quite wrong as it would involve the prerogatives of the chief officer and his operational independence. I agree with him. But, again, will that be in the code of practice?
I believe that we are entitled to ask such questions, given the fact that the Government are asking for statutory authority for grants and loans to be made to police forces for the first time in our history. If the noble Earl would like to intervene, I shall be glad to give way to him. However, if he would prefer to deal with the matter subsequently in correspondence before Third Reading, I shall be most happy to meet him on that point.
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am quite happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the matter; indeed, he mentioned several points. The noble Lord asked first whether the practice carried out at present is legal. I never said that it was not legal. The noble Lord then asked about the basis upon which the Government

397
should query the matter. All I can tell the noble Lord—and he knows this perfectly well—is that governments and departments do watch what is happening and take into account the state of the law. Although the noble Lord may think that everything is perfectly all right, my advisers say that there is an element of doubt. If there were an element of doubt (doubt which has never been challenged at all), by far the best thing to do is to use the Bill as a vehicle to remove it. That is the purpose of Clause 21.
The noble Lord says that he wants to make quite certain that people who give sponsorship to a police force should not have the advantage of knowing that that area will be the better policed because of it. That will not be the case, because policing is carried out over the whole area. It is up to the chief officer concerned to determine how such policing is done. The fact that someone may sponsor an effort or give a loan towards a display or whatever, will have nothing to do with the operational policing of any particular area in the chief constable's bailiwick.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, then referred to performance-related pay. I can tell him that when we produce the regulations and the associated guidance about performance-related pay and fixed-term contracts, we shall bear the point in mind to ensure that a police force could not behave in that way. When the noble Lord referred to the other codes of practice which are being prepared, he answered the question in his opening speech by saying that he was sure that I would say that the codes of practice have not yet been drawn up. He is quite right. However, I can advance him one step further. I can tell him that they are in a considerable degree of progress in that advancement, but they are not yet ready.
As regards the point about the codes of practice being laid before Parliament, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the proposed new Section 28A(2), at the top of page 9 in the Bill, says:
"A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be laid before Parliament after being made".
Moreover—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, surely this is an intervention within an intervention. I do not think that that is acceptable on Report. The Minister was intervening in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. As I said, I do not believe that we can have an intervention in the noble Earl's speech.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, very well, I shall ask my question later.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that I have concluded my intervention.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the trouble is that a statutory instrument is not a code of practice. Therefore, the point made by my noble friend Lord Carr is totally valid and warrants a straight answer, at all events, before Third Reading.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do so want to be helpful; that is, if I have the permission of the House—and by the look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that permission may not be forthcoming for very much longer. The code of practice will be laid before the House. As I understand it, it will not be subject to an affirmative or negative resolution. However, it will be laid before the House for your Lordships and for Parliament to see.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, we have had a short but immensely interesting debate on the point; indeed, it proved to be rather more protracted than I thought it would be at the outset. I am glad that the noble Earl responded to my anxieties on performance-related pay. I believe that is an issue of substance. As I understand it, that issue will be dealt with in the code of practice. I welcome that development. There must be no misunderstanding in the future as to what responsibilities can be attached to senior officers who, for the first time, will have performance-related pay and fixed-term contracts. Therefore, as I said, there should be no conceivable misunderstanding on that point.
I do not propose to press the noble Earl on the matter, but if he could take it a little further between now and Third Reading as regards the general outlines of the code of practice mentioned by those who intervened in the debate, that would be most helpful. There is a possibility of considerable misunderstanding about the clause. That being so, it seems to me to be desirable to put such possible misunderstandings on one side as quickly as possible. I repeat, if we could have a letter between now and Third Reading it would be most helpful. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carr, would appreciate it, as indeed would other noble Lords who have spoken. I had no intention of pressing the amendment to a Division. I merely tabled it for the purpose of clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Approval of decisions about precepts]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 15, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert:
("(b) include more than half of the members (at that time) appointed under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1B to the 1964 Act (local authority appointees).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the above amendment was spoken to when I dealt with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 121:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Discharge of police authority functions by local authorities
After subsection 1(7) of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 there shall be inserted—
"( ) A police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964 may arrange for the discharge of any of their functions by an officer of a local authority which provides it with any administrative, professional or technical services under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above, and any such officer may be designated as the head of their paid service under section 4 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the proposed new clause appears to us to be necessary because there is some doubt about the powers which existing police authorities will have if the Bill is enacted as drafted. At present, police authorities exercise a wide range of functions which are separate from those of a chief constable. For example, they are responsible for the budget, they have an obligation to consult the public and they have a requirement to maintain an efficient and effective force. It has been the universal practice that, in doing so, they should not so much employ people full time, because that is not necessarily justified by the tasks required, but that they should have the ability to make use of the administrative, professional or technical services which may be available in local authority service in the area of their jurisdiction.
When a police authority is a special committee of a county council, the latter is very easy to arrange. However, that will no longer be the case because police authorities will be enlarged and will no longer have the same relationships with local authorities. However, the issue itself does not go away simply because of a change in the constitution and formal existence of a police authority. There arc plenty of examples where it is most economical to have someone who works for a local authority giving part of his time—perhaps even a limited part of his time—to the police authority. For example, the deputy personnel manager of Salford City Council is engaged for 20 per cent. of his time in work for the Greater Manchester Police Authority. Moreover, the Leicestershire police authority has as its clerk the county secretary of Leicestershire County Council, who gives 10 per cent. of his
The reason for tabling the amendment is that, although I am sure it is the intention of government that that situation should continue, it does not appear in the Bill as we read it that that is in fact the case. We want to be assured that a police authority will be able to appoint a clerk or a head of paid service or anyone else it thinks necessary for the discharge of its distinct functions and not the functions which come under the control of the chief constable. We want to be sure that the Bill is clear on that point and that there will be no hiatus. In other words, we want to be sure there will be no British Transport Police-type situation when this Bill has been passed. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one of the consequences of the Bill will be that police authorities in future will not be an integral part of local government as they are now. Each police authority will be a freestanding body in its own right. This has, on the whole, been widely welcomed, not least by many police forces. There will, of course, still be important links between police authorities and local government. The majority of the members of each police authority will be local councillors, and a significant proportion of police authority funding will come from local council tax payers.
Most police authorities at present rely on local government for many of their administrative and support services. The Bill will now give the police authorities the freedom to purchase these services from
400
wherever they think fit. They will have to decide what is in the best interests of efficiency and effectiveness. I expect that that will mean making their own in-house arrangement for some things and going to the private sector suppliers for other things. I expect that they may well wish also to continue to purchase services from local authorities. The choice will be theirs, and the Bill allows them that freedom of choice. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 amends the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 to ensure that local authorities are able to supply goods and services to police authorities. Clause 7 also amends that Act to ensure that the reverse applies and that police authorities may provide services to local authorities.
Paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 also ensures, amongst other things, that Section 113 of the Local Government Act 1972 applies to police authorities. This allows one local authority to put its staff at the disposal of another. The amendment to Section 113 made by the Bill will allow a local authority to put its staff at the disposal of a police authority, and vice versa. This will include staff at any level. It is common for the chief executive and treasurer of a county council respectively to act also as the clerk and treasurer to the relevant police authority. If it were to be the wish of the police authority, it will be possible for such an arrangement to continue. Police authorities will have an obligation under Section 4 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to appoint a person as head of their paid service.
They will also have an obligation under Section 112 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to appoint a person who would be responsible for the proper administration of their financial affairs. There is no obstacle in the Bill to an officer of a local authority being appointed by a police authority to act in either of these capacities if the respective authorities agree. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is therefore right to have raised these issues. They are important for the future administration of police authorities. I hope that I have been able to address his concerns.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that sounds on the face of it an eminently satisfactory answer arid I am grateful to the Minister for giving it. As I understand it, the powers which are given in Clause 7 reciprocate the powers which are given in a number of different paragraphs in Schedule 4. The fears that I raised in moving this amendment are unjustified. If I am wrong in any respect, and clearly this is a complex matter, I might have to return to this issue at a later stage but I do not anticipate that that will be the case. I repeat I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Police: minor and consequential amendments]:
4.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 62, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) A chief constable shall arrange for a report submitted by him under subsection (1) of this section to be published in such manner as he thinks fit"")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 122, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 125. These amendments deal with the annual reports which chief constables make to their police authorities. Amendment No. 68 was approved on Tuesday and these amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 125:
Page 62, line 35, after ("under") insert ("subsection (2) of").
Page 62, leave out lines 37 to 39.
Page 63, leave out line 26 and insert:
("(3) In subsection (2) for the words "calendar year" there shall be substituted the words "financial year".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Constitution of police force]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 21, line 7, leave out from ("means") to end of line 13 and insert:
("constables (including probationary constables) to whom both pay and allowances are, by virtue of section 26 of this Act, payable; and
"special constables" means constables to whom allowances only are so payable.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the debate in Committee I agreed to accept the amendment to this clause tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
In accepting their amendment we were content to remove from the clause as originally drafted the power for the Secretary of State to prescribe other classes of constable in addition to regular and special constables. I was glad to allay fears among the police that the Government were seeking to introduce a wholly new class of police officers.
The noble Lords' amendment set out new definitions of regular and special constables. On closer examination, however, these definitions do not appear to be entirely satisfactory. I am sure the House will agree that statutory definitions of constables are important and that we should get them absolutely right. I should emphasise to the House that I mean no disrespect to my noble friend or indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and I have written to both of them to explain our further amendment.
The clause as amended in Committee describes special constables as unpaid. This is not entirely apt, as special constables are paid allowances. I am sure the House would not wish inadvertently to prevent those who give up their time and act as special constables from receiving their well-deserved allowances.
One of the reasons for amending Section 3 of the Police (Scotland) Act in the first place was to remove any obstacles in its drafting to the introduction of part-time working and job sharing for regular constables in Scotland. But all we need to do is to remove the obstacle in the existing definition. We do not need to provide specifically in the Act for part-time working. That will be done by regulations under Section 26.
402
To avoid creating future obstacles to changing patterns of work in the police I believe it would be prudent to remove altogether references to full-time and part-time working and also the reference to joint appointment. The key distinction between regular constables and special constables is that regulars receive pay, as well as allowances, whereas specials receive only allowances.
I am grateful to those who first raised this matter but I hope they will appreciate that this further amendment is intended to further the objective that they had originally in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. He has done a fine job on this and has knocked our amendment into far better shape. I am grateful for all the trouble he has taken.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too am grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 21, line 14, after ("ranks)") insert:
("(a) in subsection (1) for the words "and superintendent" there shall be substituted the words "superintendent, chief inspector, inspector and sergeant"; and
(b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will not detain the House for long but I want to give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, a chance to explain once more why an assistant chief constable is better than a deputy chief constable and why we need to abolish a number of ranks which are considered necessary in large police forces in order to accommodate small police forces which may not need that number of ranks. I have so far failed to understand this matter. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no wish to stifle debate but this amendment was debated with the comparable amendments relating to England at considerable length on Tuesday. Noble Lords from Scotland took an active part in that debate and therefore I think it is inappropriate that we should be covering the same matter again.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to disagree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. There is an issue on this which was not discussed and was not debated and which refers to Scotland.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for permitting me to intervene. The opportunity existed for the matter to be debated. It is not the fault of anyone who took part in the debate that some point was missed. We are not recommitting this matter for further debate. We shall never make progress unless we proceed in an orderly way.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am proceeding in an orderly way. I propose to continue unless I am asked to give way again by any noble Lord, in which case I shall do so at once. It is accepted that Clause 5 stands unamended. It is accepted that there must be parity as between England and Wales and Scotland as regards ranks and the reduction in the

403
number of ranks. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is interested, what I am trying to explain is relevant to his objection.
The disparity lies on the face of the Bill. In Clause 1 there is a reduction of one rank for England and Wales and in Clauses 41 and 42 there is a reduction of three ranks for Scotland. We are seeking clarification as to how that disparity may be dealt with in practice in order to achieve the same rank structure for England and Scotland.
We have had fruitful discussions on this subject with my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was not able to attend. As a result of those discussions my noble and learned friend took the point and said that it would be helpful and proper if we were to move a probing amendment for clarification as to how that is to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has moved such an amendment. That is a perfectly proper exercise. It has been accepted by the Government Whips as a proper exercise for debate. Although I am used to criticism I do not like uninformed or unfair criticism.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, we debated exhaustively the position regarding the rank structure in England and Wales. It was clearly accepted at the time that any of the arguments then deployed in favour of or against retention of the existing number of ranks applied with equal force on either side of the Border. I suspect there is unanimity of view—the view has certainly been expressed to me by the police associations in Scotland —that whatever the appropriate number of ranks within the police may be, the same number should obtain on both sides of the Border. Otherwise, significant difficulties would emerge in terms of training and operational matters. In addition, there are frequently movements of police officers across the Border from a Scottish force to an English force and vice versa.
I do not propose to rehearse the arguments again, and I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway wishes me to do so. What I understand continues to concern him—and he has raised it with me—is that it appears from the Bill that the way in which the changes are achieved is somewhat different. He is absolutely right. The changes to primary legislation required to implement the new rank structure are not exactly the same for Scotland as they are for England and Wales. In particular, as he understands, the Scottish primary legislation specifically mentions the rank of chief superintendent while the English legislation does not.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to confirm to my noble friend and to place on the record that while the routes to achieving a change in the number of ranks in Scotland and England and Wales are different, the result will be exactly the same. Whatever differences of view there may be about the desirability of a certain number of ranks and the retention of some of them, as the Bill is drafted we shall achieve exactly the same rank structure on either side of the Border.
404
With that explanation, which I know the Scottish police associations wanted, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Deputy and assistant chief constables]:
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Conduct and efficiency of police officers]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No.131:
Page 23, line 2, leave out ("and the maintenance of discipline").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will note that the amendment, which removes the reference in Clause 45 to the maintenance of discipline, applies to Scotland only although a similar clause applies to England and Wales. Perhaps I may offer the House an explanation for the change being offered for Scotland alone.
As your Lordships are well aware, the express intention of Clause 45 is, first, to introduce a means of dealing with the inefficient police officer, and, secondly, to replace the regime whereby an officer is called to answer for his conduct, even in respect of fairly minor matters., before the full panoply of a disciplinary hearing. That has been changed in favour of a more graduated system of hearings appropriate to the seriousness of the conduct in question. As part of that change we intend to focus on conduct rather than discipline and to introduce procedures which are more appropriate to that shift and move away from the present approach which bears a marked similarity to a court martial. However, despite that stated intention, the Bill still contains a reference to discipline. The reference to discipline in the English provisions is required to tie in with other provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, particularly those relating to the Police Complaints Authority. No such connection is necessary for Scotland, where PACE does not apply.
Despite the superficial appeal of identical provisions on either side of the Border, it is clear that the statutory context is quite different. Accordingly, since it is not necessary to keep for Scotland a reference to discipline it seems sensible to remove it. I hope that with that explanation your Lordships will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No.132:
Page 23, line 5, after ("(2A)") insert ("Without prejudice to the powers conferred by this section,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 102 I also spoke to Amendments Nos. 132 and 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie had given notice of his intention to Lord Mackie of Benshie had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 133:
Page 23, line 9, leave out ("or caution") and insert ("caution or warning").
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a point. It was my intention to do so on Amendment No. 133.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I indicated incorrectly that I intended to move Amendment No. 133. I should have said that I spoke to it when speaking to Amendment No. 102. I apologise. I was seeking only to move Amendment No. 132.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall move the amendment if the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, does not.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is my amendment, and I do not wish to move it.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No.134:
Page 23, line 22, at end insert:
("(2C) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2A) (a) above, regulations under this section shall specify the circumstances in which, for the purposes of section 40A(2) of this Act, proceedings by virtue of that subsection are to be taken to have commenced.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 53 relating to the handling of complaints against constables empowers the inspectors of constabularies to direct a chief constable to reconsider the handling of a complaint in certain circumstances and seeks to prescribe in the proposed new provision where that power may be exercised.
One area where we do not consider it appropriate for the inspectors to direct a reconsideration is where the constable against whom a complaint has been made has already been the subject of misconduct hearings. In such cases, the constable has already been dealt with and it would clearly be unfair for him to be made subject to a further hearing.
Therefore, to make the operation of Clause 53 clear and to ensure fair treatment for the officer involved, it is necessary to be able to define when the misconduct proceedings are to be taken to have commenced. The amendment to Clause 45 achieves that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 46 [Fixed term appointments etc.]:
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall not move Amendment No. 135.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, Amendment No. 135 is not moved.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No.135
Page 23, line 30, leave out from ("where") to end of line 31 and insert:
("(a) the person appointed holds the rank of assistant chief constable or higher rank; and
(b) the terms of the appointment include adequate provision for—

(i) the renewal of the appointment at the same or a higher rank at the end of the fixed term (subject to the efficient performance by the person of his duties during the term); and

(ii)the payment of compensation in cases where the appointment is not so renewed.").

The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, amendment proposed: page 23, line 30, leave out from ("where") to end of line 31 and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I move the amendment under the procedural rule that allows one to do so if an amendment is not moved by any other noble Lord. The amendment is concerned with fixed term contracts and reflects an amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and withdrawn for further consideration on Report.
The matter was considered on Report on Tuesday 15th March under Amendment No. 69 at cols. 156 to 168 of Hansard. The amendment was withdrawn but certain concessions were made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the safeguards and compensation provisions, both referred to at col. 165. The suggestion was made that the Government did not intend to extend fixed term appointments to superintending ranks and the clause in the Bill cannot be used for officers below superintending ranks. If so, what is the purpose either of Clause 14, dealing with the sister provision, or the provisions the subject of this amendment? In the circumstances, this is a probing amendment. I shall be interested to know what my noble and learned friend has to say about Clause 46. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question has been put.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, amendment proposed: page 23, line 30, leave out from ("where") to end of line 31 and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is perfectly in order in doing what he has just done. However, I wish to make two points to him. First, Amendment No. 135 was debated by general agreement with no dissent earlier in this Report stage in conjunction with the comparable amendment for England. Secondly, although, of course, it is in order for any noble Lord to move any amendment, which is the property of the House once it has been put on the Marshalled List, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to consider the potential for disruption of the business of the House. Perhaps I should not say that from this Dispatch Box; maybe it is for the Government to say it. However, there is great potential for disruption of the business of the House if noble Lords exercise too freely their right to move any amendment, even though the mover of the amendment does not wish it to be moved.
It is not for the Opposition to say this, but, apart from anything else, there is no guarantee that officials will be available to advise the Minister concerned if an amendment is moved. Think what we could do as an Opposition if we agreed on groupings and then proceeded to ungroup and move any amendment at a later stage whether or not it was ours. The result in terms of business could be chaotic.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and wish to say to my noble friend Lord Campbell that those Peers who are based in Scotland were extremely glad to have a joint group of amendments discussed on these matters because we knew that our police wanted the same arrangements as the English police. We did not wish to get into a position where we were being divisive on the issue. So we deliberately accepted the arrangement. We welcomed it. I asked for it on another amendment and was glad that that was what happened. Thus, it was a satisfactory arrangement and I am sorry that, on the grounds of Scotland being different, the noble Lord has raised the point.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, sent a letter concerning Amendment No. 69, the sister amendment to Amendment No. 135, to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and, I believe, to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon. Would it be possible for us to have copies of that letter?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has a perfect right to move the amendment. I was right not to move it because I had heard all the arguments. But the noble Lord may well have another point. So let us get on with it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, during the earlier part of the Report stage we had an extensive debate on this matter. My understanding was that on all sides, whatever views there were on the desirability of the arrangements, again, if they were to be introduced for England and Wales it was appropriate that they should be similarly implemented in Scotland. If they were not, then the opposite applied.
I believe just one matter needed to be clarified and perhaps I may take the opportunity to do so briefly. There was some anxiety that, with regard to the rank of superintendent and fixed term appointments for them, as a matter of practice in Scotland we might set off down a different route or adopt a different timetable. Perhaps I may confirm again, if it is necessary, that we have no intention whatever of departing from what was said by my noble friend Lord Ferrers with regard to the use of such appointments south of the Border and the intention that we should not immediately introduce them for superintendents.
As regards the letter to which reference has been made, I believe I am correct in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, received a copy, but I am prepared to ensure that anyone else who wishes to have a copy receives it. The letter contains information which would be equally applicable to Scotland as to England and Wales.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 [Appeals against dismissal etc.]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 136:
408
Page 24, line 25, leave out from ("dismissed") to ("by") in line 26 and insert (", required to resign or reduced in rank").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 105 and a number of other amendments, my noble friend Lord Ferrers also spoke to Amendments Nos. 136 to 138. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 137 and 138:
Page 24, line 32, leave out from ("dismissed") to end of line and insert (", required to resign or reduced in rank").
Page 24, line 35, leave out from ("order") to end of line 37 and insert ("dealing with the appellant in a way—

(a)which appears to the tribunal to be less severe than the way in which he was dealt with by the decision appealed against; and

(b)in which he could have been dealt with by the person who made that decision.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 25, line 2, at end insert:
("(6) Rules made under this section may make such supplementary and transitional provision as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient in consequence of the coming into operation of an amalgamation scheme, amending scheme or revoking scheme while an appeal under this section is pending; and without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, such provision may in particular include modifications to Schedule 3 to this Act in that Schedule's application to any case affected by the making of such a scheme.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment ensures that arrangements will be made to allow the proper completion of appeals, even where the force concerned is affected by the coming into operation of an amalgamation, amending or revoking scheme. Similar provision in relation to the existing appeals mechanism can at present be found in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Schedule to be inserted in Police (Scotland) Act 1967: appeals tribunals]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos.140 to 142:
Page 69, line 7, leave out from ("appealed") to end of line 8 and insert ("against, and as from the date of that decision or, where that decision was itself a decision on appeal, the date of the original decision appealed against.").
Page 69, line 10, after ("force") insert ("or in his rank").
Page 69, line 12, after ("force") insert ("or in that rank").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when Amendment No. 105 was moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, he spoke also to Amendments Nos. 140, 141 and 142. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 52 [Common services]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 143 to 147:
Page 25, line 30, after ("consulting") insert ("the Joint Central Committee and").
Page 25, line 32, after ("superintendents") insert ("(such consultation being in the following provisions of this section referred to as "relevant consultation")").
Page 25, line 37, after ("may") insert (", after relevant consultation,").
Page 26, line 1, after ("may") insert (", after relevant consultation,").

