Sitting of 17 May 1994

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

NEW WRITS
For Eastleigh, in the room of the Stephen David Wyatt Milligan Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Sydney Chapman.]
For Barking, in the room of the Josephine Richardson, deceased.
For Bradford, South, in the room of the George Robert Cryer Esquire, deceased.
For Dagenham, in the room of the Bryan Charles Gould Esquire. [Manor of Northstead]
For Newham, North-East, in the room of the Ronald Leighton Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Derek Foster.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Employment, Warwickshire
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the Warwickshire travel-to-work area currently; and what was the figure in 1990–91.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The latest available estimates are for September 1991, when there were 77,200 employees in the Warwick travel-to-work area.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful reply. Does she agree that one of the reasons why the Warwick and, indeed, Warwickshire figures are so good is the highly motivated, well-trained and adaptable work force? That applies especially to the constituency of Rugby and Kenilworth, as my hon. Friends will know. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Rugby and Kenilworth area is part of the midlands golden triangle and attracts a steady stream of new employers, creating new wealth and new employment? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is setting a rather bad pace for questions.
    Miss Widdecombe: I have pleasure in confirming each one of my hon. Friend's statements. I also have pleasure in
    658
    confirming his comments on Rugby and Kenilworth, where unemployment has fallen by 12 per cent. over the past year.
    Mr. Olner: Would it not have been a more honest question and a more honest answer if the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) had gone back to 1979 figures and if, in speaking up for the skills of the work force in the Coventry and Warwickshire area, he had mentioned that that area has been decimated by the Government's inability to have a manufacturing policy?
    Miss Widdecombe: I am sure that, in this period of peace between our parties, the hon. Gentleman will wish me to give him good news on which he can then congratulate the Government. May I first point out that fair comparisons between work forces in employment should be from peak to peak or trough to trough and not from the one to the other? Secondly, may I give the hon. Gentleman the good news about the creation of new jobs by Jaguar, Peugeot and Land-Rover and the jobs that that has brought to the hon. Gentleman's region? In this new period of peace, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman congratulating us on that.

    Employment Statistics
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new proposals he has to improve the accuracy of employment statistics.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Government statisticians have taken a number of initiatives in recent years, but I am not aware of any new proposals.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister recall that at the last Employment Question Time, in answer to a similar question, I was told that the Minister agreed with paragraph 78 of the Select Committee's report of 10 February which concerned my question, as though every hon. Member could be expected to know every sentence of every paragraph of every Select Committee report? Will the Minister lead by example today and tell me whether he agrees with the final sentence of paragraph 112 of the same report?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question as well as I do.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that when there are more people unemployed there are more people on the register and when there are fewer people unemployed there are fewer people on the register, that that is an accurate reflection and that ours are by far the best figures in Europe?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The good news is that, however we measure unemployment, it is falling in Europe in only one other country apart from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has led the way because of the success of the supply side reforms that the Government have carried out, though not always with the support of Opposition Members.
    Mr. Barron: Will the Minister confirm that his Department's labour force survey shows that the total number of people who want a job is really 5 million if one uses a four-week test? In view of the difference between

    659
    that view and the official claimant counts which are published on a monthly basis, is the Minister prepared to co-operate fully with the inquiry set up by the president of the Royal Statistical Society and to agree, as Labour will, with the recommendations so that we can have a fair account of unemployment in this country rather than the fiddled figures that we get each month?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should take that view. He will know that we measure unemployment in two ways. The first relates to people claiming benefit, which is the unemployment count. The other is the internationally recognised International Labour Organisation definition. Both figures are broadly the same. If the hon. Gentleman is going to talk about 5 million unemployed, I wonder whether that is official Opposition policy. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government, are they likely to be announcing on their first day in office that there are 5 million unemployed? I think not. Other Opposition Members have accepted the ILO figures. It would be better to recognise that the figures are correct and to concentrate on the good news that unemployment is falling.