409
Page 26, line 14, leave out ("consulting such bodies or associations as appear to him to be representative of police authorities") and insert ("relevant consultation").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I undertook during the Committee stage of this Bill to bring forward amendments which would require my right honourable friend to consult with representatives of police authorities and the three police associations in Scotland prior to using any of his powers under this clause. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had sought to have that requirement inserted in the Bill and these amendments meet the intention of his proposals. With these amendments my right honourable friend would be required to consult on any proposal to provide common police services, to require all police authorities to use them or to make provision for charging for such services. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53 [Examination of handling of complaints against constables]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 26, line 36, leave out ("—(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as I have explained, the purpose of this clause is to empower Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary to examine the way police forces in Scotland deal with complaints where the complainer expresses dissatisfaction with the original handling of the case. Where necessary, the clause also empowers inspectors to direct the chief constable of the force concerned to reconsider the complaint.
I am sure that noble Lords will also recall that the reason for these measures is to ensure a degree of independent scrutiny of how a complaint has been dealt with for the purposes of assessing whether the officers involved have acted within the requirements of police conduct.
I stress that point because complaints which suggest criminal behaviour are already independently scrutinised by the Procurator Fiscal. That is as it should be and that procedure is totally unaffected by the responsibilities being invested by this clause in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Our intention remains that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary should not be able to scrutinise the actings of the Fiscal in his independent capacity. But it is now clear that we do not need any specific provision to achieve that, so the reference to "criminal charges" can be deleted.
However, the same incident can, of course, be investigated with a view to criminal proceedings and police misconduct proceedings. Each such investigation will be quite separate with quite different purposes. An unintended consequence of the reference to criminal charges in line 39 is that it would have excluded from Her Majesty's inspectors' purview any case that had been sent to the Fiscal. That is plainly wrong. The police need to consider issues of discipline at present when a case is returned from the Fiscal, even where the decision
410
is that of "no proceedings". That consideration by the police should be open to the inspector's scrutiny, and that is what these amendments achieve.
In short, Her Majesty's inspector should be able to look at the way the police themselves have handled a complaint regardless of whether the subject matter of that complaint has given rise to criminal proceedings. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No.149
Page 26, line 38, leave out ("; or
(b) of criminal charges against the constable").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No.149
Page 26, line 46, leave out ("to that constable and to that person") and insert (", who shall—

(a)report the outcome, and their own findings as regards the outcome, to that constable and to that person; and

(b)communicate those findings to the chief constable").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment and Amendment No. 151, which are entirely in keeping with the spirit of this clause, is to ensure that, where Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary directs a chief constable to reconsider the way a complaint was handled, it can, as part of its statutory functions, comment on the outcome of that consideration. The second of these amendments is to enable the Secretary of State and the police authority to have those comments.
During the lengthy discussion of the clause at Committee stage I hope that I was able to assure noble Lords that its purpose is to inject a justifiable degree of independent scrutiny into the way in which the police handle complaints.
As I pointed out then, that independent scrutiny already exists for complaints where there is a suggestion of criminal behaviour, for those are instantly referred to the Procurator Fiscal. However, it is surely right that a similar overview should be available to ensure that cases have also been assessed properly against the standards set for police conduct. If we accept that principle, then clearly it is sensible to ensure that whoever undertakes that task should be able to discharge it fully, and that is what the provisions in this clause seek to do.
The other task given to HMIC by this clause is that it must submit to the Secretary of State and the relevant police authority, if requested to do so, the report on its examination of a case. However, for completeness we feel that HMIC should be able to comment on the outcome of a reconsideration which it required to be undertaken in the first place and that these comments should be made available to interested parties, including the chief constable, and to the Secretary of State and relevant police authority if so required. It is to achieve this objective that these amendments are required. I am sure that noble Lords will see that they complement the measures already proposed and provide a well rounded package of responsibilities for HMIC. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 27, line 7, at end insert:
(" and a copy of any report under subsection (3) (a) above consequent on that examination").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 150, I also spoke to Amendment No. 151. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Alteration of magistrates' courts committee areas]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 30, line 20, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of subsection (3A) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 152 is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 153. In Committee I had tabled similar amendments, but in the light of what was said then I have altered them slightly.
What I said in col. 518 of the earlier debate still very much stands. In Committee other amendments were grouped with mine. It is those which my noble and learned friend more specifically addressed in replying. I did not appreciate it at the time, but he does not seem to have made any mention of my proposal that, before considering an amalgamation, the Lord Chancellor should await a recommendation to that effect from his newly created inspectorate, and then satisfy himself that such a recommendation would make the improvement that he seeks to the effectiveness of the magistrates' courts committees concerned.
It seems to me that the inspectorate could be most useful in that respect. That will especially be so if the inspectorate is so formed as to gain the confidence of those whom it inspects. In the same way, in my opinion, the local government commission gains confidence locally by examining the needs on the ground of whatever bodies it studies. I hope that the inspectorate will do the same—indeed, I am sure that it will—and that it will thus achieve the confidence, both locally in the county and with the Lord Chancellor personally, that undoubtedly it should have. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that the possible contribution of the inspectorate is fully used in this respect. I therefore hope that my noble and learned friend will be encouraging about my Amendment No. 153. I beg to move.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, perhaps I may just say a few brief words to Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I believe that in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out that, left to themselves, magistrates would be unlikely to take action to instigate mergers. There is of course some truth in that. However, he has set himself the task of reducing the number of MCCs overall, and there must therefore be more encouragement to MCCs to look ahead and think constructively in that regard.
If the inspectorate is to play—as we all hope it will—a major role in increasing overall the efficiency of the service, I do not see, as the first part of the amendment suggests, why it should not be a major contributor to the decision as to whether areas should be amalgamated.
412
We know that in the matter of default its report will be the principal contributory factor. I cannot see why it cannot also be used in a corresponding but more constructive role. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would agree that: amalgamation should never be entered into lightly, because it inevitably threatens the local nature of the magistracy, a preoccupation which is always on the minds not only of magistrates but also their clients, if I may so describe them.
It should be based, as the second part of Amendment No. 153 makes clear, on quantifiable and significant improvements in performance and could be usefully accompanied by a detailed business plan outlining the benefits to be gained from such a course of action, a suggestion to which I have already referred in Committee. As the noble and learned Lord acknowledged in Committee, partial co-operation between MCC areas in matters such as training or the use of business systems is already widespread. I respectfully suggest that active encouragement in that kind of shared activity will provide a relatively painless way of starting to meet the noble and learned Lord's objectives. It is a view which, indeed, he shares.
However, it is a delicate balancing act involving, as it does in some cases, a threat to jealously guarded independence among those who for the most part will not readily accept that their past record justifies such a course of action. I accordingly recommend caution even at the risk of sacrificing the need for speedy rationalisation of the service.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, as a former magistrate, perhaps I may briefly intervene. First, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend very much and very sincerely indeed for all that he has done for the Bill. It is a very difficult Bill. It repeats itself more often than perhaps would be thought possible, but I hope that it has not given him too many sleepless nights. I for one am enormously grateful for all that he has done.
It seems to me that one of the main advantages of the existence of Her Majesty's magistrates courts' service inspectorate could be to report directly to the noble and learned Lord on its findings. Those findings would relate not only to the conduct of the courts. In the course of its duties, it might find that it should advise the noble and learned Lord and his department on the amalgamation of some of the courts—the amendment speaks of more than two.
I wonder whether in Clause 60(4) (c) "every interested authority" covers the inspectorate. If it does, perhaps the amendment is unnecessary. I, like other noble Lords, will be guided by the views of my noble and learned friend.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Macleod for her very kind thoughts on my ability to sleep. I appreciate it very much. I understand fully what my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said. As I said on the last occasion, I am interested in seeking to promote agreement to moves of this kind so far as possible. I

413
endorse the noble Viscount's comments about trying to build on existing arrangements for co-operation. It is out of those arrangements that the best amalgamations might come, if amalgamation is a good thing in the particular circumstances. I do not wish people to think that just because they co-operate, they may necessarily be followed up, as it were, with an amalgamation proposal. But it is often out of that kind of co-operation that amalgamation best comes.
There are two branches to the second amendment tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. I should like to address them separately. First, with regard to the inspectorate, your Lordships would expect me to take the view of the chief inspector on this point. I have done so in regard to the first part of the amendment. I quote directly the advice that she tended to me:
"I do not think this is an appropriate role for the Inspectorate. Questions of amalgamation rest essentially on policy decisions about the structure of the Service as a whole which should remain the responsibility of Ministers. Furthermore, to involve the Inspectorate suggests that one or more of the committees has 'failed' in some way … Moreover, if the Inspectorate undertakes this role, it runs the risk of being seen either as the tool of the Department, or as susceptible to lobbies from the Service. Both views undermine the capacity of the Inspectorate to perform its core functions of inspecting the Service, and reporting our findings to you".
I have taken that as an expression of opinion of somebody who wishes to stand at a distance from both myself and the committees, but with a great interest in how they are operating. I endorse that approach. A distinction is properly drawn between the inspectorate commenting in the course of its programme of inspections on proposed amalgamations and it having a statutory obligation to consider the case for them and to make recommendations.
I turn to the second part of the amendment, paragraph (b). That would constrain me from making an order for amalgamation unless satisfied that such a change was in the interests of all the magistrates' courts concerned.
The phrase used is:
"significant improvements in the administration of all the magistrates' courts concerned".
I say at once that I have no difficulty with the broad principle that underlies that provision. I would wish only to initiate an amalgamation if I thought that it would produce benefits. The difficulty lies in just how to express the provision. For example, in this case the amendment speaks of:
"all the magistrates' courts concerned".
One might have an almost perfect committee, yet it would be in the interests of the service and the area as a whole for a neighbouring committee to be amalgamated with it because improvements would perhaps arise for the administration of the neighbouring committee. There might be other advantages as well. It is therefore quite hard to lay down a test that applies to all the magistrates' courts concerned.
I hope that my noble friend and the noble Viscount will be happy with that broad approach to the principle of paragraph (b) of the amendment and that they will feel able to withdraw the amendment on the basis that I shall give further consideration to this matter. I have no intention of initiating any change unless it appears to be
414
in the best interests of the service as a whole. Some general wording of that kind might meet the principle that my noble friend has proposed, without giving rise to the difficulties to which I have drawn attention.
5 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend very much for taking such care with the amendment. He understands the kinds of matters that are of concern not only in my part of the world but in those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in an earlier debate.
The noble and learned Lord has kindly undertaken to consider further paragraph (b) of the amendment. I accept entirely that, having sought the advice of the head of the inspectorate, he received the reply that it would be inappropriate at this stage to press paragraph (a) of the amendment. The inspectorate is very new and so are these issues and in time it may be a little less cautious in matters of this kind. There is great hope for it. From my experience, inspectorates can do nothing but good provided that they have the confidence of those who appoint them and those who are inspected. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No.154:
Page 31, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) In relation to the existing magistrates' Courts Committees for Outer London Boroughs the Lord Chancellor shall only have power to make an order under subsection (3) above, other than an order which implements proposals submitted to him under subsection (1) above, after a period of not less than five years has elapsed from the commencement of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, from the moment of the issue of the White Paper A New Framework for Local Justice, the Outer London magistrates' courts committees have sought to persuade my noble and learned friend that because they were all very substantially reorganised seven years ago on the abolition of the GLC it would not be appropriate to do so again. In reinforcing that plea, I should like to quote from the speech of the then Minister, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who was Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, in a parliamentary debate for which neither the Library nor I can find the reference. However, it exists and I hope that Hansard will be able to find it.
"Our proposals will remove, apart from anything else, a tier of bureaucracy from the administration of the magistrates' courts service. They will enable decisions to be made by those people who have personal knowledge of a court, its workings and its locality".
My noble friend was talking about Outer London:
"We have not based our arguments for the new arrangements on achieving savings; on the other hand, we certainly do not envisage that costs will rise. If an element of the responsibilities of the magistrates' courts committees, such as training, would benefit from a broader administration, there is nothing to prevent the committees co-operating and sharing the costs, and we would be as keen as anybody to encourage such arrangements".
Experience in Outer London between 1974 and 1986, when there was a centralised administrative system, was that bureaucracy burgeoned out of all control both financially and administratively. However, following that debate the Government abolished the four

415
ever-expanding magistrates' courts committee secretariats which had grown from one-man bands in 1974 to overstaffed, chief executive-led structures by 1986. They were replaced by local borough-based courts committees and local clerks to the committees.
Noble Lords will understand that when the proposal came forward in the White Paper, the magistrates' courts committees once again faced being amalgamated into three substantial area courts committees, each embracing several of the London boroughs, and there was considerable dismay.
No one disputes that the present system is working extremely well. It is doing more than working well: under the single borough administration, the magistrates' courts committees brought forward all kinds of innovations and improvements in the service. They can take credit for a service which has served the people in the interests of the administration of justice extremely well. They were able to make substantial savings in costs. There has been no need to create chief justices' clerks because each borough-based justices' clerk is the chief justices' clerk and locally devolved management has been delivered via the justices' clerk. They have been able to provide local services—for example, court managers, Bench legal advisers, justices' training officers, etc. They have collaborated; they have operated a regional legal forum very much on the lines of that suggested by my noble and learned friend in his various discussion papers. The aim has been to achieve a consistency of approach in the exercise of their own judicial powers and duties and to promote effective co-ordination with other justice agencies. In those respects the White Paper objectives have already been achieved in Outer London without any start-up or revenue cost implications and without any diminution in local service delivery.
My noble and learned friend has been very responsive from the start to the case that has been made by the Outer London magistrates' courts committees and has gone out of his way to hear their case and to probe whether or not the arrangements can meet his objectives. Recently a working party has been set up to discuss in detail the magistrates' courts' proposals for a system of formalised co-operation which could be set up as an alternative to amalgamation of the MCCs.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide my noble and learned friend with an opportunity to tell noble Lords what stage the discussions have reached. My noble and learned friend, perfectly properly, has been seeking assurances about the ways in which the Outer London courts work together as a regional strategic management body, about flexibility and use of resources, economies of scale, effective co-ordination with other justice agencies, effective management under financial stress which might be occasioned by cash limiting, and costings of additional revenue expenditure which would be occasioned by the creation of larger regional committees for Outer London.
It is my understanding that the representatives of the Outer London magistrates' courts committees have gone nearly all the way to satisfying my noble and learned friend on the issues. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could confirm whether that is
416
the case or whether more discussion is necessary. If they succeed in satisfying him that they can deliver what he is seeking, I should be grateful for an assurance that a government amendment will be brought forward at a later stage, perhaps at Third Reading in this House, or in another place, which will address the point.
My guess is that there is, if anything, very little between the courts and my noble and learned friend and I hope that he can confirm that that is the case. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to add my local support rather than party political support to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and I had the pleasure of meeting the Haringey Magistrates' Courts Committee and Benches before Christmas and the views expressed by the noble Lord as to the views of the Outer London magistrates courts coincide with what we were told by people of all political persuasions and of none.
The noble Lord will perhaps remember the chairman of the Haringey Magistrates' Courts Committee, Jim Wilkins, who was a colleague of both of us on the Hornsea Borough Council, though not at the same time because the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, lost his seat in the year that I was first elected.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Within six weeks I had found myself adopted for a parliamentary seat which I subsequently represented for 23 years; and I have had representations to the London Borough of Redbridge in exactly the same sense.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord lost his seat anyway because there was a Liberal candidate called Jenkins in the Stroud Green ward. My comment was not intended to be derogatory.
One of the few and perhaps the only benign result of the abolition of the GLC was the simplification of the magistrates' courts committees in the sense of a removal of a tier of bureaucracy in the magistrates' courts committees structure in outer London. It has been, as the noble Lord said, entirely successful. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to give the assurances sought by the noble Lord which will enable him in turn to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I confirm that I have been happy to meet representatives of the magistrates' courts service in outer London. We have had a number of exchanges of views and discussions. The best thing I can say about these matters at this stage is that I have indicated in the debates here what I am aiming for in relation to these amalgamations. The question is whether in the particular circumstances of outer London, with a rather special geography, something can be arranged which is suitable without amalgamation. My officials have met representatives of the outer London group and have had fairly detailed discussions which are still under way. So far as I can judge, those are making reasonably good progress towards achieving an arrangement which would be

417
suitable in the rather special circumstances of outer London. If these arrangements can be made, I shall be extremely happy.
So far as concerns provisions in the Bill, it is not apparent at the present moment whether amendments to the Bill will be required. It may be that the arrangements can be made on a basis which would not require any particular amendments in the Bill. We are not yet in a position to say for sure about that. However, if an agreement is reached, we shall consider carefully whether amendment to the Bill is required; and, if so, we shall put it forward as soon as possible. Quite a lot of detail has to be gone into because the arrangements may affect not only the magistrates' courts committee themselves, but also the local authorities as lead authorities, and so on, in relation to finance. Our prospects of securing the necessary progress are very good; although, as I said, there is still more to be done.
I hope my noble friend will feel that this is a progress report satisfactory for the present, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment on the footing that, if an amendment should be necessary arising out of our discussions, I shall endeavour to put that forward as soon as its need becomes apparent.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am happy to give my noble and learned friend an assurance that his answer has been not only satisfactory but more than satisfactory. It would be quite wrong to continue to press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 31, line 9, at end insert:
("( )The power to make an order under subsection (3) above shall not be exercised to the detriment of the constitutional position of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the Corporation of London as Magistrates.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises an entirely different point though the purpose is broadly the same; namely, to give my noble and learned friend an opportunity to let us know how his discussions are proceeding with the Corporation of the City of London. I suspect that there may be one other difference between this amendment and the previous one: this one is unlikely to be greeted with quite the same warm approval by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as was the former amendment. But we shall wait to see.
The issue is the constitutional position of the Lord Mayor and aldermen as magistrates of London. The Lord Mayor and aldermen have exercised judicial functions since medieval times. Until 1969—it is amazing to think how recently that is—all the work of the City's magistrates' courts was undertaken by the Lord Mayor and aldermen, and the magistrates' courts committee was the Court of Aldermen. The Justices of the Peace Act 1968 made some valuable reforms and created a magistrates' courts committee. It enabled the Lord Chancellor to add lay magistrates to the City
418
bench, a move which was necessary to allow individual benches to consist of three magistrates. Anomalously, before 1969, the Aldermen tried cases alone as though stipendiaries. The reforms left the position of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen as magistrates unchanged, with the Lord Mayor as chief magistrate and the Aldermen as deputy chairmen. It was felt necessary, in Sections 39 and 40 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, to protect their constitutional position. That is what is being sought in the present case.
As a result of the reforms, there are currently 75 lay magistrates who sit with the 25 Aldermen. The City Court House is a newly refurbished premises adjacent to the Mansion House. There are four busy courts whose work is quite untypical with the rest of the magistracy. Most of it is related to the prosecution of financial crime at all levels of complexity and seriousness. There is a close and harmonious relationship between the lay and Aldermanic magistrates. All have been totally opposed to the idea of a forced amalgamation of the City bench with inner London.
My noble and learned friend has recorded his intention to ensure that if an amalgamation were proposed in future, he would take steps to secure the constitutional position of both the Lord Mayor and aldermen. I have had sight of a letter which his official wrote to the Clerk to the City Remembrancer on 22nd February 1994 in which he stated:
"I am able to assure you that should the Lord Chancellor decide at any time in the future that the City of London magistrates' courts service should be amalgamated with all or part of the Inner London service, he would be concerned to take whatever steps were necessary in order to secure both the position of the Lord Mayor as the Chief Magistrate in the City of London, and the continuing existence of the Court of Aldermen".
The Bill does not say that and the City has suggested that the intention, welcome as it is, should be reflected in the order-making power to align the power with the policy. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for that, and perhaps more immediately to give my noble and learned friend the opportunity to say where this is now leading. I hope that my noble and learned friend can give me the assurance which I seek that he wishes to secure and safeguard the constitutional position of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen and that that will be matched by a suitable amendment at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I support the amendment. I should perhaps declare a rather remote interest in as much as my wife was one of the first of the lay justices in the City and, no doubt because of that connection, I receive representations from the City Remembrancer on this subject. I shall not repeat the substance of what the noble Lord has just said. The problem which the City envisages should there be—as it hopes there will not be —the amalgamation of the City with Inner London is that there would be two chief magistrates. The chief metropolitan stipendiary would remain as a chief magistrate and so would the Lord Mayor. In line with the assurance to which the noble Lord has referred, I imagine that the Lord Chancellor's proposal will envisage the City as a separate commission area within the new combined area. But that would not remove the

419
basic problem of one area with two chief magistrates. That is one of the problems which quite clearly the City envisages.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I fully agree with the principle underlying my noble friend's amendment, which is supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. The possibility of the City of London amalgamating with inner London arrangements is something which we considered. Certainly, it is a matter which would require very careful consideration if it were to go forward.
As usual, there are some special considerations affecting inner London particularly. I recently indicated that as regards the City of London magistrates' courts service it would be unwise to consider an amalgamation of the City and inner London committees before 1996. That is because one of the effects of the Bill will be to restructure the inner London service and in particular to disengage it from the Receiver of the Metropolitan police who is fundamental at the present moment to the management arrangement. I do not envisage that the restructuring will be complete before 1996.
It would clearly be inappropriate to consider any changes to the boundaries of the inner London service until its internal restructuring is complete. As I said, any question of amalgamation of the City with inner London would require very careful consideration at the appropriate time. As it appears to me at present, the constitutional position of the Lord Mayor and the aldermen of the Corporation of London as magistrates falls under provisions which would not be affected by an operation which amalgamated the management of the services so long as there were separate divisions for the magistrates themselves. So the Lord Mayor would remain the chief magistrate for the City Bench and the effect on his position would be nil as regards this aspect of the matter.
For that reason, I have not thought it necessary to propose expressly in the Bill anything on the lines proposed in Amendment No. 155 because any power under subsection (3) could not be exercised to the detriment of the constitutional position of the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the Corporation of London as magistrates. I have no intention that that should happen in any event. In view of my noble friend's amendment it may he wise to consider the matter afresh. That is the position, as I understand it, at present. In the light of my view, my noble friend may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has stated the Government's position with admirable clarity. He has recognised that the constitutional position of the City Bench is unique and is therefore genuinely a special case. The difficulty which the City feels is that this provision has been found necessary. Section 40 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 makes express reference to the matter. In the absence of any such express reference in this legislation it may therefore be construed by others and perhaps by other governments as in some way going back on that provision, despite my noble and learned friend's words.
420
He has undertaken to look at the matter again. I cannot ask for more than that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 [Constitution of magistrates' courts committees]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 31, line 42, leave out ("either").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 157, 159 and 160. When debating amendments similar to these in Committee on 22nd February my noble and learned friend invited us, at col. 538 of the Official Report, to,
"think of a wise limitation"
to the proposed power of the Lord Chancellor bluntly to appoint co-opted members. He gave the Committee an example of why that might be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with whom I am happy to share the amendment under debate, has responded with Amendment No. 158, addressed specifically to the example given by my noble and learned friend. That may commend itself to your Lordships. However, there may be unforeseen cases when the Lord Chancellor wishes to add, or to have retained, as an independent member of an MCC a particular person; hence Amendment No. 159.
It is important that if the Lord Chancellor exercises these powers, the person he appoints should be additional to the two co-opted members, not as in the Bill at present, which will allow the magistrates' courts committee the freedom to co-opt two persons of their own choice.
Turning to Amendment No. 160, your Lordships may remember that my noble friend Lord Gisborough proposed an amendment to this effect in Committee. In responding my noble and learned friend said., at col 542 on 22nd February, that he intended,
"to provide that Lords Lieutenant will have the right to attend any magistrates' courts committee".
That is welcome. He went on to explain how that might be done without actually providing for it in primary legislation. However, it has been the case heretofore that that provision is made. Currently it is in Section 20(3) of the 1979 Act which my amendment seeks to repeat.
Talking to Lords Lieutenant before the meeting to which my noble and learned friend referred in Committee and at which his representatives addressed a group of them, I gained the strong impression that some of them and their benches attach much importance to their membership by right. It is true that others do not. But they much appreciate the fact—a point not made by my noble and learned friend—that they can attend if for any reason they or the bench think it necessary.
On reflection, and with that in mind, my Amendment No. 160 would have been improved if it read,
"The keeper of the rolls of a county may"
rather than "shall". Perhaps my noble and learned friend may consider that as a possible alternative when replying. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I speak to Amendment No. 156, which is in my name as well, and also to Amendment No. 158. When we debated the

421
power of the Lord Chancellor both to approve proposed co-options to magistrates' courts committees or to make his own appointment to those committees, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave not only as his prime example, but his only example, the occasion when the power under paragraph (b) would be used; namely, the need to appoint a liaison judge for the area and the difficulty which might arise if previously a liaison judge was a co-opted member of the magistrates' courts committee for the area. I find the reasoning a little abstruse myself.
I did not think—I still do not think—that the very wide powers given by paragraph (b) could be justified by that very particular case of the liaison judge, but if it helps the noble and learned Lord to make provision for it, I am happy to do so in my Amendment No. 158, in which I suggest:
"The liaison judge for the area shall by virtue of his office be a member of each magistrates' courts committee outside Inner London".
That meets the resistance to the previous amendments which was expressed by the Lord Chancellor. He did not really give any other examples.
I appreciate that the powers that are given under paragraphs (a) and (b) are alternatives, not additions. I am well aware of that. On reflection—this point did not occur to me when we considered the matter in Committee—that seems a little odd because it appears that, if the magistrates' courts committee gets in quick and makes its two co-options quickly and the Lord Chancellor approves those co-options, the power of the Lord Chancellor to make his appointments disappears. One might find that the committees strain at the leash, as if they were waiting for the starting gun. It might be a question of who manages to exercise the power first. That does not sound to me like good legislation or even good thinking. I would much rather say, "Yes, the magistrates' courts committees can make co-options. Yes, if you really wish"—but I do not care for this very much—"the Lord Chancellor may have the power to approve or disapprove the co-options that are made", but please let us not have those appointments being made by the Lord Chancellor. Let us have the liaison judge, as has been suggested; but let us not have any other appointments being made by central government.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the possibility of, in some circumstances, adding to the committee persons whom the Lord Chancellor might wish to appoint. My noble friend Lord Mottistone is, in effect, suggesting that the power of nomination should be reduced so that it relates to only one member and that there should be an official appointment. I said before that I would expect to make regulations which would permit the keeper of the rolls and the liaison judge to attend magistrates' courts committees in any event. In the situation to which my noble friend referred, it would be open to the magistrates to appoint the keeper of the rolls as a member of the committee if they wished. That would
422
meet the situation in which, as he said, some committees want to include the keeper of the rolls while others do not.
I used the position of the liaison judge as an illustration of something that has happened in my experience and which might give rise to questions of nomination. I was not really intending to focus on that as a case requiring special treatment. It was merely an illustration of what I had in mind. The regulations governing length of appointment will take care of the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred earlier.
This is a difficult issue to get right. There is a lot to be said for the idea of my noble friend Lord Mottistone of reducing the number of such members to one. It is not easy to see how to define the special circumstances. The power to appoint one such member would have to be left to the Lord Chancellor. If other persons are to be nominated, it would be best to give the Lord Chancellor the power to nominate people in that category.
There is one slight problem with regard to the use of the phrase "liaison judge". I mention that because that is the way in which such judges are normally described. The existing legislation refers to a judge of the High Court or the county court who is nominated for that purpose. It may be that, with the appointment of the liaison judge being a possibility, the provisions should adopt the wording of the existing legislation rather than using the title "liaison judge".
During the progress of the Bill I have been occupied with discussions on a number of matters. It may be that this aspect could profit from some further discussion before a final conclusion can be reached on it. I must say that I do not feel strongly about what the precise answer might be, but I am interested in the arguments that have been put forward. Leaving one member as the Lord Chancellor's nomination without further qualification may be the wise course. Special officers may then be appointed as one of the co-opted members if the magistrates' courts committee so decides—that is, if the person concerned is not already a magistrate. The keeper of the rolls will already be a magistrate and will therefore be eligible for appointment to the committee in the ordinary way.
If your Lordships will allow me to do so, I should like, therefore, to give further consideration to what has been said about this matter to see whether we can reach a conclusion that is generally acceptable to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I do not regard this as a central matter. It was part of the original proposals. I have given illustrations of why I think that it may be wise to preserve something of this sort, and I am happy to discuss further the precise form in which it should be preserved. Perhaps we can deal with it at the next stage.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his understanding approach to the problem. Does the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wish to speak?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no right to speak—except to intervene in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and I do so only to thank

423
the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his thoughtful although somewhat tentative reply which encourages me not to move my amendments.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend. Perhaps it will be possible to have some discussions between now and the next stage. As the Bill is to proceed to another place and given the effort on all our parts to try to find a suitable solution, which I am sure is the right approach, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 157 to 160 not moved.]
Clause 62 [Regulations as to constitution etc. of magistrates' courts committees]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 32, line 21, leave out second ("to") and insert ("which may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I tabled an amendment on this subject in Committee, my noble and learned friend reminded me gently that mine is a very small county with only one bench. I have, accordingly, altered my amendment to take care of such a case and to make a selection committee obligatory only when it is necessary. I hope that that will commend itself to my noble and learned friend. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Committee discussed at some length the ways in which the membership of the magistrates' courts committee might be chosen. I said then as your Lordships will remember—perhaps I may remind those of your Lordships who may not have this clearly in mind—that the selection procedure that is outlined in the Bill has the general support of the magistrates' courts service, as we ascertained on consultation. Of the 71 respondents to the consultation paper who expressed an opinion, 50 favoured the selection procedure that is proposed in the Bill and only 21 favoured the election procedure. The majority of 50 included representative bodies of all those who work and serve in the magistrates' courts service, including the Justices' Clerks' Society, the Association of Magisterial Officers, the Standing Conference of Clerks to Magistrates' Courts Committees, and the Magistrates' Association.
I have studied carefully the anxieties expressed in Committee by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I said then that I would consider whether I could accommodate him in relation to the selection process, and a possible solution has occurred to me. I propose to provide in the regulations that I am to make pursuant to Clause 62 that if a committee area has only one bench, as is the case in at least one important area to which our attention has sometimes been directed, then that bench shall automatically be the selection panel. It would not therefore be necessary for the bench to elect a panel to select the committee. It would be for the bench as a whole to select the committee. I believe that that proposal meets my noble friend's worries. I undertake to do in the regulations what he wishes in that respect. In the light of that undertaking, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend, and have pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 32, line 25, leave out ("upper and lower limits") and insert ("an upper limit").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, expressed concern at the Lord Chancellor's power to set a lower limit on the number of committee members, and sought to set that lower limit to 12. I indicated that although I intend to reduce the maximum size of magistrates' courts committees to 12, I do riot intend to set a lower limit.
Section 21 of the 1979 Act gives me a separate power to set a quorum for the committee, and that I intend to preserve. Subject to that, committees should have as many or as few members, within the permitted maximum, as they feel are necessary to constitute an efficient and an effective management group. indicated in Committee to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I was prepared to delete from the Bill the power to set a lower limit, because that covered completely the amendment that he proposed. Amendment No. 162 takes forward that undertaking, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment does indeed meet the undertaking which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave to the Committee. Unfortunately, it does not meet the point of my amendment, because the purpose of my amendment was to ensure that magistrates' courts committees were not too small. Whereas the Bill as drafted would have enabled the Lord Chancellor to specify a lower limit, I was trying merely to take that a little further and say that the lower limit should be 12. It is not a matter of great importance, but I should not like the noble arid learned Lord to think that he had met my point in fulfilling the undertaking that he gave.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it seemed to me from listening to the debate, and in the light of the anxiety felt by the noble Lord, that the best way of meeting it was to leave it to the committee in the view that it was unlikely to set for itself a limit lower than it could conveniently operate. In any case, on consideration of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I concluded that that power was not necessary; and in the light of the philosophy that your Lordships would like to pursue generally, it must be right for this amendment to be given effect to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 [Supplementary provisions as to magistrates' courts committees]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 33, line 14, leave out ("chief justices' ") and insert ("justices' chief").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is one of a large group of amendments in which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, my noble and learned friend

425
Lord Ackner, and my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the Lord Chief Justice, have put down amendments.
In the light of considerations that we had in Committee about the name of the head of service, I have been considering the position. From reading what was said then, I concluded that perhaps the best I could offer would be "justices' chief clerk". I felt keenly that "justice" should be in the title of that officer who will be representing the magistrates' courts service in the locality in consultations and arrangements with other agencies.
I took the view also that it was necessary that he would be chief, and that in the context of that service the word "clerk" had a connotation which was familiar and which had a long lineage. However, as I said in Committee, I do not feel strongly about the precise title of that office. I know that some others do. Therefore I have left open what the position should be. So I propose to move Amendment No. 163, and no doubt the noble Lords whose names I have mentioned, and perhaps others, will say what they wish to say, and then I shall consider what to do with my amendment. It may well be that some later amendments in the group will be those which are moved and carried rather than mine. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, in referring to Amendment No. 164, I should first like to echo what other noble Lords have said during the afternoon; namely, to express my great appreciation of the patience and courtesy with which my noble and learned friend has listened to representations on this subject made to him. It is my most earnest hope that my noble and learned friend will go further than he has already gone, and accept the amendment to which I am now speaking. It has the merit of putting into the name the boundaries of the job. It distinguishes clearly from a justices' clerk—a name known, understood and honoured—from the rather different task which the new post will carry.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, whose name is down to the amendment, put the point powerfully in Committee when he said:
"I see no prospect that the essential distinction between administrative functions on the one hand, and judicial and legal functions on the other, can possibly be maintained if the new office-holder is both qualified and denominated as a justices' clerk".—[Official Report, 22/2/94; col. 564.]
The amendment to which I am now speaking has the merit of meeting the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
The new officer will act as a justices' clerk only when authorised to do so by the magistrates' committee. His main role will be to co-ordinate and to contribute to the efficiency with which the courts are run. He will, as such, have no judicial functions. In those circumstances, if my noble and learned friend could see his way to accepting the amendment which has the widespread support of the Justices' Clerks' Society, and of all those engaged in magistrates' courts, he would earn their gratitude without in any way undermining the purposes which he has had in mind in creating that new post. It
426
would be tempting providence were I to prolong my remarks at this stage. I eagerly await my noble and learned friend's reply.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, on 22nd February, which was the fourth Committee day, in a short intervention —some might say an uncharacteristically short intervention of some 10 lines—I suggested that this was the appropriate title. One must bear in mind that the justices' clerk is a legal title. I accept that he undertakes administrative work but he is the legal adviser to the justices. The two together make the lay judge capable of dealing with matters both of fact and law.
In my submission, it is important to have the correct title, not because the title is in itself determinative but because it is most relevant in the context of what we are talking about to the functions that this new official will have. I understand that his functions will be essentially administrative. Labelling him in the manner that we propose will remove any suggestion that the justices' clerk is accountable to the new official on any matters which are legal and quasi-legal. That is a vital distinction which should be made. For those reasons I support what my noble friend said.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and to express my appreciation to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his open mindedness. He always said that he would listen as the Bill came to be discussed. He has been true to his word.
In Committee I inquired in a somewhat jocular but nevertheless pertinent manner, "What's in a name?". To many unfamiliar with the specialised nature of this point, the answer is probably, "Very little". But to all who work in the service the matter is of the utmost importance for clarity of purpose. I am sure that I can now leave the matter in the hands of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend will forgive me but at the moment, and without expressing any dogmatic opinions, I agree with what my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said. I have nothing further to add.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. We do so not only on the ground that within the service it will make clear the distinction between the official who is providing primarily administrative services and those who are providing primarily legal services but on the ground that the matter will be made clear to the general public, who ought not to be entirely overlooked. They will find it simpler to understand what a justices' chief executive does and what a justices' clerk does. It will be more difficult for them to understand what a justices' clerk does and, quite differently, what a justices' chief clerk does.
A vast amount of correspondence and telephone calls are made by members of the public to magistrates' courts offices wanting to speak to the clerk, the magistrates' clerk, the justices' clerk, the senior

427
justices' clerk and so forth. If we adhere to the nomenclature which is proposed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, there will be scope for confusion, which can be easily and simply eliminated by adopting the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, behind the small difference in name lies an important constitutional issue which has been discussed at considerable length, with learning and in depth. As far as I am concerned, and for the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, the issue can be encapsulated in the difference of wording. I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, until now I have tended to agree with the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the name is not critical. I still believe that the functions and their proper definition are far more important than the name. However, I am impressed by the anxieties of those who, like the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, are involved in the magistrates' courts service, and for what it is worth I too support the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was unable to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill due to an attack of laryngitis. However, when I referred to it in our debate on the humble Address I expressed some fear that the pursuit of managerial efficiency might create a risk to judicial independence. Were the noble and learned Lord to accept the amendment, that would go a long way indeed towards putting that fear at rest.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have expressed my views on the title that I propose in Amendment No. 163. I listened carefully not only to what I heard today but also to what I heard during our earlier discussions. In this connection it is important to have as widespread approval and support of the proposals as is possible to get from the service. I am seeking to achieve a sound managerial structure in the interests of the delivery of justice. The whole system is designed to deliver justice at a local level. The system is unique in the world as regards the extent of lay involvement at the level of work undertaken in the magistrates' courts in England and Wales.
I have been persuaded to accept that Amendment No. 164 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, will promote that in a way that perhaps acceptance of my amendment might not. Therefore, in the light of those considerations, I shall ask leave to withdraw my amendment and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will continue to be sufficiently enthusiastic about his amendment to move it in place of mine. I should be happy then to signify that I will accept his amendment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 33, line 14, leave out ("chief justices' clerk") and insert ("justices' chief executive").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need no further invitation. I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend and shall proceed to move my amendment with alacrity.
The amendment has become very important to the Magistrates' Clerks' Society. I have been asked by its president and secretary to express their grateful thanks for the way in which their representations have been listened to by my noble and learned friend and now for his acceptance of what they regard to be a most important amendment. They wrote to me stating:
"This and other significant and worthwhile changes to the Bill will encourage and give confidence to those who work in the magistrates' courts service and for this we are very grateful to the Lord Chancellor and to Members of your Lordships' House".
I beg to move.
6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I indicated, I am happy to accept the amendment and to express gratitude to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I am grateful also for the message which he has just read out from the Justices' Clerks' Society. I know that it has considered carefully a number of matters raised on the Bill. From time to time it has found the views of yesterday not necessarily the best views for today. This is an example of where I have done the same.
I should mention that a number of consequential amendments will arise from the acceptance of the amendment. I believe that Third Reading is the best time at which to deal with them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if Amendment No. 165 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 166 or 167.
Clause 64 [Reports and plans]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 33, line 35, leave out from beginning to the end of line 19 on page 34 and insert:
("(2) The Lord Chancellor may from time to time issue guidelines to assist magistrates' courts committees in the exercise of their responsibilities under subsection (1) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we tackled this subject in Committee. My noble and learned friend said in effect that he thought that it was helpful to have detailed guidance and instructions in primary legislation. I sought to persuade my noble and learned friend that if magistrates' courts committees are any good, they will take initiatives on their own account to give effect to subsection (1) of the proposed new Section 22A. Since that time, my noble and learned friend and I have corresponded and I am grateful to him for his reply to my letter on the subject.
It seems to me that my amendment will take care of all the guidance that either the Lord Chancellor or the magistrates' courts committees need. As that guidance is not in primary legislation, it can be changed easily to meet changing circumstances. I suggest that in the case of most of the guidance which it will be necessary to give to magistrates' courts committees, even secondary legislation is not necessary because such guidance

429
should be kept to a minimum and magistrates' courts committees should be left to get on with the job. I beg to move.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, when the subject of magistrates' courts committees being directed by the noble and learned Lord and how they should communicate with their own magistrates was raised in Committee, I said that that might lead to the promotion of certain current policy concerns held by government. For example, it might be that the noble and learned Lord's department wished to pursue the matter of court use and court hours or some other current preoccupation. In my view, it might also be interpreted as sending a somewhat harsh message about the ability of magistrates on the MCCs to communicate competently with their own benches. Logic would indicate that they are more suited to such a task than those who are rightly preoccupied with the national picture.
In making those remarks in Committee, I referred to the consultative process as resembling something of a public relations exercise. On reflection, I feel that such a description may have given offence not only to the noble and learned Lord but also—and I suspect that this is of more concern to him—to members of his department who carried out conscientiously and courteously what was a very extensive exercise. In fact, I was referring' to a view widely held, rightly or wrongly, within the service. I suspect that its origin can be traced largely to two factors; namely, the sheer weight of evidence collected and subsequent discussion papers and decision documents, and secondly, the indications of a certain inflexibility, which emerged, or was perceived to emerge, and which, happily, since the Bill started its passage, has largely evaporated.
In any event, I hope that the House will permit me to express my apologies to the noble and learned Lord and to his staff for unwittingly causing offence to them and to the integrity of their exercise. As someone who practised public relations for most of his business life, it may be that I should apologise too to the Institute of Public Relations whose work I value highly and whose goodwill I wish to continue to enjoy.
I have outlined previously the reservations I have about the noble and learned Lord's power to indicate to MCCs how they should communicate with their benches. The noble and learned Lord mentioned that it would be extremely useful as a preliminary to any default arrangements. I can understand that if one is to have a default mechanism, which we all hope earnestly will be but rarely exercised, it is desirable to have standards against which judgments can be set. I believe that such standards can be established without interfering or unduly influencing the lines of communication between MCCs and their own benches. For that reason, I prefer the use of guidelines as provided in the amendment. However, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord has taken note of the anxieties expressed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for what he said on the consultation which preceded the introduction
430
of the Bill. I am grateful, as I am sure are my officials, for what he said. I am sure that we understood the general thrust of the noble Viscount's remarks on the previous occasion and I hope that he can remain in good standing with his institute.
I believe that the powers given to the Lord Chancellor under the existing Clause 64 are necessary. They form a package which together gives committees both the capacity and the freedom to manage and, when they choose to do so, to delegate some of their responsibilities so that they can be fulfilled as effectively as possible.
The powers provide also that the Lord Chancellor must make it clear in prescribed form what standards of performance are expected of committees. I have said already that I believe that it is entirely right that Parliament should be able to call the Government to account for the efficiency with which taxpayers' money is spent. With responsibility in that regard, I must be able to respond in an informed way when Parliament requires me to do so. The introduction of performance standards for which committees are accountable to the Lord Chancellor is a straightforward hands-off and effective way of achieving that. It does not allow the Lord Chancellor to direct the way in which the service is managed and yet it links the standards of performance to accountability to Parliament. I believe that it is necessary for that power to exist.
I certainly hope that the powers are exercised as lightly as possible but in discussions on some of the detail contained in other parts of the Bill, it has become apparent that there may be occasions when, for example, the duty to confer with the magistrates of particular benches should be enforced by directed standards. It may be that that should not be necessary in a well managed organisation but there may be occasions when it is necessary.
The substance of the matter is one on which the service would be consulted in detail before any standards were set. I must stress, in particular, that it is important from the point of view of those who use the courts that standards should be set. If the current amendment were accepted, such standards would be pre-empted. There is a good example of that in relation to the disabled. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen said in Committee, it may well be right that that sort of power should be set out on the face of the Bill to reflect that concern. However, if the amendment were passed, that would not be possible.
I believe that the subsections which the amendment seeks to delete are necessary to enable committees to be fairly and reasonably accountable and also for them to be given proper notice as a basis for setting standards by which, ultimately, they would be regarded as accountable; and in respect of which, if they failed, default powers may be necessary. I hope and believe that default powers will never be necessary. However, if they were necessary, it would be highly desirable that the standard to be attained should be set and the exact default specified before one moved into the situation of using the powers. In the light of those considerations, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply. However, I am not as happy as I have been over responses to earlier amendments. Although I appreciate that my amendment is in the form of a probing amendment because it seeks to delete a whole chunk instead of trying delicately to amend the clause, I do not really believe that you can expect people to give of their best if they feel that they are being too closely watched and regulated. There is potential for that within the clause.
As long as my noble and learned friend sits on the Woolsack, I am sure that we shall not have any of the kind of problems that I fear. However, one cannot be sure that he will be there for ever. It is something which needs watching as regards the future. When the regulations, which may stem from this, come forward, that may be the time to do the watching. However, I do not wish to take the amendment any further at present. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 34, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) In discharging their responsibilities under subsection (1) above, a magistrates' courts committee shall have regard to the needs of court users who are disabled; and so long as any direction under subsection (4) above is in force the standards of performance required under that subsection must include standards relating to the, provision made for such court users.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is my pleasure to move the above amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who is absent abroad on parliamentary business. I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, the disability organisations and above all, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who have all been very helpful and supportive. As the House will see, the amendment is also tabled in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).
It is very rare for an amendment that I move to be as skilfully drafted as the present one. In future, I must remember to work much more closely with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor so that I have the same kind of meticulous care reflected in my amendments.
The first part of the amendment calls for the,
"magistrates' courts committee [to] have regard to the needs",
of disabled people. It is a modest request and it would be pleasant to think that the awareness of the needs of disabled people was so strong and sensitive that such a provision would be unnecessary; but, of course, that is not so.
There have been dramatic advances in the perception of what is required if disabled people are to have the same rights as others. However, there is still a great deal to be done. Access to the magistrates' courts—by which I mean the physical and sensory freedom to participate fully—is frequently denied because of old buildings or a failure to provide modern aids for communication and, in part, as a result of general thoughtlessness. We know that the majority of the 640 courts are not accessible to disabled people and that only four or six new courts are
432
built every year. The requirement that the needs of disabled people should be considered is an important advance in the fight for equality for disabled people.
I turn now to the second part of the amendment. I welcome directions from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor requiring standards to be set. In so many cases there is good, indifferent or poor provision. Ensuring uniformity can have a tremendous effect on the quality of provision. That can be achieved by setting standards which I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will do if the House is kind enough to accept the amendment.
Our magistrates perform a difficult task both soundly and efficiently for the majority of people, but it is in the field of disability that they are so lacking. However logical, clear and just the proceedings may be—and, they are—they are useless to a disabled person if he or she is unable to get into the court or understand them. It is essential that any standards set should include those related to the important and neglected needs of disabled people.
I am anxious—as, indeed, are the disability organisations —to ensure that the standards for disabled persons are specific and that there are consultations with the relevant organisations in drawing them up. I hope that the House and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for his dogged pursuit of the issue. I should also like to thank all noble Lords who supported us in Committee. Finally, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for, once again, listening to us, reflecting on the matter and then responding so positively; and, indeed, for his help in drafting the amendment so as to make it an even better one than the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, might have created if left to his own devices. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, should like briefly to support the amendment. It is within my recollection—and, perhaps, within the recollection of other noble Lords—that sometimes in court circumstances arise in which the accused person or a witness needs to attend court in a wheelchair. I remember one case in which the accused person had had an accident between the time when he was committed for trial and the time when he was brought before the court. The trial could have been postponed indefinitely, but he did not want that to happen. It caused frightful embarrassment in the court.
I am not saying that all courts can easily be modified. The court that I have in mind is one dating back to the mid-18th century. It has steps leading up to the dock and to the jury box, which means that there would be no hope of wheelchair access. Being a rather small court, it is difficult to find a place on the floor where an accused person or even a witness can easily be seen and heard by the jury. It may sometimes be necessary to make pretty drastic arrangements in some older courts. However,

433
with the more progressive attitude that we now have towards the disabled, I believe that the proposal should be considered seriously.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I too should like to express my support for the amendment. Although I am perfectly sure that the relevant authorities will do their best in any event to cater for the needs of the disabled, it seems to me that there would be an advantage in having such a duty set out on the face of a Bill. Often, there are psychological as well as legal arguments for having on the face of a Bill a requirement which Parliament really wants to see met. Therefore, it would be helpful if noble Lords accepted the amendment. The provision could then be put on the face of the Bill and it would be there as an example, an indicator, for the future.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment as I believe it would enable a provision to be made available in courts which is made available in this Chamber; namely, a induction loop system. In this Chamber we have such a system in addition to the ordinary amplification system. Therefore people who are extremely hard of hearing, as I am, can hear what is said better than those who have normal hearing. This system is not very expensive to install.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I too wish to support this amendment. We must remember that there are many kinds of disablement. There are blind people, deaf people, those who cannot walk, and those who are confined to a wheelchair. In the courthouse where I work, there are six courts operating five days a week. It will be difficult to accommodate in all courts all the different kinds of disability from which some people suffer; but perhaps we should consider issuing an instruction to introduce into one court in a particular area facilities to accommodate people with the disabilities I have mentioned.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter in some detail with my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I appreciate the support that so many noble Lords gave to the amendments that were moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, was unavoidably absent from the Committee stage; but his support of the amendments was signified then and I am glad that he is able to be with us today to express his support for this amendment personally.
This amendment has the wholehearted support of the Government and I hope that your Lordships will accept it. I wish to take this opportunity to mention one matter which was discussed in Committee; namely, the provision of sign language interpreters for defendants. The Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986, made under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, provide that courts have full discretion to authorise payment for interpreters for defendants. This does not impinge on courts' or committees' budgets—this may be an important consideration—as payment for interpreters is made out of central funds. The provision of facilities for prosecution witnesses is of
434
course the responsibility of the prosecuting authority. I believe that this amendment that your Lordships are now considering will ensure that the needs of disabled court users are always in the mind both of magistrates' courts committees and of central government in relation to the provision made in these courts. As I have already said, I welcome the amendment wholeheartedly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Appointment and functions of chief justices' clerk]:
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 169 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 35, leave out lines 1 to 10 and insert:
("( ) A person may not be appointed as a chief justices' clerk unless the magistrates' courts committee has submitted to the Lord Chancellor an application for approval of the person whom the magistrates' courts committee proposes to appoint and the Lord Chancellor has approved the appointment of that person.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and the three others which are grouped with it which are in my name and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, are not ones which I wish to press. They concern the appointments of what was at the time that the consultation paper was printed the chief justices' clerk and justices' clerks. Amendment No. 170 refers to the appointment of a chief justices' clerk, and Amendment No. 185 refers to the appointment of a justices' clerk. I would mildly prefer the wording that is proposed; but, on the other hand, I would not feel inclined in the present circumstances to press my noble and learned friend to accept either of these amendments. I simply wish to hear how he views the situation.
It might be convenient to your Lordships if I refer to Amendments Nos. 179 and 187 briefly now. The amendments require that the Lord Chancellor shall,
"publish the criteria for approval"
and give his reasons for rejection. I am given to understand that my noble and learned friend would not like to see the words "criteria for approval" included in the Bill, and I rather understand that the criteria for approval are likely to be so obvious as to be not worth stating. I wonder whether it would be acceptable to my noble and learned friend if I were to withdraw these amendments and then table others for Third Reading which merely require the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to state reasons for rejection, leaving out the criteria for approval. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have spoken of these matters in Committee at some length, and I have considered carefully all that was said then. Amendments Nos. 170 and 185 seek to change the way that magistrates' courts committees will be required to seek the Lord Chancellor's approval for the appointment of a chief justices' clerk. I must be careful to modify that to a justices' chief executive, or to a justices' clerk. This was a topic that was discussed in the Government's consultation process on the implementation of the White Paper.
The two options which attracted any measure of support were, first, the short list procedure where the committee would submit to the Lord Chancellor a short

435
list of names chosen from those who had applied for the particular post. The Lord Chancellor would indicate which of the names would receive his approval and which would not. The committee would then be free to appoint any short-listed candidate who had received the necessary approval. This short list procedure was supported by a majority of those who responded to the consultation paper. In view of this, and with the support of the magistrates' courts consultative council, I decided to implement that procedure—that is the effect of this part of Clause 66.
The second option was the single name procedure. The committee would complete its recruitment procedure and submit the name of the single successful candidate for the Lord Chancellor's approval. The effect of this amendment would be to replace the short list procedure, which has the support of the magistrates' courts service, with the single name procedure which, on the basis of the responses to consultation, does not have the same support. However, I am impressed by the argument that if I ever felt constrained to withhold my approval, the single name procedure could result in the committee being without a chief executive, or justices' clerk as the case may be, for an unacceptably long period of time.
I wish to point out now that although the phrase "short list" was used in the descriptions at consultation, if one looks at the provision in the Bill, one will see that phrase does not appear. The option given in the Bill is to submit one of a number of names. In other words, the provisions allow the magistrates' courts committee in question to use whichever form or procedure it prefers. If it wants to put only one name forward, that option is open to it at the end of the process. If it wishes to put several names forward, it may do so. It is entirely up to the committee. I wish to make it clear that in any event, whether it was a case of one name or a number of names, if anyone was disapproved of for the purpose of appointment, I would wish to give reasons. In a moment I shall deal in a little more detail with what my noble friend said on that subject.
Both methods are open under the Bill. The regulation-making power referred to in the centre of the clause relates to the manner in which approval would be sought, notice, and such matters. There is no question of the regulation-making power cutting out either of the two options which are open to the magistrates' courts committees. Therefore, every magistrates' courts committee which hereafter wants the Lord Chancellor's approval to either a chief executive or justices' clerk will have the option of either putting forward a list of names or putting forward only one name. Therefore, I believe that with this method we have managed to secure that all options are covered. The more freedom the magistrates' courts committee has, the better in that respect.
I turn now to the later amendments to which my noble friend Lord Peyton referred. I take the view that for the Lord Chancellor to publish criteria in advance would be unnecessary. As my noble friend said, most of them would be obvious. Inevitably, a particular case would arise which was not covered by what had been envisaged. So far as I know, disapproval has never
436
arisen under these powers, which have existed in respect of justices' clerks for a long time. The most likely ground for disapproval which I can think of is that information which had a bearing on whether the person in question was suitable might be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor but for some reason was not available to the magistrates' courts committee. Therefore, I believe that it would not be wise to publish criteria.
On the other hand, I strongly support the view that the Lord Chancellor ought to give reasons for disapproving any person. That would be a proper request in any event. There is no reason why that should not be expressed on the face of the statute, as one of my noble friend's later amendments requires.
In that context, the amendment proposes that the Lord Chancellor should inform the magistrates' courts committee and the candidate. I believe that it would be preferable for the Lord Chancellor to respond to the magistrates' courts committee, which had nominated the individual to the Lord Chancellor. It would then be for the magistrates' courts committee to tell the candidate in question the reasons communicated to the committee. The chain of accountability and responsibility lies with the magistrates' courts committee. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor should communicate his decision to the magistrates' courts committee and then the magistrates' courts committee should inform the candidate.
In the light of that explanation, my noble friend may feel that the clause as presently drafted secures his option, as proposed in Amendment No. 170, and that that option is not damaged by the fact that the clause also allows the magistrates' courts committee other options if it wishes to put forward one name at its discretion.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his explanation. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 171 to 174 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 35, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 36.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 175 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 177. Therefore, it is appropriate that I should speak to that amendment at this stage.
Amendments Nos. 175 and 177 arise from the anxiety that was expressed at Committee stage in relation to the apparent ease with which a justices' chief executive could exercise the functions of a justices' clerk. In order to meet that, the amendments to the clause provide that a justices' chief executive is not to be able to perform any of the functions of a justices' clerk unless first appointed by the committee as a justices' clerk and then authorised by the committee to perform any or all of the relevant functions.
The intention of the amendments is clear. It is also worth mentioning that the amendments make it clear that committees may appoint one of their existing justices' clerks as their justices' chief executive while

437
retaining his bench responsibilities. That may be appropriate in some circumstances and I would certainly not wish that arrangement to be prohibited. I can think readily of one area where that would be the position. There are a number of other areas which come less readily to mind where a decision has been taken that one of the justices' clerks in an area should be the clerk to the magistrates' courts committee and the justices' chief executive. The amendments permit a great deal of flexibility and allow for joint justices' clerks to be appointed, and so on.
I beg to move Amendment No. 175 as a paving amendment, the main amendment being Amendment No. 177, to which I have spoken.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have tabled an amendment to Amendment No. 177, to which the noble and learned Lord has just spoken. I should not like to find myself out of court, and if I have risen too soon it is merely an indication of enthusiasm rather than a desire to speak out of turn.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is right in his desire to speak to his amendment at this stage. Perhaps I should deal with Amendment No. 178, which is also an amendment to Amendment No. 177.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we are dealing at present with Amendment No. 175. The opportunity to move Amendment No. 178 will come when I move Amendment No. 177. Although I have spoken to that amendment I have not yet formally moved it because we have not yet reached it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I intervene. Since we have a grouping, and the noble and learned Lord has spoken to Amendment No. 177, it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, spoke to their amendments to Amendment No. 177 so that we can debate all the amendments at the same time.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it is a great source of relief to me that others besides myself are occasionally thoroughly confused by the groupings to which we are slaves. I believe that some of the confusion arose from the fact that I had not moved, nor had I been called upon to move, Amendment No. 172 with which Amendments Nos. 175 and 177 were grouped. Had I been called upon to move it, I would not have done so because I think that my amendment has been overtaken by the two which the noble and learned Lord has just moved.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have called Amendment No. 175 and spoken to it. It is open to your Lordships to speak to Amendment No. 178, although it cannot be moved until we come to Amendment No. 177.
Lord Renton: My Lords, greatly daring, perhaps I may suggest that when we have a grouping which involves an amendment to an amendment, it saves confusion if we have a separate discussion on the
438
amendment to the amendment and on the amendment which is to be amended. If an important point, such as that to be raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is grouped with various other amendments, I can only feel that confusion results.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has moved and spoken to Amendment No. 175. I believe that your Lordships are concerned with Amendment No. 177 in conjunction with Amendment No. 178. When the noble and learned Lord moves that one, it will be totally in order for other people to speak to it. If we can deal with Amendment No. 175 now it would be more satisfactory.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 35, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) Where, in accordance with subsection (5) above, a person holds an appointment as justices' chief clerk with an appointment as justices' clerk for a petty sessions area, he shall not exercise any functions as justices' clerk for the petty sessions area unless authorised to do so (either generally or in any particular case) by the magistrates' courts committee for the area which includes that petty sessions area.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to allow the magistrates' courts committee to confer on the justices' chief executive the functions of a justices' clerk only so far as it is authorised to do so,
"(either generally or in any particular case) by the magistrates' courts committee for the area which includes that petty sessions area".
In my submission, it is an important and flexible provision. I have already indicated why I believe that it is right because it also allows an existing justices' clerk to be made the chief executive. In addition, in the case where there is more than one petty sessions division it allows the possibility for more than one justices' clerk being made the chief executive. Those options are used at present and I do not think that anyone foresees any reason that that should not be allowed to continue. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 177, Amendment No. 178:
Line 5, leave out ("(either generally or in any particular case)") and insert ("on a temporary basis for good cause").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be of assistance if I said that I do not propose to move Amendment No. 178 at this stage. The reason for not moving my amendment is that I am deeply unhappy about Amendment No. 177. I was totally persuaded by the arguments at the earlier Committee stage and particularly by the powerful speech from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that it was essential that the administrative functions of the justices' chief executive should be kept wholly separate from the legal functions of a justices' clerk. I am therefore unhappy at the proposal now put forward in Amendment No. 177 by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the magistrates' courts committee may make arrangements,
"either generally or in any particular case",
for that confusion of roles.

439
I can well understand that there might be an emergency, as a result of an outbreak of flu or something similar, when there may be an immediate need for the temporary use of the chief executive, if he happens to be qualified—he may well not be—to sit as a justices' clerk. But I can see no reason for giving the magistrates' courts committee the power to appoint the chief executive and to exercise that power generally.
I therefore tabled this amendment. However, I am now not moving it because it is simply a fallback position, should Amendment No. 177 be agreed to after debate. As an amendment to an amendment, Amendment No. 178 would in the ordinary way fall to be taken before we decided on Amendment No. 177. It seems to me to occupy your Lordships' time quite unnecessarily to debate the merits of a fallback position when we do not know what we will fall back on, if anything. Therefore, it seems to me that the appropriate course is to debate Amendment No. 177 and come to a view on its merits. If it goes forward substantially as it stands, then it might be appropriate for me to re-table Amendment No. 178 at Third Reading as an amendment to whatever we now decide.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps it is a question of which way round the matter is dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, spoke about the justices' chief executive being made a justices' clerk. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when he first introduced Amendment No. 177, spoke about examples where justices' clerks, within the terms of the Bill—and I hope it stays that way—may be appointed justices' chief executives, and it would be that way round. Those are the circumstances which apply on my bench with my magistrates' courts committee, which I hope will remain independent, because we are not big enough to justify the grand new character. For many years the justices' clerk has been effectively the justices' chief executive. I hope that whatever happens to the Bill, that position is left. 1 understood from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when he spoke earlier to Amendment No. 177, that he intended to retain that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, would we not be better advised to debate the motion before the House? The noble and learned Lord moved Amendment No. 177 to which there are amendments on the Marshalled List. The debate would be better if the amendments on the Marshalled List are moved—unless they are not to be moved—and we can then consider the substantive amendment as well as the amendments to it; otherwise, we are not talking to any proposition.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, does not wish to move Amendment No. 178.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, that is right. The argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, provides additional force for my not complicating the issue at this stage by seeking to move Amendment No. 178.
[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 177, Amendment No. 178A:
Line 7, at end insert:
("Before deciding to exercise its powers under this subsection, a magistrates' courts committee shall consult the magistrates for the petty sessional area concerned.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may do what angels fear to do and at least start the debate on the subject, if nothing else. As I understand it, the amendment put forward by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor provides some flexibility where a magistrates' courts committee wishes the justices' chief executive to have a clerkship responsibility for a single petty sessional area. If his amendment is carried as it stands, it would be possible to appoint a justices' chief executive as justices' clerk for each of the petty sessional areas within the commission area even though there is already in post a justices' clerk for each of the petty sessional areas. In that situation the justices' chief executive would hold all clerkships jointly with the existing justices' clerks. In practice, he would have no particular functions to exercise, as those would be exercised by the justices' clerk at local level within the petty sessional area.
The amendment of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor at page 35 line 39 gives total discretion to the magistrates' court committee to determine what functions, if any, the justices' chief executive as justices' clerk would exercise. The committee is not obliged to exercise those powers, even though the justices' chief executive had been appointed as justices' clerk. If one follows my noble and learned friend's desire to allow such decisions to be made by the magistrates' courts committee, the amendment proposed requires the magistrates' courts committee to consult with the magistrates for the petty sessional areas where it is wished to appoint the justices' chief executive as justices' clerk for that area, and again where it is proposed to determine the functions to be exercised by the justices' chief executive as justices' clerk.
Failure to consult on those issues is likely to bring about a conflict between the magistrates' courts committee and the magistrates for the petty sessional areas, and also between the justices' chief executive and the justices' clerk for the petty sessional areas. In view of the presumption in the Bill that a justices' chief executive shall not have the powers and duties of a justices' clerk, it seems reasonable, we submit, to propose that, where a magistrates' courts committee wishes to give such powers to the justices' chief executive, all those concerned and affected by that decision should have been consulted and that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should be in a position to have views expressed to him before any determination is made that the justices' chief executive should hold both appointments. That is the purpose of the amendments which we propose. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I confess that I am in a state of confusion which I trust is not shared by other noble Lords. What my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor told us he wanted to do, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, pointed out, was to make

441
it possible for the committee to appoint a justices' clerk as justices' chief executive. That seems to me entirely reasonable.
The difficulty comes when one approaches the problem from the other direction—the desire to appoint the justices' chief executive as a justices' clerk. One runs at once into the constitutional difficulties pointed out so forcefully by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice at an earlier stage and cogently referred to this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. Again, it is entirely reasonable that in an emergency, and for a temporary purpose, the committee or the justices should be enabled to appoint the justices' chief executive as a justices' clerk—but only in an emergency, and only for a temporary period.
On Amendment No. 164 I ventured to say that behind the problem of nomenclature lay the important constitutional problem that we have now reached; namely, that it is essential to keep the executive and the judicial functions entirely apart except to the very limited extent that I indicated.
With respect, it seems to me that we shall not get the matter right this evening. It would, I submit, be far better if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor withdrew his amendment so that the amendment to the amendment would also go. The matter could then be sorted out tidily, keeping the executive and judicial functions separate before the next stage.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that many noble Lords have the view that it is perfectly possible for one person to be the chief executive and a justices' clerk at one and the same time. There is nothing whatever wrong with that. In the places where there is only one petty sessional division within the area of a magistrates' courts committee, that would seem to be the proper way to go about it. In other cases, the appointment of chief executive is held by someone who also has the office of a justices' clerk in one of more of the petty sessional division areas within the area of the magistrates' courts committee.
In my submission, it does not matter in which order those appointments are made. It is entirely a matter of convenience. For example, if a particular area had a vacancy for a justices' clerk and at the same time a vacancy for a justices' chief executive, it would be perfectly right to have both of those dealt with at the same time, selecting first a chief executive and then deciding that he should also be the justices' clerk in the petty sessional division area where it arises.
There are other practical matters. One of the most important is the possibility of concentrating the procedures for the recovery of fines in an area covered by a magistrates' courts committee through the arrangement of having a chief executive who is also a justices' clerk with the function in each petty sessional division area of collecting the fines and accounting for them.
I have no difficulty whatever with Amendment No. 178A, proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord
442
Ackner,—nor for that matter with Amendment No. 178B. The only reservation I have is that this is something that would be prescribed, should it be necessary, under the powers given earlier in the Bill to allow the Lord Chancellor to require certain types of communication between a magistrates' courts committee and its benches.
It has to be remembered that the magistrates' courts committee is to be pre-eminently a committee of magistrates who understand their judicial role and are concerned to see that it is properly exercised. As members of the magistrates' courts committee, they are also responsible in a special way for the management of the service. In my submission there is nothing whatever constitutionally wrong about this matter. It is clear that any authority as a justices' clerk that the chief executive may have will depend on his appointment as a justices' clerk, to the extent to which that is required. I understand that, so far as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice is concerned, he is content with the amendments that I have proposed to Clause 66.
With regard to the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, to which he has spoken, first, any reasonable management arrangement would not appoint somebody to serve a Bench without consultation with that Bench. That would go without saying. To return to my noble friend Lord Mottistone's point, I doubt whether it is necessary to tell the magistrates' courts committee to do that. However, if in practice it turned out that magistrates' courts committees were not doing so, the relevant powers are in the Bill to enable the Lord Chancellor to require it. Therefore, in my submission, this is a proper way to handle the matter. I believe that it is right for me to move Amendment No. 177, as I have done.
7 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, with regard to Amendments Nos. 178A and 178B, we do wish those provisions to be on the statute book. That is for the very simple reason, as I indicated, that it would be possible to appoint a justices' chief executive as a justices' clerk for each of the petty sessional areas within the commission area, even though there is already in post a justices' clerk for each of those areas.
Our anxiety is that it would give the justices' chief executive the status of a justices' clerk quite unnecessarily through the entirety of that area. It could thus bring in through the back door a chief justice's executive as a chief justice's clerk to cover the whole of that situation. Since my noble and learned friend does not see any objection to the amendments but wonders whether they are necessary, I submit that they are necessary for that very simple reason and that they should be on the statute book. That is why I wanted to move both of them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is a degree of confusion here. It may be that I am responsible. I said that Amendment No. 178A contains an obligation which in my view is catered for already under the powers that I have provided earlier in the Bill. Good management would suggest that what is proposed

443
should be done. It is also not wise to impose on good managers obligations which would be self-evident. It is for that reason that I invited your Lordships not to accept Amendment No. 178A. Obviously I did not make that position as clear as I ought to have done. I had understood in my earlier discussions that that particular point had been taken on board by some of my noble friends.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I should like to follow my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and ask for leave to speak again on this amendment to this amendment. When I spoke earlier, I confessed to confusion. It is obvious from what my noble and learned friends have said—my noble and learned friend used the phrase "a degree of confusion"—that I am not alone in that position. I suggest that we are now in such a state of confusion that the only reasonable course is for my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack to withdraw his amendment ani for us then to sort out the matter before the next stage of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am not prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 177. I wish to keep it. I shall now finally put the question as to Amendment No. 178A.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend puts the Question, I believe that I have the last word on my amendment. I feel that I am back in the Crown Court, insisting that I speak last to the jury. Reverting to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said a little earlier, he saw nothing against my amendment except that he thought that it stated the obvious.
We have provided a very good reason why the obvious should be on the statute book. If it is obvious it cannot do any harm for it to be on the statute book. Therefore I see no rational basis upon which the amendment should be rejected. It seems to be so much common ground on the Government's side and so clearly seen as necessary on the side of those urging the amendment that there should be harmony all around. Therefore I commend the amendment to the House.
7.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 178A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 177, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 79.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Judd, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Lawrence, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L. [Teller]

McNair, L.

Mottistone, L.

Falkland, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, I

Plant of Highfield, L.

Greenway, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Serota, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shannon, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L

444

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Wigoder, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Annaly, L.

Leigh, L.

Arran, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Chancellor.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Burnham, L.

Marlesford, L

Cadman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Caithness, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Mills, V.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Chesham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chorley, L.

Moyne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E.

Norrie, L.

Cranbome, V

Northbrook, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Prior, L.

Digby, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dixon-Smith, L

Rennell, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Flather, B.

Sharpies, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B

St. Davids, V

Gisborough, L

Strathclyde, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harlech, L.

[Teller.]

Harmsworth, L.

Tebbit, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hertford, M

Wakeham, L. (Lord Privy Seal.]

Howe, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment to the amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.16 p.m.
Amendment No. 177 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 178B to 184 not moved.]
Clause 67 [Appointment and removal of justices' clerks]:
[Amendment No. 185 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 186 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 187 not moved.]
Clause 68 [Chief justices' clerks and justices' clerks to be employed under contracts of service]:
[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 37, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) A contract of service as referred to in subsection (I) above shall not have included in it any terms and conditions which are in conflict with any of the provisions in section 69 of this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 190 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 195. Amendment No. 190 merely states that a contract of service, as referred to in the subsection, shall not have included in it terms and conditions which are in conflict with any of the

445
provisions of Section 69 of the Act. Noble Lords will recall that Section 69 was designed to ensure that the independence of the magistrates, which must include the independence of their legal adviser, the justices' clerk, was not diminished.
My noble and learned friend stated in Committee that he could do nothing right because he had put in Clause 71 in order to safeguard the independence of the magistrates and he was then criticised. The initial criticism levelled at my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was that the Government had accepted that protection was, as a result of the provisions of the Bill, reasonably necessary.
I know that my noble and learned friend never accepted that the Bill diminished the independence of the magistrates or their clerk but he—and not the Opposition or the Cross Benchers—was responsible for producing Clause 71, now Clause 69. What we have done in Amendment No. 195 is totally to redraft Clause 69, because we take the view that Clause 69 as it stands does not identify or set out with sufficient particularity how the justices' clerk is to be safeguarded when exercising his judicial function.
Clause 69 remains, as described in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, opaque. It states:
"When exercising the functions specified in subsection (2) below or giving advice to justices of the peace in an individual case".
The phrase "in an individual case" is very odd. It means that the justices' clerk cannot be in any way interfered with by anyone when advising on a case which is about to take place or is taking place but once it is over he can be told, "On no account should you allow your justices to adopt the line that you took yesterday". That is why a protection which the particular case provides makes a protection illusory.
The protection provided by the reference to the functions in subsection (2) was, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in Committee, quite unsatisfactory because the regulations which can be made under Section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 can be changed from time to time. It is, in words I adopt from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, a moving target. That is no way to provide protection on a matter as vital as this.
So what I have sought to do—no doubt the proposal contains many drafting errors—is, if I may coin a phrase, to go back to basics and decide what it is that the justices' clerk should have protection for. I have spelt out that he should have protection when,
"giving advice to justices of the peace, whether in the course of training, or in discussions relating to law, practice or procedure, or otherwise, on the exercise of their judicial functions or discretion, either in respect of a particular case or in relation to cases generally".
In Committee my noble and learned friend said that the question of training was a difficult one. Was it administrative or was it part of the judicial or quasi-judicial functions of the magistrates' clerk? I think the answer is very simple. I had the privilege of being a presiding judge on the Western circuit for four years, which means I was responsible to the Lord Chief Justice, with my co-presiding judge, for the efficiency
446
and effectiveness of our circuit. We would arrange sentencing conferences from time to time in order to get consistency of approach. The suggestion that the courts' administrator—the senior civil servant on each circuit —should have been entitled to instruct those who were addressing the judges on their sentencing training and matters connected with it would never have been contemplated. The administrator was not there in any way to interfere with the content of the training. Of course it was very convenient to have an administrator who would put at one's disposal for the training session a well-heated court room with the appropriate facilities which would necessarily go with it. That is an administrative function; that is what he was there to do in relation to that particular matter. Training is not a matter upon which the justices' clerk should at any stage be interfered with.
Next, the justices' clerk should have protection when,
"exercising any judicial power or discretion given to him".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, when addressing your Lordships on Second Reading, spelt out various activities which are given to the clerk himself. He said:
"For example, in certain cases they can grant adjournments, renew bail, extend the time allowed to pay fines and (very importantly) grant or refuse legal aid. They also have important responsibilities in family cases under the Children Act. Moreover, the trend is towards devolving to them further judicial functions. Soon they will also be empowered to commit actions by consent to the Crown Court and to issue distress and attachment of benefits warrants".—[Official Report, 18/1/94; cols. 475-76.]
All those activities were identified by the Lord Chief Justice as requiring the protection which should be properly accorded to the justices' clerk on the basis that those were his judicial functions.
The justices' clerk should also have protection when,
"training justices of the peace and court staff, and preparing the rota of magistrates and court clerks".
In carrying out all those functions, as the new clause sets out in subsection (1),
"a justices' clerk shall not be subject to the direction of the magistrates' court committee, the chief justices' clerk or any other person".
We have spelt out, with the particularity which is totally lacking in Clause 69 as drafted, the protection which we submit clearly the justices' clerk is entitled to for the benefit not of himself but of the administration of justice so that independence of the judiciary is protected.
In subsection (2), because of my noble and learned friend's comment that the boundary line is very difficult between what is judicial, what is quasi-judicial and what is administrative, we have set out what should be deemed, for the purpose of the judicial functions and discretion in relation to the justices' clerk, to be included in those functions. We say,
"the date and time on which any criminal or civil case shall be heard".
That may be said to be administrative. I can only answer my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in this way. When the Beaching Commission proposals were accepted and the Executive took on the administration of the circuit system the question arose as to the lists prepared by the administrators. There were some judges, just like some who visit restaurants, who like a

447
menu put in front of them and the obligation to make any choice thereby removed. There were other judges, of whom I was one, who reckoned that they knew more about what should go into an effective list than a listing clerk because by looking at the papers they would be able to get a good idea as to whether a case would fight, and if so for how long, or whether it would settle. Accordingly, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, had to rule. He ruled that the settling of a list is a judicial function. The ultimate responsibility for the list was the responsibility of the judge. In the same way the ultimate responsibility for the list is the responsibility of the justices together with their clerk.
The amendment continues:
"(b) whether it is in the interests of justice to grant legal aid".
That is one of the examples given by the Lord Chief Justice when he addressed the House in Committee. Again, that was an area which your Lordships said was difficult. We have solved the difficulty by deeming this to be a judicial function so that puts an end to it if the justification for putting it in that category is accepted.
We ask:
"(c) whether to offer summary trial to a defendant charged with an either way offence".
One would have thought that that was clearly a judicial or quasi-judicial function. But to put it beyond all doubt, it is deemed so to be.
Subsection (2) (d) states:
"whether to accept a plea of guilty to an information or admission to a complaint".
We thought that that was very necessary because there is pressure on throughput; on the cost per case; on cash limitation which all tend to produce a situation where the interests of justice take second place to the interests of satisfying the Treasury that no stone is left unturned in order to save a penny or two here or there.
Paragraph (e) of the amendment states:
"whether to accept a plea bargain whereby the prosecutor will withdraw or offer no evidence in return for a binding over or a plea of guilty to a less serious offence".
We wanted to avoid. pressure being put on the justice's clerk saying "You must get your magistrates to accept pleas even though they think it is quite unsatisfactory. You must get them to initiate plea bargaining even though there are many who think that that is not the way to administer justice. You must do all that because you add to the throughput and you reduce the cost per case".
Finally, paragraphs (f) and (g) ask,
"whether to transfer a criminal case for hearing or sentence to another court, and
enforcing payment of fines and compensation".
That is the justification for the redrafting of Clause 69 spelling out the protection which we say is necessary and desirable and doing away with the current Clause 69, which is opaque, unspecified and gives one no indication where this much needed protection is to be found. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I speak in particular to Amendment No. 195 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. I shall be very brief because he has spoken admirably and succinctly and indicated all the main areas of importance in this matter. Although the list in the amendment may be added to or it may be
448
open to suggestions in that regard, the list itself is one with which no one in the legal profession could argue in terms of the importance of preserving legal independence.
When two divergent interests overlap; namely, those of justices' clerks and their Benches on the one hand, and MCCs and their justices' chief executives on the other, it is surely important that the parameters should be firmly and unequivocally established. It is generally accepted (is it not?) that justices' clerks must be responsible to their Benches for all judicial matters. Accordingly, it seems not unreasonable to set out, as this amendment seeks to do, what such matters are.
Perhaps the House will allow me to give an example as regards training. My noble friend has already referred to it, although I shall refer to it again very briefly from a much less exalted position than the one he occupies. In my experience, which is not typical, but I suspect the experience of others is, training is conceived and executed by the justices' clerks and by a training sub-committee of magistrates, usually selected by the Benches themselves, but possibly channelled for administrative purposes through the magistrates' courts committee.
It may be appropriate, as part of his or her administrative function, for the justices' chief executive to organise a training programme; but it would not be appropriate for any bias or emphasis to be given to it to take account of anxieties currently being expressed by government. For example—and this is only a random example, but perhaps topical—there may be a feeling at large that greater use should be made of custodial penalties. But that—permissible, though perhaps not desirable for ministerial interview on television—noble Lords would almost certainly agree can have no place in a training syllabus.
The matter has already been fully covered by my noble friend and we have already covered much ground, it must be said, constructively today so I shall not take the point any more. I look forward with keen interest to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has to say on the subject.
Lord Renton: My Lords, subject to what my noble and learned friend may say, I am against Amendment No. 190, but in favour of Amendment No. 195. Perhaps I may explain why. Amendment No. 190 is unnecessary because if a contract of service includes terms and conditions which are in conflict with the provisions of Clause 69 or of almost any statutory provision affecting it such a contract would be void for illegality. Therefore there is no need to put that into the Bill. That is the law and always has been.
As regards Amendment No. 195, I am broadly in agreement with it. The functions referred to in the earlier part of clause 69 are functions,
"conferred by rules[of court] made in accordance with … the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 by virtue of [various sections) of this Act"
That mean that the very important matters as to what constitutes interference with judicial discretion in the circumstances which are now being considered, depend on secondary legislation. It is also legislation by reference. It is better to try to avoid legislation by

449
reference if we can without making a Bill too lengthy. But when it is legislation by reference to secondary legislation, that is a further argument against it. It is better to have these important principles in the Bill instead of being set out in the indirect way in which they are set out at present in Clause 69. Therefore, I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be sympathetic to Amendment No. 195.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was very concerned about the debate which we had in Committee on this matter, and about the suggestion that because it is difficult to define the difference between judicial and administrative functions, we should not try. We have been debating a Bill which, in the police part of it, we have assumed that we can make a distinction between the operational responsibilities of the chief constable and the policy responsibilities of the police authority. It is not specified in detail as the noble and learned Lord has attempted to do; but it is assumed that there is a distinction that can be made.
The problems with Clause 69 as drafted are not only those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It deliberately restricts judicial functions to advice to justices of the peace in an individual case. Whatever else may be wrong with the clause, that is very seriously wrong. That is what the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, complex and detailed though it may be, seeks to deal with.
I hesitate to refer to my pathetic little amendment, Amendment No. 191, which perhaps should have been grouped with Amendments Nos. 190 and 195. It suggests that instead of the words "in an individual case" there should be inserted,
"other than on non-judicial matters".
That is a simple way of dealing with the same issue and will, I have no doubt, cause the full weight of legal opinion to fall on my head. However, that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to ensure that the administrative head, the justices' chief executive, as he is now to be called, does not interfere in the relationship between justices' clerks and the members of their benches on judicial matters. Restricting the provisions to individual cases, as Clause 69 does, is simply not acceptable.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I strongly support Amendment No. 195, which also stands in my name. To my mind, the detail of it is pretty accurate and I do not think that it needs to be mucked about with. One often says that the principle is right, but I think that the fact is right in this case. I hope that my noble and learned friend will give the amendment a very fair wind. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that, for the reasons that he gave, Amendment No. 190 is probably unnecessary, but I hope that Amendment No. 195 will receive all possible support.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to join cursorily in the chorus of approval for Amendment No. 195. We are still dealing with the confusion of judicial and executive powers in that "Cheshire cat" of an office —no matter by what name it might be called—that we
450
are now discussing. I heard what the noble and learned Lord said about Amendment No. 177: that he saw nothing wrong with the amount of confusion of power in those offices. I can understand why the noble and learned Lord said that. His own office is a living refutation of the doctrine of separation of powers. I use it when talking to Americans to explain why we in this country do not have separation of powers as they understand that.
However, I should like to put before the noble and learned Lord a tradition that goes right back to the 17th century and to Chief Justice Coke. It is that the amount of mixture of power with which the office of the noble and learned Lord is trusted is one which neither can nor should be delegated to this extent to an ordinary subject. The law trusts the noble and learned Lord with that; it does not trust his inferiors. It might assist us if we could keep that distinction clear.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I am sorry to cast a discordant note about Amendment No. 195 and do so on only a very limited ground. I do not like subsection (2) (e) which states:
"Judicial functions and discretion shall, in relation to justices of the peace, be deemed to include …
whether to accept a plea bargain whereby the prosecutor will withdraw or offer no evidence in return for a binding over or a plea of guilty to a less serious offence".
When I was a trial judge I took the view that it was not for the judge to decide whether he would or would not accept a plea. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner thinks that that is plain wrong. He always did it. I am not sure that that is entirely a sequitur, but there we are. I took the view that it was for the prosecution to decide with what to proceed. I am troubled at the concept that magistrates—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am talking about plea bargaining.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I hear my noble and learned friend interjecting to say that he is talking only about plea bargaining. I do not like plea bargains at all in any shape or form, but let us let that go. I do not see how magistrates could become involved where the prosecution was prepared to offer no evidence and the accused was going to say in open court, "I am quite prepared to be bound over". That does not seem to be something in which magistrates should be involved. I should be extremely sorry to see the amendment, if it includes that paragraph, being inserted in the Bill. If those provisions are to be included, it would be better if they could be looked into in more detail. Subject to that, however, I have no objection to the amendment and apologise again for entering a discordant note.
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is an important and quite difficult subject. My noble friend Lord Renton has taken some objection to Amendment No. 190, and I should like to say a word about it. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner tabled a somewhat similar amendment in Committee. I said that I was perfectly content with the policy behind it, but expressed a doubt about whether it was necessary. I

451
must have done so more clearly on that occasion than earlier this evening because I think that it was understood. I therefore invited parliamentary counsel to draft an amendment to embody that policy, and to advise. I gave that amendment to my noble and learned friend for his consideration, but in view of the fact that he had proposed an amendment redrafting Clause 69, he did not want to move the amendment that I had suggested to him.
Perhaps I should point out that there is something slightly wrong with the wording of Amendment No. 190. It should seek at page 37, line 33, to insert certain words into Section 26A of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, not into Clause 69 as drafted. The appropriate reference is a minor matter, but we need to keep in view the fact that we should be talking about an insertion into another Act.
On the substance of Amendment No. 195, which is the important amendment, I should like, first, to take up what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. There is no doubt that these days a justices' clerk has an advisory function in relation to the justices and that large administrative functions also form part of his office. In the bigger clerkships, justices' clerks may not be in court all that much; whereas in smaller clerkships they may be in court a great deal. There is quite a variation, but there are some 10,000 staff in the magistrates' courts service throughout England and Wales, and a comparatively small number of very talented justices' clerks who are responsible for managing large staffs. Every justices' clerk has both an administrative and a legal or advisory function in relation to the justices. Therefore, a degree of responsibility in both the advisory and administrative area is inevitable in the present context unless one separates the advisers from the administration so that the advisers only advise the justices. As far as I know, that has never been the practice. It has certainly not been the practice in recent years and it is not the practice now.
In Amendment No. 195, my noble and learned friend proposes to change the whole of Clause 69, altering the basic theory on which I have approached the question. This is not the first time that I have had to address myself to this matter. We have had to do that in two areas and with a degree of precision. I referred to both in Committee. The first relates to the function of the ombudsman. When I arrived in your Lordships' House as Lord Chancellor, a dispute was taking place between the committee in the House of Commons that is responsible for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Lord Chancellor and his judicial colleagues about the extent of the responsibility of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Section 110 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 was the result. Section 110 states that the,
"administrative functions exercisable by any person appointed by the Lord Chancellor as a member of the administrative staff of any court or tribunal shall be taken to be administrative functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department".
But any decisions or work to be done on the instructions, expressed or implied, of a judge were of course excluded from that.
Again, in 1991 the remit of the Home Affairs Select Committee of the other place was extended by
452
Parliament to include the policy, administration and expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Department. It was considered sufficient to exclude the consideration of individual cases in order to safeguard legal or judicial functions. My noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington will remember that matter.
In Standing Order 130 of the other place, the Select Committee's remit is described as excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments. Before I go to the detail of the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, I want to try to indicate why I believe that that is the correct principle. The principal function of a justices' clerk is to advise his or her magistrate. In giving advice on a case, Clause 69 as drafted provides that,
"a justices' clerk shall not be subject to the direction"—
I take the justices' clerk as the example, because it is not just the justices' clerk, there are three heads—
"of the magistrates' courts committee, the chief justices' clerk"—
now the chief executive—
"or any other person".
So his or her advice to the justices in an individual case is not subject to that kind of direction. This is the heart of the matter: someone attempts to tell a justices' clerk what to do, that is translated into action in relation only to the individual case.
My noble and learned friend said, "Well, immediately after the case is decided, someone could say, 'You shouldn't have done that"'. By that time it is too late to affect the case that has already passed, and in any future case the justices' clerk is protected by the fact that no direction, even in that form, is to apply to him or her in relation to any advice he or she gives. Therefore because someone may be told afterwards that he or she should not have done something is no reason for thinking that this method of formulation is not correct. In my view, this is the type of formulation required. I have indicated that I am interested in considering further how it might be elaborated. The principle of dealing with the matter on the basis of an individual case is fundamental to understanding the nature of the concept.
I shall deal with the position under the amendment. I shall not consider it all in detail, but shall take some parts in some detail to show how the method suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and those who have supported him is inappropriate. Subsection (1) provides that a justices' clerk should not be subject to direction on training magistrates. However, the statutory position is that it is the magistrates' courts committee that has the responsibility for the training of magistrates, not the justices' clerk. Unless the magistrates' courts committee instructs the justices' clerk to do training, he or she will have no part in it, so an instruction from the magistrates' courts committee to the justices' clerk to undertake training is essential for the purposes of the justices' clerk having any part in training.
The next aspect that I want to mention is that it is open to magistrates' courts committees to use people other than justices' clerks. It is common to use justices' clerks from time to time, but magistrates' courts committees are by no means confined to using justices'

453
clerks. They can use outside trainers and all types of specialists if they want to, in relation to the training of magistrates. As I said in another connection, the magistrates' courts committee of course consists, in all but a few cases, entirely of magistrates. So surely it is right that they should be in charge of the training and should specify how it is to be done.
My noble and learned friend referred to the part he played in conferences on sentencing. The judges organise their sentencing studies. Sometimes—certainly this is done now —they invite outside people to help them with their studies. From the point of view of organising training, the magistrates' courts committee is much more in the position of the judges. Some of the judges appoint—I have some part in that appointment —the Judicial Studies Board, with a Lord Justice as chairman. They direct what is to happen in the way of training. The magistrates' court committee is, for that purpose, and under the statute, the authority for training magistrates, ensuring that training is provided and monitoring it. Accordingly, that is an inappropriate matter to have in the clause, and I use it as an example only.
There is another point about training. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, I am sure, would wish to be free to teach students as he wishes in relation to a particular subject matter. On the other hand, someone has to organise the curriculum. It would not do if undergraduates were all taught by people merely in accordance with their own interests, because there might well be duplication or omission. So instruction about the nature of the curriculum and the way in which training is to be organised is surely something that it is proper for a magistrates' courts committee to organise. I do not believe that any self-respecting person who is a trainer, whether a justices' clerk or not, would expect to be directed as to the precise content of his or her lectures; but arrangements—who will talk about sentencing, procedure, fact finding and so on—and matters of organisation are proper to be included as part of the administration. Surely arrangements about discussions relating to law, practice or procedure, or otherwise, are another similar matter. Someone has to organise the discussions. Directions are required as to the content of the discussions, and so on. I use those as illustrations to show how difficult it is to proceed in the way that this clause does and on the principle that it uses.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships with more examples in detail. Paragraph (c) refers to,
"training justices of the peace and court staff'.
Unless people receive directions as to how to teach the use of the computer to court staff I find it hard to believe that that will be well done. Surely the training of court staff involves a great deal of administration.
Paragraph (d) is important. It refers to,
"preparing the rota of magistrates and court clerks".
The clause then provides:
"a justices' clerk shall not be subject to the direction of the magistrates' court committee, chief justices' clerk or any other person".
If that goes its full distance it will make the magistrates' courts service unworkable. As part of the operation of appointing magistrates, I direct that magistrates should
454
sit generally for a minimum and maximum number of sittings each year. One therefore does not have the professional lay magistrate, if that is not a contradiction in terms. I have also been in districts in which there have been complaints that, for convenience, the justices' clerk may be inclined to take the magistrates who happen to be nearer to the court, or perhaps particular magistrates whom the justices' clerk in question wishes to have sitting. Surely all your Lordships who have experience of being magistrates know that each magistrate has an important part in preparing the rota. Above all, the Bench chairman has an important part in connection with the rota. So much for the first branch of new Clause 30A.
On that type of formulation similar difficulties arise in relation to subsection (2). Paragraph (a) refers to:
"the date and time on which any criminal or civil case shall be heard".
In so far as that is an operation that will work, it is based on undertaking it in a particular case. But who will decide what time in the morning the court starts? Will it be a judicial function or discretion, not subject to the magistrates' court committee, to decide at what hour in the morning the court should start? In my submission, that would not be conducive to a well managed service.
There are other considerations such as the manner in which, in the aggregate, cases are listed. One of the common complaints that I have received is that some courts ask everyone who is to appear for the whole day to arrive at 10 o'clock in the morning. That may be convenient for the court and the magistrates, and it may be convenient for the justices' clerk, but it is certainly not convenient for many of those who attend. Surely the magistrates who constitute the magistrates' court committee should have the right to deal with that. I am certain that most of your Lordships who have been magistrates will have found yourselves in a situation in which that kind of thing has been discussed generally as part of the management arrangements for the court.
I mentioned legal aid on the previous occasion. One of the important issues about legal aid is that the late Lord Elwyn-Jones carried an amendment to put into the legal aid legislation an appeal from grant or refusal by magistrates' courts to a local committee of the legal aid authority. Therefore, there is an appeal from this decision to the legal aid authorities.
My noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington made a particular point with regard to paragraph (e). If one is trying to list all of these it is hard to know where to stop. It is difficult to list these exhaustively and I could give a number of examples. In my submission, the approach of trying to list what is judicial and what is not is bound to lead to severe difficulty. It is complicated and long. I believe that the real principle is that in advising in a particular case, or in exercising a particular function, the justices' clerk should be free from being subject to directions.
8 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down will he be so good as to deal with the anxiety expressed about legislation by

455
reference to secondary legislation under previous statutes? It arises a: the top of page 38 in the proposed subsection (2) of the new Clause 30A.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry, I should have done so earlier in response to my noble friend's inquiry. The problem is that functions of a character that should be protected can be created under secondary legislation. Undoubtedly, the legal aid regulations, for example, are of that character. It is open to the Lord Chancellor to transfer the grant of criminal legal aid from the courts to the legal aid board. On the previous occasion I indicated that that is not a change I would make lightly, unless there were strong circumstances forcing me to it. Decisions which should be protected on the line of the principle that I have sought to explain in relation to my Clause 69 can arise in relation to functions granted under secondary legislation.
Perhaps I may take one example. Let us suppose that under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act the powers of justices' clerks are extended in the future. I take the view that there may be scope for that, although the justices' clerks and the justices do not always agree on precisely where that boundary should be. I take the view that it might be good to have some extensions in the future. Unless there is a provision of this kind, those powers would not be protected because one cannot tell at this time what they are. It is a future exercise of secondary, subordinate legislative power. In my submission, where that kind of thing is possible it is necessary to have a statutory provision which is apt to include it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to excise the discordant note which caused my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson a little trouble. If one reads paragraph (e) as it is drafted, rather than stopping half-way through, it reads,
"Judicial functions … shall, in relation to justices of the peace, be deemed to include—
(e) whether to accept a plea bargain whereby the prosecutor will withdraw or offer no evidence in return for a binding over".
How anyone who reads that as a single sentence can reach the conclusion that that is not a judicial function I do not know. It is, of course, perhaps more years than I since my noble friend Lord Donaldson has been to a magistrates' court. I happen to know that accepting binding over is a regular feature. It is a judicial function, it cannot be done without the magistrates agreeing to it and it is often they who initiate it.
The other part of the paragraph is even simpler. It continues:
"or a plea of guilty to a less serious offence".
One has only to recall the case of the Yorkshire Ripper, in which the Attorney-General offered to accept a plea of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. The trial judge would not accept that. There was a trial and the Yorkshire Ripper was convicted of murder.
Paragraph (e) is an excellent example of the two judicial functions. I was surprised to find that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor accepted the problems of my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson without further consideration.
456
Perhaps I may now return to the main point. Of course, the magistrates' courts committee has an obligation to make provision for training. It does not dictate the content of the training. My amendment sets out that:
"a justices' clerk shall not be subject to the direction",
of anybody when—and these are the important words:
"giving advice to justices of the peace, whether in the course of training, or in discussions relating to law".
If I am wrong, I can delete the "not" and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would then have spelt out:
"a justices' clerk shall be subject to the direction of the magistrates' courts committee, the chief justices' executive or any other person when giving advice to justices of the peace, whether in the course of training, or in discussions relating to law, practice or procedure, or otherwise".
I find that startling but that is the consequence of what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor suggests or—and I read on:
"advice … on the exercise of their judicial functions or discretion, either in respect of a particular case or in relation to cases generally".
Therefore, on the assumption that I am wrong, the Lord Chancellor would have, as I understand it, this proposition:
"a justices' clerk shall be subject to the direction of the magistrates' courts committee, the justices' chief executive or any other person when advising on the exercise of their judicial functions or discretion, either in respect of a particular case or in relation to cases generally".
Again, that is an astonishing proposition.
My noble and learned friend says that that will be so in a particular case. But on what basis is the justices' clerk not to be protected when advising justices on their judicial functions in relation to cases generally? On that basis, a justices' clerk could be told, "In future, you are to tell the justices that, although the law is that a case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, do not worry too much about that. The balance of probability is good enough". That is what the justices' clerk could be told. I accept that somebody would interfere and say that that is monstrous; but what is monstrous is that he should set foot in that direction to direct the justices' clerk at all on that subject.
I believe that I have said enough to indicate that I have the greatest difficulty in following the rationality of my noble and learned friend's objection. But, with characteristic optimism, I did light upon his observation that he would consider further how Clause 69 as it now stands may be elaborated. It clearly needs elaboration.
If the Government admit that a provision is required to safeguard the independence of judges and their advisers, albeit that they are lay justices, then it is difficult to think of a stronger example where that protection should be spelt out with clarity so that one could see what the protection was, where it might be overstepped and where it ended. Therefore, at this late stage, I do not propose to press the amendment. Of course I shall consider what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, apart from his adoption of what my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson said with regard to paragraph (e). I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will pursue his elaboration.

457
With regard to Amendment No. 190, as always, one is bowled centre stump by my noble friend Lord Renton. It was a platform of the Government's approach to this legislation that magistrates' clerks and now magistrates' chief executives should be subject to fixed term contracts and performance related pay. There was strong objection to that on the basis that it was contrary to the protection of the independence and autonomy of the magistrates' clerk.
I tabled Amendment No. 190 because Amendment No. 195 provides for the protection of the justices' clerk against directions in exercising any judicial power or discretion given to him. It occurred to me that, despite the fact that there is no longer any obligation in the legislation, the contract might specify a fixed term and performance related pay. I should have submitted that that is an indirect way, by the back door, of directing a justices' clerk in the exercise of his own judicial power or discretion—or the possibility of it. Amendment No. 190 was tabled in order to cover that rather concealed situation. However, I shall not press that amendment. In the light of all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 69 [Independence of chief justices' clerk, justices' clerk and staff in relation to legal functions]:
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 37, leave out lines 38 to 40.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 193 to 195 not moved.]
Clause 71 [Organisation of justices' clerks in inner London area]:
[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 196A:
Leave out Clause 71 and insert the following new clause:
Appointment of justices' clerks in inner London area
"( ) (1) Section 37 of the 1979 Act (which obliges the committee of magistrates for the inner London area to appoint a principal chief clerk and chief clerks, together with such senior deputy chief clerks, deputy chief clerks and other officers as may be necessary) shall cease to have effect, save that the magistrates' courts committee for the inner London area shall appoint a chief justices' clerk and one or more justices' clerks for each petty sessional division of that area and one or more justices' clerks for the youth courts and family proceedings courts for that area and the City of London.

(2)Any person who, immediately before the commencement of subsection (1) above, holds office as principal chief clerk for the inner London area, shall be taken to have been appointed chief justices' clerk by the magistrates' courts committee for the inner London area in accordance with Section 24D of the 1979 Act.1

(3)Any person who, immediately before the commencement of subsection (1) above holds office as a chief clerk in the inner London area or for the youth courts or family proceedings courts for that area and the City of London, shall be taken to have been appointed by the magistrates' courts committee for the inner London area as a justices' clerk in that area in accordance with Section 25 of the 1979 Act.

(4)Persons holding office as senior deputy chief clerk and deputy chief clerk at the commencement of this Act shall not be dismissed by the magistrates' courts committee for the inner London area without the approval of the Lord Chancellor, and
458
before approving the dismissal of any such clerk, the Lord Chancellor shall consider any representations made to him by the clerk.

(5)Nothing in Section 26A(1) to (4) of the 1979 Act shall have effect in relation to a person to whom subsections (2) or (3) above apply.

(6)Any person to whom subsections (2) or (3) above apply shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.

(7)Any reference in any instrument or document to a chief clerk for any petty sessional division of the inner London area or for the youth courts or family proceedings courts for that area and the City of London shall have effect in relation to any time after the commencement of subsection (1) above as a reference to a justices' clerk for that petty sessional division or, as the case may be for those courts.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment originates with the Inner London Magistrates' Clerks' Association. I owe the noble and learned Lord some apologies with regard to this amendment. First, I should have tabled it in Committee but it was not ready. Secondly, I should have written to the noble and learned Lord to explain the points a little earlier. However, the Inner London Magistrates' Clerks' Association held its annual general meeting and changed officers half way between Committee and Report stages. Therefore, the amendment reached me for the first time at four o'clock yesterday. It should have gone to someone with more experience in these matters than myself. Adding. those facts to the fact that I know that I am standing between the House and its dinner, I shall not be long. I feel as nervous as a new father, not knowing which end to hold.
Previously the inner London magistrates' courts, which between them handle 10 per cent. of the magistrates' courts business in this country, have powers resting on Section 37 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. The people in inner London are concerned that the replacement of that section is in some points defective because in inner London there is not a purely divisional structure; for example, the youth and family courts are separate from the divisional structure. Also, the Bill does not appear to have taken account of the fact that in some areas such as Westminster, there are two chief clerks to deal with the press of business.
It is feared in inner London that the Bill may have inadvertently made some of its courts illegal. However, I am sure that that was not the intention of the Bill. If there is any technical defect in drafting, I am sure that the noble and learned would be the first to want to look at it again. The objective is simply to continue the status quo and have the Bill so drafted that it should remain legal.
I am aware that the amendment is defective in one or two points, but it was not so when it was drafted. It is in relation to the City of London, regarding what was said on Amendment No. 154—which, incidentally I was glad to hear —and, of course, it is in relation to the justices' chief executive. All I want the noble and learned Lord to do is to take the amendment away and consider it before Third Reading. If there is any technical ground for concern, perhaps he will give it his attention and decide what ought to be done. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for what he said. I have had an opportunity to consider the amendment to some

459
extent since he tabled it. In my view, some aspects of the amendment are unnecessary. For example, the amendment places a requirement on the inner-London magistrates' courts committee to appoint a justices' chief executive (as will be the case when we have dealt with all the amendments) but such a requirement is already in place in the new Section 24D(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 inserted by Clause 66 of the Bill. There are also some other technical points that I wish to consider further.
However, I recognise that the main element of the amendment is to preserve the right of those at present holding offices of senior deputy chief clerk, or deputy chief clerk to appeal to the Lord Chancellor in the event of their dismissal from that grade by the committee. I am entirely happy to accept that proposal. My officials have advised the chairman of the inner-London Magistrates' Clerks Association who raised the point of my views. One of the worries that was expressed to me by the inner-London service was that, if some of the suggestions being advocated against my main proposals were accepted, they would run counter to what is presently done in inner London and changes would then have to be made.
In future, I envisage that appointments as deputy justices' clerk in inner London will, as elsewhere, be a matter in which the Lord Chancellor takes no part. It is an illustration that, far from centralising, I am seeking to do the opposite. It would also be consistent for those new post holders to have the same arrangements in the event of their dismissal as deputy justices' clerks elsewhere in other parts of the country. However, I appreciate that for deputy and senior deputy chief clerks at present employed in the service, the position is different and that their rights of appeal should be preserved.
1 would be content to ensure that all those in the grade of deputy chief clerk or senior deputy chief clerk, immediately before the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Alt, would retain a right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor in the event of their dismissal from that grade. I believe that it may be possible to do that under the transitional provisions. However, I have indicated quite plainly that it is my intention that that should be preserved for existing holders. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for those assurances. Therefore, in the light of them, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 [Administrative and financial arrangements for magistrates' courts]: [Amendments Nos. 197 to 200 not moved.]
Clause 76 [Inspectors of the magistrates' courts service]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 43, line 17, at end insert:
460
("( ) The members of the Inspectorate referred to in subsection (1) shall include a significant number of persons with previous experience as magistrates and as justices' clerks, some of whom may be on temporary assignment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I made reference to the matter in Committee when I emphasised the importance of the inspectorate having the confidence of those it inspected. I took the point that my noble and learned friend made about the value of the inspectorate being independent. However, that does not mean that it should be totally inexperienced in professional matters which it is required to inspect. Accordingly, I suggest that it is important that the Bill should clearly state that some members of the inspectorate must have some practical experience in the matters that are being inspected. My amendment suggests a way in which that could be achieved. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to view the amendment with a certain amount of sympathy, even if he does not like the exact wording as it stands. I beg to move.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to the amendment moved by the noble Lord., Lord Mottistone. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord confirmed that the inspectorate would consist of 17 members, three of whom would be magistrates and one a deputy clerk. I believe that we may safely infer from that that the remaining 13 members would be entering, so to speak, virgin territory when they start to assess court performance.
I am not against the latter in principle. It is often the case that those free of preconceived ideas or who have not been answerable to the traditions and disciplines of a certain way of life can the more easily cut through the prejudices and any lack of imagination which they may encounter. However, it occurs to me that restricting those with hands on experience to a total of four out of 17 is carrying the theory to extremes. Accordingly, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether there is a case for increasing the representation of court-experienced people in the inspectorate.
My other point is more administrative in nature but is, nevertheless, loosely related. Who is to instruct those newcomers to the service, presumably by means of a crash course in view of the time factor? How will the course be structured? If the imbalance is to be so pronounced as between experienced and non-experienced inspectors, I suggest that those questions are of some importance. Finally, but still on the breakdown of numbers, the imbalance already referred to must mean that some teams will have no members with court experience. Alternatively, will steps be taken to ensure that that is not the case?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I sought to make clear from the early days of the inspectorate that recruitment to it should be by open competition and that successful candidates should be accepted on their merits. The inspectorate's purpose is to help ensure that the magistrates' courts provide a high standard of public service with efficient use of resources. It is vital that the inspectorate is able to recruit people of the highest calibre to fulfil that important task, and that, in fulfilling that aim, it should be able to look at candidates from as

461
wide a pool as possible. The recruitment of inspectors has been directed by the chief inspector; rigorous and well-established methods have been used to provide what I believe is a high quality, well-balanced team. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, I hope that the team will command the respect of the service.
I do not in any sense underestimate the potential contribution to the work of the inspectorate by those who are or have been involved in the service. As regards members of the inspectorate already recruited, I believe that I have already given the details of those who belong to the service in one way or another. In addition, as I believe I explained in Committee, the chief inspector has taken an important initiative. She has suggested to the service that the inspection team should be supplemented by serving members of the service on short-term secondment, obviously from a different part of the service. I understand that there has been a positive response from the service. That measure, added to the knowledge and variety of expertise already in the inspection teams will, I believe, provide a very satisfactory balance.
That approach has much credibility and likelihood of success. I hope that your Lordships will allow us to continue with that flexibility which has been used in connection with the way in which the inspectorate has been set up. I have every confidence in the chief inspector as one who will wish to make a real success of this, combining knowledge of the service inspected with a sense of independence of the service. If I may say so, I believe that the quality of advice that the chief inspector gave us in relation to the earlier amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone about the involvement in the question of amalgamation indicates the sort of level of sensitivity to the demands of her task as regards such a responsibility.
While I shall certainly do my best to ensure that the inspectorate has sufficient service knowledge and experience to be respected in the service, it must be flexible and we must from time to time proceed as the best people available come forward in answer to advertisements.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend and I take this opportunity to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for his great support on many amendments at both stages of the Bill. I hope that we shall have a chance to work together again. I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his remarks. I appreciate that it might be asking too much to include a provision along the lines I have suggested in the Bill at this stage. I hope that what he has said materialises and furthermore that it continues to do so through the succeeding years long after my noble and learned friend has gone on to something better. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 [Powers of inspectors]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 44, line 4, at end insert:
("(c) to attend any meeting of the magistrates' courts committee unless invited by the Chairman, or
(d) to comment on or seek to influence the exercise of a judicial function or discretion.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 77 which is sidelined "Powers of inspectors". In subsection (2) there is provision specifically made that the inspector is not entitled,

"(a) to be present when a magistrates' court is hearing proceedings in private, or

(b) to attend any private deliberations of the justices of the peace".

Amendment No. 202 suggests that two further prohibitions should be added to the subsection; namely,
"(c) to attend any meeting of the magistrates' courts committee unless invited by the Chairman, or
(d) to comment on or seek to influence the exercise of a judicial function or discretion".
This, again, is an attempt to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is not interfered with by the Executive. I appreciate that that is an uphill task as regards a large proportion of this legislation. This was the subject of an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and an amendment by myself in Committee. I think that we have taken the best out of both amendments, which means taking most of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and less of mine, and amalgamating them together. This is the product—hence our joint names to this amendment.
In regard to the first of the additions proposed in Amendment No. 202 at paragraph (c), at Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, while doubting that it was at all necessary said,
"If your Lordships are keen to set such provisions absolutely, no doubt something along the lines of the first paragraph of the amendment would be acceptable"—[Official Report, 22/2/94; col. 613.]
I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will agree that what is in that paragraph is perfectly straightforward and sensible. It does not prohibit attending any meeting: it says that there is no right to attend the meeting without being invited to do so. Paragraph (d) of Amendment No. 202 states:
"to comment on or seek to influence the exercise of a judicial function or discretion".
I should have thought that that speaks for itself. My noble and learned friend has said that that provision is quite unnecessary because it goes without saying. I understand that sentiment without agreeing with it. I would still say that in this Bill this type of provision is essential.
We started the Second Reading by pointing out to what extent the independence of the judiciary, in relation to the justices themselves and in relation to their legal advisers, was open to be prejudiced. Our submissions were accepted to a fairly significant extent. That is why we believe that this is a Bill where, when it comes to independence, specific provision should be spelt out, as indeed in an opaque manner the Government have sought to do in Clause 69 which has been the subject matter of my earlier criticisms. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I of course strongly support this amendment. I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has tabled this amendment again, although I must admit that my noble and learned friend expressed strong preference for leaving the matter alone. Somehow I do not think that that is quite right in this circumstance. I believe we need a little more detail, along the lines that we have suggested in this clause, which indicates the restraints that are necessary for the inspectorate. It is easy at this stage of the game to say that everything will be all right because people are so splendid now, they are totally under control and they are new and trying hard. However, as time goes on, people may become a little presumptuous as to what they can do. That is borne out by the paragraphs already in the subsection, which indicate that there needs to be a bit of restraint on the inspectorate.
If the matter was as easy as all that, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor tried to indicate at col. 613 of Hansard of 22nd February 1994—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has quoted the relevant sentence —it would not have been necessary to have included the paragraphs in the subsection that are already in the Bill. should have thought that one must remember what happens as time goes on. One wants to make the primary legislation as comprehensive as it needs to be to cover this matter. I believe we should give this matter further thought.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have expressed a view on this matter before. I find myself in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I can understand the reluctance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this matter. but for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, it seems to me that it would be highly desirable to incorporate this amendment in the Bill. I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the first part of the amendment, in my submission it is a management committee—the magistrates' courts committee—that is in question here. I cannot see why the inspector should be debarred from magistrates' courts committees in the way proposed in the amendment unless he is "invited by the Chairman". As I have said before, I would expect that the magistrates' courts committee would think it wise to invite the inspectorate. However, the magistrates' courts committee is a management committee with responsibilities for management. We are not talking about the private deliberations of the justices in a particular case. I personally feel that it would be wrong to make it possible to hide anything in relation to the management of a magistrates' courts committee from the inspectorate. I would not for a moment think that magistrates' courts committees would want to do that, but if they did, I would suspect that the reason might not be a good one.
As regards the second part of the amendment, one has to remember that the whole function of the magistrates' courts service is to provide support for the judicial function. The better it is managed, the better the judicial function will be exercised. We all know that justice
464
delayed is justice denied. The management of the justice system is therefore extremely important as regards whether or not the system is delivering justice. My submission to your Lordships is that to include paragraph (d) in its present form might improperly limit what the inspectorate is there to do, which is of course to inspect the administration of the system which is aimed at delivering justice. Accordingly I would invite your Lordships not to agree to this amendment and to leave matters as they are in the Bill.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, as a result of this amendment not being accepted, it would appear that my noble and learned friend is saying that an inspector will be entitled to attend a magistrates' courts committee meeting when the chairman of the committee has said in terms, "I do not want you to attend". That i s the result of saying, "You are not entitled to this". It goes even further. The result of negativing paragraph (d), as I understand my noble and learned friend, is not because it goes without saying, but the reverse. An inspector is entitled to,
"comment on or seek to influence the exercise of a judicial function or discretion".
That is as astonishing as my noble and learned friend's comments on part of my amendment to Clause 69. I cannot believe for one moment that that is the thought-through attitude of the Government.
Because it is late and we have all been deprived of any protein intake for a long time, I shall not press the amendment in the hope that nourishment at a later stage will enable my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to recognise the extraordinary situation which results from the observations which he has addressed to your Lordships. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 [Default powers]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 44, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) Before making an order under subsection (2) below, the Lord Chancellor shall give a written warning to the magistrates' courts committee specifying the default or defaults to which the order relates.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been brought forward as a result of points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner when discussing an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I had intended that these procedures would be followed in any event, but it is right that they should be specified in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Magistrates' courts: minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 69, leave out lines 42 to 45 and insert:
("1.—(1) Section 12 of the 1979 Act (travelling, subsistence and financial loss allowances) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—

465
"(b) in relation to the inner London area—

(i)the council of the inner London borough which is or includes the petty sessions area for which the justice acts, or

(ii)where the justice acts for a petty sessions area which is partly included in two or more inner London boroughs, the councils of those boroughs;".

(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(5A) Where by virtue of subsection (5) (b) (ii) above an allowance under this section is payable jointly by two or more inner London boroughs, the manner in which it is to be borne by each of them shall be determined by agreement between them or, in default of agreement, by the Lord Chancellor." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 204 is a technical amendment consequential on provisions in Part IV of the Bill. The arrangements in the inner London service are such that some petty sessional divisions cross borough boundaries. Amendment No. 204 will enable the payment of justices' clerks' allowances under Section 12 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 to be apportioned between two or more inner London boroughs.
Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 replace the amendments to Sections 23 and 24 of the 1979 Act which make provision for the review by the relevant magistrates' courts committee of the division of a non-metropolitan county, metropolitan district, the inner London area or any of the outer London boroughs into petty sessional divisions. The amendments substitute for references to county, district, inner London area or outer London borough references to a magistrates' courts committee area. This is in order to make provision for the eventuality that, following amalgamation of committee areas under Clause 60 of the Bill, the altered committee area may no longer relate to a single county, district or London borough.
Amendment No. 207 makes absolutely clear that the preceding amendments to Sections 23 and 24 of the 1979 Act do not affect the existing provision that the City shall not be divided into petty sessional divisions.
Amendment No. 211 adds the new post of justices' chief clerk to the list in Schedule 1, paragraph 1, group B of the Juries Act 1974 of those ineligible for jury service.
Amendment No. 212 relates to the Road Traffic Offenders' Act 1988. Section 82 of that Act provides that each local authority is responsible for funding the activities of the justices' clerks for a petty sessions area. Amendment No. 212 has the effect of ensuring that the section will work where (under the 1979 Act, as amended by the Bill) the salary of a justices' clerk for a petty sessions area is an expense of the magistrates' courts committee for that area and there may be more than one local authority contributing to the expenses of each committee.
Amendment No. 221 adds two further items to the list of statutes repealed. Amendments Nos. 222, 223 and 224 relate to appeals consequential on earlier government amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 205 to 207:
466
Page 70, leave out lines 31 to 41 and insert:
("(a) the words from "acting" to "boroughs" shall cease to have effect, and
(b) for the words "the county, district or borough" there shall be substituted the words "their area".
(3) In subsection (2) for the words "the county, district or borough, as the case may be" there shall be substituted the words "their area".
(4) In subsection (4) for the words "a non-metropolitan county or metropolitan district or any of the outer London boroughs", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "an area".").
Page 70, leave out lines 44 to 49 and insert:
("(2) In subsection (1) (a)—

(a) for the words "council of the" there shall be substituted the words "council of every",

(b) the word "outer" shall be omitted, and

(c) for the word "concerned" there shall be substituted the words "which includes all or part of the area".

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) for the words "council of the" there shall be substituted the words "council of every",

(b) the word "outer" shall be omitted, and

(c) for the word "concerned" there shall be substituted the words "which includes all or part of the area".").

Page 71, line 42, at end insert:
("In section 42 (no petty sessional divisions in the City) for the words "section 41 above" there shall be substituted the words "this Act".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 205, 206 and 207. With your Lordships' approval, I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 72, line 21, leave out ("in").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 208 and 209 deal with the arrangements for compensation for loss of office. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, tabled an amendment at Committee stage on this issue and I undertook then to bring forward my own amendment. I agree with the noble Lord that authorities responsible for compensation payments which apply to the magistrates' courts service should be eligible for grant in all cases.
Two forms of redundancy arrangements apply to the magistrates' courts service. First, there are payments under the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (Compensation) Regulations 1978. Secondly there are arrangements applying more generally across the public sector under the Local Government (Compensation for Premature Retirement) Regulations 1982.
At present, compensation paid under the 1982 regulations ranks for grant, but compensation payments made under the 1978 regulations do not. The amendment provides that compensation payments under the 1978 regulations are to rank for grant. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation. This was an anomaly which was clearly not intended. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting it right, as indeed for so much in the consideration of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 72, line 21, after ("authorities)") insert ("shall be amended as follows.

467
(2)In subsection(1)—

(a)in paragraph (b) after the word "7" there shall be inserted the words "or 24", and

(b)for the word "and" immediately following that paragraph there shall be substituted

"(bb) of their functions under any regulations having effect by virtue of paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 1 to this Act; and"
(3)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 208. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 210 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 211 and 212:
Page 73, line 4, at end insert:
("Juries Act 1974
In Schedule I to the Juries Act 1974, in Group B of Part I (persons ineligible) for the entry beginning "Justices' clerks" there shall be substitu: ed—
"Justices' chief clerks, justices' clerks and justices' clerks' assistants." ").
Page 73, line 18, at end insert:
("Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
In section 82 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (accounting for fixed penalties in England and Wales), for subsection (2) there stall be substituted—
"(2) Where, in England and Wales, a justices' clerk for a petty session:; area comprised in the area of one magistrates' coins committee ("the first committee") discharges functions in connection with a fixed penalty for an offence alleged to have been committed in a petty sessions area comprised in the area of another magistrates' courts committee ("the second committee")—

(a) the paying authority or authorities in relation to the second committee must make to the paying authority or authorities in relation to the first committee such payment in connection with the discharge of those functions as may be agreed between all the paying authorities concerned or, in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor, and

(b) any such payment between paying authorities shall be taken into account in determining for the purposes of section 59 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 the net cost to the responsible authorities of the functions referred to in subsection (I) of that section.

(2A) In subsection (2) above "paying authority" and "responsible authority" have the same meaning as in section 55 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 en bloc. I have already spoken to the amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 213 not moved.]
Clause 84 [Commencement and transitional provisions]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 214 and 215:
Page 46, line 10, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (2A)").
Page 46, line 18, at end insert:
("(2A) So far as they relate to the power to make orders under the section inserted by section (Membership of police authorities etc.) above, the provisions of

(a)section (Membership of police authorities etc.), and

(b)Schedule 2,

shall come into force 0:1 the passing of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. With the leave of the House, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 86 [Extent]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 47, line 28, leave out (", 39 and 40") and insert ("and 39").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 217 to 219 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 75, column 3, leave out line 9.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 221 to 224:
Page 80, line 8, at end insert:
("60 & 61 Viot. c. 26. The Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1897. Sections 3 and 4. 14 & 15 Geo. 6 c. 65. The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951. In section 48 the words "or justices' clerk".").
Page 80, line 23, column 3, leave out from (-section") to ("the") in line 25 and insert ("12(7)").
Page 80, line 34, column 3, at end insert:
("In section 23, in subsection (1) the words from "acting ' to "boroughs".").
Page 80, line 35, column 3, after ("24") insert ("in subsections (1) (a) and (2), the word "outer" and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 221 to 224 were spoken to with Amendment No. 204. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Morley Bill, and read a first time.

Prevention of Terrorism (TemporaryProvisions) Act 1989 (Continuance)Order 1994
8.50 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it is now 20 years since the first prevention of terrorism legislation was considered by this House. It was introduced as a temporary measure and, in he Government's view, should still be regarded as such, for

469
we continue to cherish the hope that the day will dawn when the exceptional powers which it contains will no longer be necessary.
The Joint Declaration which was made by the Prime Minister and the Taioseach on 15th December offered new hope for peace in Northern Ireland. For that reason it was very widely welcomed in this country and in those many other parts of the world that take a close interest in Northern Ireland. It is therefore a cause of great disappointment that far from declaring a halt to their campaign of violence, the terrorists have continued to inflict suffering and misery on the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain. In the period since the Joint Declaration was made on 15th December, nine people have died and 55 have been injured at the hands of terrorists. It is clear, therefore, that we need to maintain our defences against the terrorist threat. The Prevention of Terrorism Act forms an essential part of those defences throughout the United Kingdom.
Coming first to Northern Ireland, terrorism continues to cast a dark shadow over daily life. Eighty-four people were killed there in some 730 incidents last year, and 834 were injured. The high levels of sectarian violence which led to the frightful attack in the Shankhill Road in October, and the appalling massacre in Greysteel which was carried out in reprisal, are particularly worrying. In Great Britain we recall the terrorist outrage in Warrington last March which took the lives of two young children and caused terrible injuries to a number of other people simply going about their ordinary daily lives. Not long afterwards the bombing in the City of London claimed another life and yet more injuries and caused massive damage to property. Last year in Great Britain there were 49 terrorist incidents in total, in which three people died and 124 were injured. More recently, of course, there was the series of attacks on Heathrow Airport. This was a truly contemptible piece of work which simply served to show that the Provisional IRA are perfectly willing to carry out crimes which endanger the lives of ordinary people of all nationalities.
The police and the security forces in Great Britain and Northern Ireland have, however, achieved a considerable measure of success against the terrorists. In Northern Ireland this year alone, 70 people have been charged with serious terrorist offences, 18 of those with murder or attempted murder. During the course of last year nearly 400 people were charged with terrorist offences in the Province. The security forces also recovered more than 250 weapons and four tonnes of explosives. If that sounds a very large quantity of explosives, it is a sobering fact that more than six-and-a-half tonnes of explosive were made safe by bomb disposal officers.
In Great Britain, 22 people were charged with serious terrorist offences last year. Thirteen people were convicted of such offences and sentenced to very long terms of imprisonment. Several arrests during the year undoubtedly helped to disrupt terrorist activity on the mainland, and large quantities of weapons and explosives were discovered here too. Such achievements do not come easily. They are hard won by the
470
courage, determination, skill and vigilance of the police and others upon whom we rely to protect us from the menace of terrorist crime. Fourteen members of the security forces lost their lives in the fight against terrorism last year. Many more were injured, some very seriously. We owe them all an immense debt of gratitude. We also owe it to them to ensure that they have at their disposal all the powers and resources which they need to carry out their difficult, and often dangerous work.
The powers which are available under the Prevention of Terrorism Act have continued to play a major part in the fight against terrorism. Without those powers the police would find it much more difficult to prevent attacks and to investigate terrorist crime. The provisions of the Act are, however—and I emphasise this—exceptional in nature. They give to the police and to the Secretary of State powers beyond those which could ever be justified in the absence of the exceptional threat from terrorism. For that reason it is particularly important that the operation of the Act is reviewed each year by a distinguished and independent person. His report greatly assists Parliament in its consideration of the continuance order. The House will know that this year the report by Mr. John Rowe, Queen's Counsel, was placed in the Library on 11th February. He was the distinguished chairman of the Bar Council and he follows in the footsteps of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, to whom we continue to be indebted for discharging this responsibility in the previous seven years.
Mr. Rowe concluded, as did his predecessor, that the powers in the Act continue to be needed. Following a careful scrutiny, during which he had full access to all the records, including the intelligence material on which many decisions are based, he was satisfied that the powers had been exercised with great care and discretion. This will not come as any surprise to those of your Lordships who have followed these matters over the years. Only the highest standards are acceptable in the exercise of the exceptional powers contained in the Act. Two of those powers, however, have been criticised from time to time by those who maintain that they are not justified even as a response to the grave threat from terrorism. I refer to the powers of arrest and detention and the power of exclusion. I shall deal with them in turn.
The Act gives the police the power to arrest a person on reasonable suspicion that he or she is involved in terrorism. This power is not available, of course, in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the equivalent Acts in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Those Acts provide the power of arrest only when a specific, identifiable offence has been, is being or is about to be, committed. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, on the other hand, gives the police a pre-emptive power to arrest at the preparatory stage of the commission of terrorist crimes. This point is crucial to the understanding of the purpose of the Act. It is essentially a preventive measure. If the police had to wait until they had evidence that a specific, identifiable terrorist offence was planned, they would, in many cases, be too late and lives would be lost as a result.

471
A person who his been detained under the Act may be held for questioning by police for a maximum of 48 hours. If the police require more time to complete their investigation, they may apply to the Secretary of State who may authorise continued detention of up to a maximum of seven days in all. That is designed to allow the police enough time to determine whether sufficient admissible evidence can be assembled to convert the reasonable suspicion on which the arrest was based into a charge for a specific terrorist offence. Terrorist investigations are among the most complex which the police conduct. In his 1987 review, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, published a list of grounds upon which extensions of detention may be justified. Forensic tests, for example, are particularly important in terrorist investigations. But they take some time to complete.
Your Lordships will be aware that the power to extend detention on the authority of the Secretary of State required the United Kingdom to derogate from Article 5(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights, following a ruling on the Brogan case that the convention would normally require a suspect to be brought before a judicial authority within four days. The Government took the step of derogation with very great reluctance and, having taken it, immediately proceeded to undertake a careful study of whether it would be possible to introduce a judicial element into the procedure for authorising extensions of detention. The object was to try to find a procedure which would be compatible with the provisions of the convention but which would not weaken the effectiveness of the response to terrorism.
Unfortunately, the Government were unable to identify a satisfactory procedure of that kind. We came up against the same problems which led each of the noble Lords who have in the past carried out major reviews of the Act—Lord Shackleton in 1978; Lord Jellicoe in 1983; and Lord Colville in 1987—to conclude that the issues involved are simply not justiciable. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers reported to this House in November 1989:
"Decisions to authorise the detention of terrorist suspects for periods beyond 48 hours may be, and often are, taken on the basis of information, the nature and source of which could not be revealed to a suspect or his legal adviser without serious risk to individuals assisting the police or the prospect of further valuable intelligence being lost. Any new procedure which avoided those dangers by allowing a court to make a decision on information not presented to the detainee or his legal adviser would represent a radical departure from the principles which govern judicial proceedings in this country and could seriously affect public trust and confidence in the independence of the judiciary. The Government would be most reluctant to introduce any new procedure which could have this effect."
The Government concluded at that time that the present arrangements were the best that could be devised. Again, this reflected the conclusions which had already been reached separately by the noble Lords who, as I have already mentioned, carried out their own comprehensive reviews of the Act. In May last year, in the case of Brannigan v. McBride, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the right of the United Kingdom to derogate from Article 5(3) of the Convention in respect of Northern Irish terrorism.
The second of the Act's major powers which some
472
would like to see ended, is the power of exclusion. At the end of 1993, 71 people were subject to an exclusion order made by the Home Secretary, a reduction of eight since 31st December 1992, and indeed the lowest figure at the end of any year since 1975. A further nine orders made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland were in force. In his report, Mr. Rowe rightly acknowledges that opinion as to the value of exclusion orders is not unanimous, but he also notes that there are strong arguments in favour of their retention. In the Government's view these are decisive.
The police regard exclusion as a useful preventive measure. It disrupts the movement of terrorists in both directions across the Irish Sea and it reduces the pool of personnel on whom the terrorists can safely draw. 'The police do not believe that the alternative measures that have been suggested—such as mounting surveillance operations on all those who would at present be excluded—are realistic.
In conclusion, I say to your Lordships that the Government will not shirk their responsibility to deal with terrorism. We simply must not give any ground for belief that we are weakening in our determination and resolve to stamp out terrorism. We are determined to ensure that the police and others engaged An the fight against terrorism have the powers that they need to do the work which we entrust to them. Those powers are contained in the Act which your Lordships are invited now to continue in force. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
9.4 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I support the continuation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Since our last debate on these orders there have been 730 terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland and 84 people have been killed and 826 injured; arid in over 55 incidents in Great Britain, three people have been killed and 124 injured.
I believe that the Prevention of Terrorism Act is totally necessary. Without it, terrorism by the Provisional IRA would run rife throughout the Province. More than likely the Protestant paramilitaries, under the umbrella of the Ulster Volunteer Force, would react. We have had a taste of that in recent times in Northern Ireland. The Prevention of Terrorism Act at least helps to keep a lid on that. Over 350 persons have been charged with terrorist related offences over the past 12 months; over 250 guns and rocket launchers have been recovered; and over 12,000 kilograms of explosives have been found and neutralised. thanks to the diligence of the security forces in the Province, backed by the provisions of the Act. One can just imagine what an escalation of terrorism there could be with those men, guns and explosives back on the streets. Even in Great Britain, 22 people have been charged with serious terrorist offences in the past year and large quantities of terrorist equipment have been discovered. In that regard perhaps the Minister will report upon the increasing liaison between MI5 and the Scotland Yard

473
anti-terrorist squads in these operations and what one hopes is the creation of a network of intelligence gathering and joint operations.
I know that there is concern about the extension of time that a suspect can be held under these orders. But the results show that of those held for up to five or seven days, 25 per cent. in Northern Ireland were charged. Even in Great Britain, of those held 17 were charged with serious terrorist offences. Without the extension more terrorists would now be active. As one who has given consent to extensions—the Secretary of State is involved in each case—I am fully aware of the particular requirement of holding suspects for more than three days after interrogation to check forensic evidence. Time is needed to ascertain fingerprint evidence on arms and explosives used in terrorist activity to enable the charge to be laid. Even the exclusion orders enable the RUC to keep a watch on, and some control over, suspects, some of whom have been involved in terrorist related activity.
Some people complain about the orders. The libertarians complain that we have to seek derogation from the European convention on these matters. No doubt Spain, with the Basque terrorists, and Germany, with the Bader-Meinhof gang, would not have had any difficulty with the convention either. The libertarians must understand that we forfeit a little liberty to save and secure a lot of freedom. That is the crux of anti-terrorist legislation.
Even since the Downing Street declaration there have been over 140 terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. There have been nine deaths and 55 people have been injured. It would have been hundreds more if the mortar bombs had exploded at Heathrow. The Provisional IRA no longer singles out members of the security forces and Government Crown buildings alone for death and destruction. The Heathrow attacks could have killed and maimed hundreds of innocent civilians. There have been attacks on places where hundreds of civilians congregate, any one of which could have involved mass murder: Victoria Station, the City and major airports. With such examples, how can we not support the PTA? Indeed, has not the time arrived to look afresh at what more can be done to deal more effectively with these crazed criminals? They have no political support. They have no backing from the public in Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the Republic. Politically, the Government have nothing to fear in taking a tougher line against terrorism.
Since the Joint Declaration, the Government may well have given the impression of adopting a laid back policy. The Provisional IRA has ignored their call to renounce violence and indeed has stepped up its activity. People believe that it has cocked a snook at both governments. Should it not now be shunned and progress be made on constitutional change? Should not we move ahead and totally ignore the Provisional Sinn Fein?
One course would be to announce that Dublin, Great Britain and Northern Ireland talks will re-commence —although I recognise the problems with the pending elections. There is a need for the smack of firm
474
government in isolating the Provisional Sinn Fein now. To make political progress we cannot allow that insignificant political minority to hold to ransom the two governments. We do not have to abandon the Joint Declaration but we cannot have the continuation of a political vacuum.
Another course could be taken; namely, to give a clear indication to all the party leaders in the Province that there is no united Ireland in the offing and none in the foreseeable future. The Taoiseach knows that only too well. Her Majesty's Government could go ahead with talks on constitutional change involving more devolved democratic powers to local government within the Province. After all, it is part of the United Kingdom. The majority will decree that for years to come. So let us put it on the same democratic plane as Scotland and Wales. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Select Committee is a useful first step.
Meantime, why do we not step up anti-terrorist activity? I have always believed that the harassment of suspected terrorists pays. There should be frequent swoops on men and women known in the terrorist groups. We should use the extension powers to the full. Let their friends flee across the border. We can await their return and swoop again. If Dublin wants to help, let the Garda and Irish army co-operate with our security forces in each operation on the border. Meantime, internment is on the shelf, ready to be used. But selective detention is lawful within the PTA for three, five or seven days, and it should be extensively used.
I refer once again to an issue I have raised many times in this House. Let the Government consider introducing a national identity card scheme. Put a face to a name and a name to a face. The country is now prepared for it more than ever. In tackling terrorism, we should be using all the modern devices of our age. The police and the security forces would welcome its introduction. The innocent will not mind. Only the guilty will walk in fear. There is too much hesitation on these matters, considering how much more we could do to tackle terrorism seriously.
Finally, I should like to place on record my appreciation of the unstinting efforts of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—a dedicated team of officers and men without parallel in the police services of the world. For 25 years they have been combating terrorists within their own land. They are constantly under threat, suffering death and injuries year after year. Their morale and dedication to law and order have to be admired by all. We owe them a great debt.
The professionalism of our Armed Forces and all services has been superb. They have shown skill, fortitude and patience, constantly returning for tour after tour in the Province. I am pleased that their efforts are now being recognised with the minting of a new medal, the accumulated service medal, for which I have campaigned over many years. If the Minister can help, I should like to be brought up to date as to the position of the new medal and how many of our servicemen are likely to benefit. In that regard especially, I hope that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be considered for some similar recognition for their years of service.

475
Mr. J. J. Rowe QC was the independent person called upon to examine the operations of the Act. He said that the Act should continue in force and added, "I have no doubt about that." That goes for me too.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I should like to mention how much I welcome the report by Mr. John Rowe. It has fulfilled all my expectations that a fresh pair of eyes would light upon new aspects of this subject; indeed there are matters contained in the report which I wish his predecessor had thought fit to explore. Now, noble Lords have the benefit of what he has done.
I wish to confine myself to one aspect, the first of the two major issues which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, touched upon in his speech. I do not look upon this matter as one that should be brought into party politics: it is far too important. As far as I am concerned it is entirely coincidental that it was raised in a debate in another place on 9th March by the honourable gentleman the Member for Sedgefield. He wanted to involve the judiciary in the system of extensions of detention under the legislation. He stated that the purpose of an element of judicial control was not just to provide a process of legal reasoning or logic but that the judicial element would be independent of the executive and that the liberty of the subject should not be taken away by a politician but by the court. That was a point that was made very forcefully to me in 1987 when I carried out the major review of the Act. I found that view to be extraordinarily attractive. I therefore went back to first principles and, in the report that I wrote Command 264, I developed my own views on that matter in Chapter 12. I am afraid that I came to the same conclusion that has been reached by others, that it was not possible to do it. Then came the Brogan case and the Government also thought the matter through, from first principles. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, has quoted from the Written Answer in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington (as he now is), about the position that the Government took after their re-examination.
I was disappointed that the Written Answer did not go into a little more detail. Therefore, in the report that I wrote on the Act in 1990, I looked at the United Kingdom legal systems because after a little research it seemed a very strange thing that we in this country should be rapped over the knuckles by the court in Strasbourg for keeping people in detention for up to seven days, when in France—and I have seen a number of different periods quoted—it is at least four months. As far as I know, the crew of the ship "Eksund", which brought from Libya most of the semtex which is still being used to blow us all up, and most of the ammunition, guns and other weapons which are being used to kill our security forces and our civilians, were held for the best part of two years before they were brought before the courts. Strasbourg has never said a word about that situation and I wondered what was different about the United Kingdom system.
I looked at the Scottish and the Channel Island systems of criminal justice, both of which have a strong civil law tradition. It appeared to me that, with a little
476
adaptation, it would be possible to accommodate the system to what, in the eyes of Strasbourg, constitutes a court for the purposes of extensions of detention. However, I am bound to say that, when one came to the common law system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the exercise appeared to be quite hopeless. That, of course, is the situation as it is today, and it is the one with which we are still confronted.
I therefore wish to say a little more about the way in which the judges might be involved in this process and the reasons why I believe it would be wrong to do so. We are talking of the liberty of the subject, the point made in another place. We are talking about files which are brought forward by the police asking for extensions of detention. I am, I think, in the unique position of having for seven years seen all the files in England, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland by which these applications were made. That is not only the ones that succeeded, because they were not all followed through by extensions of detention. I do not think anyone else has seen all of the files. I shall certainly not say what is in them but I can tell your Lordships this much: they contain information about sources; about the progress of an investigation; about the leads which the police wish to follow up, all of which Mr. Rowe deals with on pages 10 and 11 of his report. Leaks or disclosure of this information could cause almost irrevocable damage to the police investigation and, further than that. real peril to people's lives.
If we are talking about putting that kind of material before the judiciary, we are talking about what is called an ex parte application, an application to the judge by one side which the other side does not know about. That is not an unknown matter in the English criminal justice system but it means that there can be no disclosure to the detainee's representative or, of course, to the detainee himself. It also means that there is no possibility of a judge giving a reasoned decision as to why he has granted an extension, if that is the power he is given. If he does not give a reasoned decision, no appeal is possible. One cannot get an appeal on its feet if one does not know upon what grounds the decision has been taken in the first place.
Secondly, that also means that one could not take a decision of this kind to judicial review because one would never be able to produce enough material to get leave from the single judge in the first instance on the ground that the person who took the decision was not being reasonable. People have tried judicial review on extensions of detention in the hands of the Home Secretary. They have not succeeded. Nor would they succeed if it was done by a judge.
In any event, if one looks at the context of a decision to extend detention, it seems highly undesirable that appeal procedures should intervene after the first 48 hours. What is supposed to happen? Are the police supposed to stop their investigation while the appeal is heard? Is the detainee supposed to be released so that he will have to be caught again, if necessary, if the appeal is finally rejected? The whole point is about liberty of the subject and it is about urgent investigations into what can turn into extremely serious criminal charges.

477
I can think of no other exercise of judicial discretion which is both heard in secret and is not at any suitable stage able to be looked at by way of an appeal. There are other examples in the criminal justice system whereby matters are dealt with on an ex parte application. For instance, the police may wish to use their powers to obtain financial information under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act or under this Act itself, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, or under other legislation which has just come into effect—the Criminal Justice Act 1993. Incidentally, some of the applications for financial information under this Act are of such a sensitive nature that under paragraph 8 of the seventh schedule they are not dealt with in front of the courts in Northern Ireland but by the executive there. There has never been any complaint about that.
But perhaps the most striking example where ex parte applications do come at the present moment before the judges is where public interest immunity is being claimed. I am not talking about the Matrix Churchill trial, although that is an extremely good example of what can happen. I am talking about the disclosure of material in quite humdrum cases in some instances which is in the prosecution's hands but which derives from surveillance—it gives details of how that was carried out or comes from informers. These matters can be so sensitive that the defence is not even informed in advance that the judge is being invited to rule that they shall not be disclosed by the prosecution to the defence.
On Tuesday of this week in the Court of Appeal there was a judgment given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Keane. In that case, which is reported in The Times, he stressed that ex parte applications are,
"contrary to the general principle of open justice",
in criminal trials. I commend that judgment to any of your Lordships who are interested in this subject.
In public interest immunity cases non-disclosure is open to review because it is only a provisional decision by the trial judge. He can change his mind at any stage of the trial, particularly if the defence discloses what is the line of defence that is being taken so that at last it is possible to see what is and what is not relevant to it in the material in the possession of the prosecution. Of course, the whole matter can be reviewed again at the stage when a conviction or sentence (particularly a conviction) is being considered on appeal by the Court of Appeal as in the Keane case.
Documents, television film of some incident and bank accounts are only evidence; they do not begin to go to the question of the liberty of the subject and neither do public interest immunity certificates or issues of that sort. Nobody loses their liberty, but in this case we are talking about somebody who will remain in detention if an extension of detention is granted.
This is a very uncomfortable job for a judge. He must act urgently, secretly and without consultation with anybody else. There is no expectation that he will ever get guidance from appeals in other cases. He is of course susceptible to criticism for decisions, as are all judges in all cases, but, unlike a Minister, he cannot answer it. He is not answerable anywhere at all for the decisions
478
which he takes. That may not be a wholly satisfactory situation when one is dealing with the liberty of the subject.
I do not know which judges are going to be thought suitable for this work, but there are serious practical difficulties in involving the judiciary. It may not be particularly difficult in Scotland because these issues do not very often arise there. But, just as a matter of interest, let us suppose that this should occur in the island of North Unionist, which is not all that far from Ireland. The sheriff goes there only two days a week, weather permitting.
In Northern Ireland the entire judiciary—the High Court judges and the county court judges together—could not possibly be expected to cope with the volume of these applications. I was used to looking at between 500 and 600 files every year. I noticed that Mr. Rowe said that it was 455 applications actually granted in 1993 which he had seen. The police do not arrange their terrorist investigations so as conveniently to reach the end of the 48 hours at about 9.30 on a weekday morning; nor do they make their applications any earlier than they have to because they would be criticised if they did that. It might not turn out that they would be successful if they made them too early.
So what happens is that applications are made at all times of the day and night, on all days of the week and throughout the year. They have to be dealt with urgently —about 1.5 times a day or something of that order. I do not believe that the Northern Irish judiciary would be able to take on that extra burden. We should be aware that that is the sort of thing that we are talking about.
In England and Wales, the number of applications last year was smaller, at 39, but an application has to go before whichever judge is available. These things do not all happen in London. What would happen if, as has certainly been the case in the past, an extension of detention was required in relation to somebody in custody in Haverfordwest? Who would deal with that? It would have to be whichever judge was available. Hundreds of members of the judiciary might in general be candidates for the task. There is no reason to suppose that any of them would be at all familiar with the subject matter and, as I have already said, they would not be able to discuss it with anybody else.
There would then be at the very least major problems of consistency—and consistency is extremely important. At the present moment, there is consistency for this reason: submissions come from the police. They are filtered by the police. The police do not put forward every case that comes from the lower ranks. The submissions are then looked at by a small team of experienced officials in the three departments concerned. With the experience that they have obtained, those officials are able to question the police about the applications and to take note of points which I do not believe a judge would know about or be able to pick up.
There are occasions—this happens particularly in Northern Ireland—when the same person is detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act three times in a year. Separate files are involved on each occasion. The Northern Ireland Office and the reviewer knows that the person concerned has been dealt with in that way on

479
three separate occasions, but each involves a separate application. I see no reason to suppose that a judge would know that that person had been dealt with twice previously during the year. There would be no function for the expert team of civil servants who at present handle such matters with considerable skill.
There is also the whole question of whether the reviewer would be able to look at these matters. Judges would probably resent being overseen in that way. In addition, I am not in the least clear about the logistics of obtaining the files and the details of the judge's decision. A review is of some use. As Mr. Rowe mentioned in his report, it shows up patterns and the whole picture. I shall give two brief examples. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, has already referred to the catalogue that I made in 1987 of what was not: supposed to be an exhaustive list of the reasons on which could properly be founded an application for an extension of detention. There were certainly others, but those reasons have been used ever since. They were compiled from individual searches of the files. Each carne out of a real case which I thought properly exemplified the use of the power.
It was discovered that in Northern Ireland a number of people were being held at a stage when it seemed perfectly obvious that it would have been possible to charge them with a serious offence but when the police still wanted to question them about something else. It took me about three years to discover why that was happening. It transpired in the end that it was impossible for a Resident Magistrate in Northern Ireland to remand a person into police custody after that person had been charged with an offence—not even to enable the police to continue to question him or her about another totally unconnected affair. The reason was perfectly simple: the power in England and Wales, which is familiar to everyone, started under an Act of 1848 which, as it so happened, did not extend to Ireland. The power simply did not exist in Northern Ireland, which is the rump of all that is left of the island and is still within our jurisdiction. In 199 that was changed by the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order of that year, and the police now do take people before the courts, and then take them back for further investigations.
Finally, perhaps, there is this about overall patterns which involve the liberty of the subject and the way in which extensions of detention are handled; that is, that the reviewer is always invited to talk to officials and to Ministers. That is a less public arena in which to express views than the report itself, and I believe that it is valuable.
If, for the reasons that I have given—if they are at all convincing—it is not feasible to give the power to the ordinary judiciary, and yet one still wants to have a court for the purposes of Strasbourg, it will be necessary to invent some new judicial tribunal. It will have to sit in three divisions (Edinburgh, Belfast and London) for the reasons of urgency that I have given.
When that happens, no doubt those in the civil liberties lobbies will clap their hands with glee at the final conviction of the Government—that they have been wrong in the past—and the Government will make a pretty job with their cosmetics box and will put
480
forward a tribunal which is, in the eyes of Strasbourg, a court. Yet another quango will have been set up with its attendant costs and all the manning that will be involved; and with the involvement of a quango or tribunal of that sort, or indeed of a judge, it would then become legitimate in the eyes of Strasbourg, and wholly respectable, to detain people for much longer than they can be detained under the Act as it now stands. We should not be arguing about the difference between four and five days and seven days; we should be arguing about the difference between, shall I say, two days and four months. That would be wholly within the European convention. So where will all that get the detainee whose liberty is at the basis of all this argument? How much good will it all do him or her?
I believe that a judge, if confronted with one of these applications, would find it very difficult indeed to refuse. Of course there is always the danger of aberration, but at present, as I have said, it goes through three tiers of checks—in the police, in the Civil Service, and by the Secretaries of State themselves, who do not always do what their civil servants advise. If this were handed to the judiciary, there would be only the police and whichever judge was brought in on that particular occasion, and with probably no review.
In practice, I believe that these applications are almost always unanswerable, although one must always be vigilant to see that they remain unanswerable. I suggest that the present system is more efficient in ensuring that they are validly founded and properly are the reason for the deprivation of liberty than anything that could be introduced by some judicial element in the process.
What I suggest is that, instead of attacking the matter in the way proposed, we should look at the liberty of the subject in terms of what happens to him 'when he is under detention. I have just been reading Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's first report on the holding centres in Northern Ireland and the way in which confessions may be obtained—audio and visual tapes being introduced with certain severe restrictions—and matters of that sort. The liberty of the subject ultimately is riot a matter of two or three days in the police cell, it is 25 years after conviction. Those are the points that need to be guarded against. If we stop applying our minds exclusively to what happens over a matter of a few days at the beginning of the process, and apply them instead to the way in which we ensure not just that someone is not forced into a confession by unfair means but that the police are protected against false accusations that they have done that—because both those are important aspects—we should do more for the liberty of the subject than we can do by pursuing this matter.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I am at a considerable disadvantage in following the noble Lord, Lord Mason, who served as a Secretary of State in Northern Ireland and therefore has intimate knowledge of this Act and all matters of terrorism. I am also disadvantaged in following the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who has performed a signal service in reviewing the provisions over seven years. I listened

481
with great interest to his explanation of the problems relating to detention. I was glad to be able to do so because I had been unable to understand the problems.
I was pleased to hear his advice that the present arrangements should continue in the interests of the detainees as well as in the interests of justice. I hope that that can be the case because, as regards the outsider, the present arrangements are necessary and appear to work.
I am pleased that the renewal order is receiving support from all sides. Clearly, the Act is necessary so that the Government and the police have the powers to deal with terrorists. However, one or two issues need to be considered. For many years we have suffered terrorism in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. Why is one Act needed for Great Britain and another for Northern Ireland? The problems are the same throughout the United Kingdom and I should have thought that they could have been dealt with in a single Act.
As regards exclusion orders, I am sure that they are necessary but the consequences of exclusion cause offence in Northern Ireland. If a terrorist is not acceptable in Great Britain why should Northern Ireland have to put up with him? I know that in the Northern Ireland order there is a reciprocal arrangement whereby terrorists can be excluded from Northern Ireland and sent to Great Britain. However, in the way of things, there is little reverse traffic. It is absurd that there appears to be satisfaction when a terrorist is excluded from Great Britain and sent back to Northern Ireland, where he is free to continue to do whatever he wishes.
One must ask whether the provisions in the order are adequate and sufficient to counter the schemes and devices that terrorists have developed over the years to defeat existing legislation. For instance, it seems a little odd that a terrorist suspect under interrogation can throughout remain silent, can look at the ceiling, can turn round and face the opposite wall, can sing or shout blasphemies. The fact that he does not answer a single question may not be taken into account in any way in subsequent court proceedings. On the other hand, a business person questioned by departmental officials on matters relating to VAT must give full and frank answers. Any person who refuses to do so may be sent to goal. The contrast is quite extraordinary.
That and other matters of a similar nature were raised by the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary when he introduced his annual report in May last year. He called for certain changes in the law on this and similar matters in order to reduce the handicap under which the police at present work. His comments are equally valid in Great Britain but to the best of my knowledge there has been no response to his remarks.
The whole question of terrorism in the United Kingdom is now at a critical stage. There is universal demand, or insistence, that it shall stop or be stopped. The Downing Street Declaration raised hopes of an early end to terrorism. I have not met anyone in Northern Ireland who thought that it would persuade the IRA to stop bombing and murdering but it was hoped that the Government knew more than the man in the street. That has not proved to be the case and I must
482
advise your Lordships that there is widespread anxiety in Northern Ireland that the affair is being allowed to drag on, giving Sinn Fein, in the person of Mr. Adams, endless opportunity to confuse the public at large by claiming that the IRA is devoted to peace but is being obstructed by the negative attitude in Downing Street. In the meantime, the IRA continues to bomb and kill.
The time has come when governments, both here and in the Republic of Ireland, must face up to taking effective action. The Government may have to lean on the Government in Dublin to obtain their agreement and commitment to such action but they must not shy away from that. To us in Northern Ireland it has been clear since the start of talks about talks—that is now four years ago—that the efforts to deal with the IRA have been less than wholehearted. We can see that—or the lack of it—with our own eyes. When it was revealed that meetings and exchanges took place early last year between the IRA and the representatives of government, we were not amused.
The principal reason why the IRA and Sinn Fein have not given up is because they think they are winning. If I was in their shoes, I should think that I was winning. They have been given more than an inch or two by the two governments and Her Majesty's Government should know by now that, if terrorists are given anything, they will demand and expect more and more concessions. That must stop. In the coming months it must be made quite clear to Sinn Fein and the IRA that they are not winning and are not going to win. It is the responsibility of government to deal with terrorism—IRA, Loyalist or whatever—and all terrorism and violence must be firmly put down.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and I thoroughly commend and approve most of what he said. He suggested that political talks should now get moving—because they have been stagnant. He asked why Northern Ireland cannot be ruled as another part of the United Kingdom, as is Scotland or Wales. If that were done, it would please the vast majority of people there and stop the indecision and vacillation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, paid a very well deserved tribute to the security forces. I wish to support that. Their bravery and perseverance in the face of danger has been quite remarkable. It cannot be fully appreciated by those who have not seen them in action. Members of the police reserve and part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment deserve particular credit. They live at home and are constantly at risk. They accept great personal inconvenience in order to serve their country.
It is difficult for people in this country to understand what they have to do. Often they are not able to tell their employer that they are part of the special reserve for fear that somebody will finger them. They have to pretend that they are going on holiday when they are going on camp. They have to tell their children to be careful what they say to other children at sc. col when they ask where their parents are at night and why they are always out. They have to be careful which clothes they hang on the line outside; they have to dry their uniforms inside the house. When they come back from camp, a badge on the cap or beret which they wear may leave a mark on their

483
forehead. They have to go to the chemist's shop to buy something to cover up that mark. Such matters, and all that flow from them, are difficult to understand. It is remarkable that those men and women continue to give such signal service.
I must also not forget the courage and determination of civilians, both Protestant and Catholic, who know that they are at particular risk. The community in Northern Ireland has suffered for far too long. I hope that the passing of the order and subsequent action by government will lift the threat of the bomb and bullet from us all in these islands.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, we were most fortunate to hear the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I found his analysis of the problem of judicial intervention very powerful. I have certainly never considered the matter in as much detail as the noble Viscount clearly has. As I said, I found his argument most persuasive.
Before I come to the substance of what I have to say this evening, I should like to comment briefly on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, about identity cards. I certainly would have no objection to such cards if I believed—which I do not—that they would play a significant part in improving our arrangements for protecting members of the public in this country from terrorist violence.
The problem about identity cards can be stated very briefly. it would be immensely expensive; indeed, it would be a huge administrative problem if it was taken seriously and we had to establish procedures which made it virtually impossible for anyone to have a card which was not in reality properly his own. Of course, we know that it is almost inconceivable that we could make such arrangements. The fact is that the terrorists would have the most excellent identity cards, just as they have the most excellent fraudulent passports which are extremely difficult to detect. However, I do not dismiss the argument because I know that many people of good will hold it very strongly. But I am deeply sceptical and I would be very hesitant before I shared the noble Lord's enthusiasm for such cards.
I turn now to the order. My right honourable and honourable friends voted for the order in the other place. Of course, we have the same view on these Benches. As I explained in previous years, I believe that the array of powers contained within the legislation is essential in view of the terrorist threat to which our country is exposed. It is only right that we should review such powers annually because the provisions are exceptional. In circumstances where the powers are as substantial as they are, I do not believe that we can afford to be complacent, so long as they are needed on the statute book.
I introduced the original legislation in this House nearly 20 years ago. I believed then, as I believe now, that it is essential so long as we are confronted with extreme terrorist violence. I can certainly assure the House that, from my own direct knowledge, many of those who have been removed from the country as a result of exclusion orders would, if they had been
484
permitted to remain within Great Britain., have been involved either in acts of terrorism or in close support for the terrorists. As a result, I believe that some of our fellow citizens are alive today who would not be if exclusion orders had not been introduced.
For that reason, I find it hard to believe that it would be acceptable to drop such powers at present. Quite apart from any other consideration, I believe that the general public would be quite astonished in the immediate aftermath of the IRA attack on Heathrow if the Government suddenly decided that it was a good idea to drop the prevention of terrorism order. The existence of such powers has led to a lessening of the extent of terrorist violence. We have certainly been exposed to a great deal of it. Nevertheless, without those powers, I am quite clear that the situation could have been infinitely worse.
Having said that, I should like to make one further comment. When the Leader of the Opposition in the other place asked to see the Prime Minister to discuss such matters, I find it deeply disturbing that full reports of those discussions subsequently appeared in the Sunday Express. I do not think there is doubt in many people's minds as to where these reports came from. I do not happen to share the views of the Labour Party on the prevention of terrorism order but I deplore the fact that confidential discussions between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were leaked for reasons of party political advantage. As I have indicated, human lives are involved in this matter. It is wholly irresponsible for those who were involved in leaking this to the Sunday Express to have done so. I have worked for two leaders of the Opposition who had conversations with two Prime Ministers and I can recall no incident during that period when the conversations between them were leaked to newspapers. I very much hope that we will have no more of this in the future.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I wish to take up that final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. If ever I were to deal with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in a robing room in his jurisdiction, or he with me in mine, we would be able to deal with each other in complete confidence and confidentiality as members of the Bar. Whenever I have had conversations with the noble Earl, Lord Arran., or presently with the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, we all know that what we say in confidence will go no further.
One of the most dreary commentaries on modern standards in government seems to me to be that a private conversation between the Leader of the Opposition and the present Prime Minister was promptly leaked. I could not be stronger in my endorsement of the approach of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. These matters are far too important for partisan advantage. This was a time of importance and delicacy. There was a genuine approach by the Leader of the Opposition looking for a consensus that was spurned, not, in my belief, by the Prime Minister but by others. It was spurned in the most discourteous and, even worse, the most irresponsible of ways.

485
I turn to our approach. Our general approach is that there is a point of high principle involved here. Civil rights should never be curtailed except in the most pressing emergency. But, if they are so curtailed, the limitation should be subject to judicial scrutiny and any invasion of civil rights ought to be kept to the minimum. If we do not attend to that principle, we give terrorists a victory and we should not overlook that.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate rightly assumed, I wish to deal with Part II and Part IV of the Act this evening. But before doing so, I wish to endorse the disappointment that has been mentioned as regards the response, or lack of it, of IRA and Sinn Fein to the Downing Street Declaration. As I have said in your Lordships' House before, that was a declaration of political courage on the part of our Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. I myself find it difficult, not to say deeply offensive, to hear Mr. Adams speaking for those he represents, and those he pretends he does not represent, and asking for clarification. If Mr. Adams and his colleagues, in the open or in secret, want clarification, might they not condescend to say what they want clarified? I, for one, have never heard that. Not long after the declaration, there was the recent mortar bombing of Heathrow and the particular consequent obscenity of Mr. Adams promising further spectaculars. That word "spectacular" will be a chicken that comes home to roost as far as Mr. Adams is concerned.
Of course we support—as noble Lords have already said—the security forces and their dedication and courage. They need our full support. I very much hope that they will not feel that in Northern Ireland the financial protection afforded to people in the security forces, in the RUC and to civilians by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will be taken away from them. I very much hope that we shall not hear in the next few months that that protection against injury and its consequences will be taken away from them. However, when I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, about that recently, she said that it was under consideration. From all the discussions that I have had with those concerned in Northern Ireland, such a consequence would be met with bitterness.
As has been said, Part II of the Act allows, at the disposition of the Executive, what is in effect internal exile. I concede that that may be necessary in certain grave cases. But we ought to bear in mind the objection articulated this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, which has also been expressed by others, such as Mr. Trimble and Mr. Taylor, neither of whom could be described as soft on terrorism. In fact, Mr. Taylor has been the object of a determined effort to murder him. They object to this concept of internal exile for precisely the reason specified by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh. Too often it appears to people in Northern Ireland—it seems to me, with some justification—that Northern Ireland is regarded as a dustbin for those not wanted in Great Britain, because that exclusion or internal exile is substantially a one-way traffic.
It is our view that there should be a judicial component. Having listened with care and interest to the
486
observations of the noble Viscount, it seems to me that it is possible to have one or two nominated High Court judges to deal with exclusion orders and arrest and detention orders. In England and Wales the numbers of cases are not enormous. Judges are regularly available at home at any time of the day or night, as anyone who practises at the Bar here knows. They are able to come to decisions very quickly. There would be infinitely more public confidence if a judge's fiat was required rather than an executive decision. Not only would there be a benefit to the system itself, but there would be the added benefit of a firming up of public support and confidence. After all, if people are wrongly treated with exclusion orders it may encourage them to bitterness and to extremism when that might otherwise not have been the case.
Part IV provides for arrest and detention up to seven days. Of course it is recognised that, for specific reasons which have already been mentioned—I shall not trouble your Lordships with the tedium of repeating them—there may be circumstances where extension is required. We are adamant that that should be on the basis of a judicial decision. Of course I endorse entirely what the noble Viscount said. Reasoned decision will not be available. Appeal will not be available, nor judicial review.
I simply pose this question. If any of us had a 20 year-old son or daughter who was likely to be detained for seven days —which is a very long time—and likely to be excluded, would we want that exclusion order or seven-day detention order brought about by the likes of that independent judge, Judge Smedley, or would we prefer it to be brought about by a member of the Executive, many of whom recently have been rather too free with public interest immunity certificates? If one puts the question in that way it will be seen that the involvement of the judiciary is essential, although that would be in difficult circumstances without the full apparatus of the law.
I agree entirely with the analysis of the noble Viscount. There would be constraints and difficulties. But, as he rightly said, there would be ex parte applications, which are well known in this class of criminal prosecution. I have dealt with them myself. As the noble Viscount said, they have recently been reviewed in the Court of Appeal.
Without detaining your Lordships too long, perhaps I may deal with one specific area—namely, the question of tape and/or video recording of interviews. That was dealt with as recently as 31st January this year at page 109 of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's report. It was raised at page 14 of Mr. Rowe's report on 3rd February 1994 and it was extensively discussed in the noble Viscount's report of 20th May 1993. All those reporters—if I may put them in that general category—had serious questions about whether tape or video recordings should be carried out. Of course, it is quite impossible to deliver a tape or video recording to the suspect or his lawyer. Nevertheless, not least for the protection of the interviewing officers, as was mentioned earlier, the decision about taping or video recording needs to be reached as quickly as possible.

487
I suggest that there is reasonable ground for having a general judicial inquiry into the whole scheme and structure of the Act
I shall conclude with a personal word. I myself have prosecuted at the Bar as well as defending in terrorist cases. I have had personal experience of working with police forces, Special Branch and related authorities. From my experience, no one would sensibly object to reasonable powers which are required in terrorist cases. Those powers and any extension of them should be based on the principle which I sought to define earlier.
I cannot leave the subject without saying that I personally resent, and I know that my colleagues in the other place do so, the fact that a reasoned approach to the matter on the basis of a desire for consensus is turned somehow into an allegation that one political party or another is soft on terrorism. I know that that will not happen in your Lordships' House. That is a demeaning approach for a Secretary of State to adopt. I do not think that 1 should demean this House with any further consideration of that approach.
The matter was fully discussed in another place. As noble Lords know, there was a substantial majority in favour of the continuation of the Act and its provisions. Fundamentally, the provisions must continue. The approach that we adopt is that there should be a judicial involvement; it would be difficult, but it would be better.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, in the course of this debate, your Lordships have been privileged to hear contributions from speakers who have an enormous wealth of experience relevant to the subject.
In a powerful and authoritative speech, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, made several general political points. In particular, he urged the Government not to allow Sinn Fein to have a veto over political progress in Northern Ireland. I can give him an assurance that no such veto exists. The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach made it clear on 19th February that they intended to push forward with the political talks. Those who continue to advocate or support the use of violence for political ends can have no part in constitutional discussions within a democratic society.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, that there can be no question of concessions being made to violence. He also asked why, when we were dealing with Acts and orders, we had to have two rather than one. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act which we are considering tonight applies throughout the United Kingdom, so the order which we are considering will secure the continuation of the necessary powers in Northern Ireland as well as Great Britain. I believe that the noble Lord referred to the additional powers which are contained in the Emergency Provisions (Northern Ireland) Act which will in due course be subject to a separate order which the House will debate in May or June. The reason for that separate legislation is that there are additional provisions—for example in relation to such matters as road closures—which have been thought to be
488
particularly appropriate to the situation in Northern Ireland and which have therefore been made subject to that particular form of legislation.
The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to the leaking of the confidential discussions between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Noble Lords would not expect me to do other than to deplore that leaking of discussions which took place plainly on Privy Council terms. But if I deplore that, it is only what my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have also said. They have deplored the fact that discussions became publicly known. Inquiries have been made, as noble Lords know, but they have not ascertained how the Sunday Express was able to print its story. For my part, I would reject the innuendos which were cast, as it seemed, upon particular Ministers.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, raised three particular matters. He referred to the involvement of MI5 and the Security Service. As noble Lords know, since October 1992 the security services have had lead responsibility in Great Britain for the intelligence effort against Irish Republican terrorism.
I cannot comment on the operational matters involved. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the police and security services work very closely together at all levels to ensure that their combined resources are brought effectively to bear against the terrorists. It is a fact that a number of the recent successes have resulted from the combined work of the intelligence services and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland and of the police here in Great Britain.
The noble Lord also raised the question of identity cards; and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, touched briefly on that matter. The Government share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Although there are indeed developments in technology, the Government are not convinced that such a scheme would of itself make a significant contribution to the fight against terrorism. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested, we believe that determined terrorists would not find it difficult to circumvent the system, either by fraudulently acquiring identity cards or by, for example, obtaining travel documents issued to citizens of other European Community countries, whose nationals have the right to travel freely to and within the United Kingdom.
Of course, police require proof of identity for routine counter-terrorist checks at ports. They already have the power under Schedule 5 to the Act to require travellers at ports to produce documentary evidence of their identity and nationality.
The other point which the noble Lord, Lord Mason, touched on was the question of recognition of the role of the services, and indeed of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The accumulated campaign service medal will be issued in recognition of service in a number of theatres—including, but not solely, Northern Ireland. At first, most of the service personnel who will receive the medal when it is issued towards the end of the year, will be those who served in Northern Ireland. That is the theatre in which they will have had the opportunity to accumulate the length of service which

489
the award requires. I cannot yet give the noble Lord the numbers of those who receive that medal. The medal is to be awarded to members of the armed services only and officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will not be eligible. In fact, the particular circumstances of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are recognised by the issue of special payments. However, I have noted what the noble Lord said.
In the end, among the noble Lords who spoke there was no difference about the regrettable necessity for the powers in this Act. But the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, took the view that he would like a judicial element involved both in the matter of exclusion orders and in the matter of detention. In many ways the Government would also like such an element in an ideal world. But the fact of the matter is that this has been very carefully considered. I would certainly not presume to better the quite outstandingly authoritative account given to your Lordships this evening by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, of the arguments that present themselves in this connection.
One must have regard to the fact that, as was said, so many of these situations would arise in Northern Ireland. One would therefore risk drawing the Royal
490
Ulster Constabulary, which already has a hugely difficult task to perform, into what inevitably would be an area of great controversy. Because of the nature of the decisions involved, in many ways they are executive actions and should be taken by a member of the executive. The Government feel very strongly that it would be damaging to the status of the judiciary—that very important bulwark of independence—to ask it to take on this role which, as I said, would inevitably lead it into that area of controversy.
So, although it is with regret that we reached that conclusion, nonetheless we reached the view that that is the position. For those reasons we do not believe that there is some magic solution or indeed any solution which some kind of further inquiry in this matter would discover.
Having regard to all the circumstances, the Government believe that the legislation continues to be a most important element of our defence against terrorism. For that reason, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  RELIGIOUS REGISTRATIONS IN PRISON: 1994 CENSUS
  RELIGIOUS REGISTRATIONS IN PRISON: 1994 CENSUS
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  MoD HOUSING: PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
  MoD HOUSING: PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT: CONTROL OF LITTER
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT: CONTROL OF LITTER