    Training
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to develop further training opportunities for young people.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): The introduction of a new modern apprenticeship scheme and other measures.
    Mr. Shepherd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that brief answer. Does he recognise that the concept of apprenticeships is often thought of as purely a matter for the mechanical and engineering sectors whereas there are many other sectors to which it could be applied? Will my right hon. Friend stress that fact in his development of the concept?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, I will. In fact, my hon. Friend's own training and enterprise council—Hawtec—is, among other training and enterprise councils, involved in the preparation of a prototype for the retail industry. There are a number of other prototyping arrangements for modern apprenticeships, including information technology, plumbing and marine engineering. Those sectors cover a range of new areas which have not hitherto had apprenticeships.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: What fresh proposals does the Secretary of State have for the many new graduates who will emerge from university in a few weeks, young and eager to work?
    Mr. Hunt: I am delighted that between 1990 and 1996 the number of individuals graduating from our universities will double. I also take pride in the fact that the rate of unemployment among graduates is half the national average. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates in Europe. There will be increasing opportunities for our graduates, who will share in the increasing growth in the economy.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision that equal opportunities for disabled people —and, most importantly, young disabled people—should be on the agenda for his meetings with training and
    660
    enterprise councils has been extensively welcomed? Is he further aware that the Employers Forum on Disability and the Confederation of British Industry are looking forward to consultations with him on policies to end discrimination in training and employment and that they want the Government to take the lead in updating the legislation in that area? Will he press forward with that process?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree that the present quota system is not effective in removing discrimination against disabled people. We are introducing a new access to work scheme, but we must go further and introduce proposals to end discrimination where it affects disabled people.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that £103 million has been cut from the budget for adult and youth training? Given the Government's record of shoddy, low-cost training which has failed the nation in the past, why should we believe that the modern apprenticeships will be any different?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is about the only person to have voiced that view. I have been overwhelmed with favourable responses to the new modern appren-ticeship scheme. In fact, the hon. Gentleman was quoting a significant underspend in youth training. The introduction of a new modern apprenticeship scheme and the credits that accompany it, together with a budget of £1.25 billion over the next three years, means that we have the potential to fill the skills gap in the economy at the much-needed technician, craft and supervisory levels.
    Mr. Brandreth: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are currently spending about £2.8 billion per year on training and enterprise—two and a half times the amount spent in 1979 in real terms? Is that not one reason why last year some 1.4 million people were able to return to work, 24 per cent. of whom had been unemployed for more than six months?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend quotes a number of very important statistics. We are spending much more now in real terms than was spent under the Labour Government in 1979. The important thing is to ensure that that spending is properly targeted. That is why we are introducing new measures which I believe are capturing the support of a wide cross-section of the community. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will rethink his position.
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of youth training and training for work trainees found work on completion of their courses at the latest date for which figures are available.
    Miss Widdecombe: Sixty-six per cent. of youth training and 36 per cent. of training for work trainees were in employment after completing their training.
    Mr. Barnes: Why do so many young people go straight from inadequate training courses to the dole without decent qualifications or credits? Should there not be investment in skills training, together with temporary employment subsidies to promote the creation of jobs? It is not only the young people who suffer—the whole economy suffers by not being able to use their talents.
    Miss Widdecombe: Some 66 per cent. of those who complete youth training gain a qualification or a credit. It

    661
    does not follow that those who do not do so necessarily go into unemployment. Some go on to further training and others to further education. Those facts must be remembered. On the hon. Gentleman's point about spending on youth training, it is worth spelling out that the forthcoming budget actually includes a higher spend than currently, despite the fact that larger numbers of young people stay on at school.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the east midlands region unemployment is falling and vacancies are increasing, bringing real hope to young people looking for jobs? Is she aware that in the Southern Derbyshire training and enterprise council area, which covers my constituency of Erewash, young people eligible for youth training schemes are getting a place without waiting?
    Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to confirm my hon. Friend's latter point. Not only is it true in her constituency; it is now true in the vast majority of TEC areas. The number waiting more than eight weeks for a YT place has dropped from just under 5,000 last year to 138.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the problem questionable certification? I have yet another falsified national vocational qualifications certificate fraudulently produced by JHP Training. May we now have the National Audit Office independent inquiry for which I have repeatedly called and to which I have offered to provide evidence, as against the in-house inquiry that the hon. Lady wants to set up when clearly her own Department has been totally discredited?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his question because he came to see me yesterday and I explained it to him then. I explained clearly to him yesterday that it is the view of the National Audit Office that it is appropriate for us to conduct an internal inquiry. That inquiry would be greatly assisted if the hon. Gentleman would make the evidence available to us, as he said in an early-day motion that he would.

    Modern Apprenticeship Scheme
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from industry and trade unions in support of the proposed modern apprenticeship scheme.
    Mr. David Hunt: Many messages of support.
    Mr. Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in his discussions with the trade unions they have indicated that their demand for a minimum wage would not extend to this scheme if it were implemented? Does that not show that the trade unions know that a minimum wage would destroy jobs in the way that the trade union movement destroyed apprenticeships in the 1960s and 1970s, and that the minimum wage, as the policy of the Labour party, should best be dropped altogether?
    Mr. Hunt: There is an atmosphere of lack of enthusiasm for any proposals for a statutory minimum wage, even extending to our colleagues on the Labour Benches, who have understood that such an idea would not be popular at present. I do not believe that it would be popular because it would strike at the heart of a scheme
    662
    such as the new modern apprenticeship scheme. Moreover, in the past 15 years young people's earnings have increased in real terms right across the spectrum.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: In the many messages that the Secretary of State has received from employers, what exactly has the Engineering Employers Federation said to him about the new modern apprenticeship scheme? When we spoke to the EEF the other day, it was markedly lukewarm, feeling that we were probably going down the road towards yet another underfunded gimmick. What exactly is the view of the Engineering Employers Federation to the proposed new apprenticeship scheme?
    Mr. Hunt: When I met the EEF on Monday, its view was very positive. I hope that the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman is not widely held in the EEF. It is now very much up to employers to develop the scheme. We have not laid down a statutory Government scheme: we have asked employers to come forward with prototypes that they believe will be successful in delivering at NVQ level 3—equivalent to two A-Levels—the skills that they believe are necessary in their industries. In my experience, the engineering industry is one of the most important sectors behind the new modern apprenticeship scheme so far.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of industry is enthusiastic about the scheme, believing that the only way forward to provide the skilled craftspeople of the future is through apprenticeship schemes? Is he aware of the importance of electrical skills to the film industry, for example? An example of that industry's excellence is the lighting provided at the Palace of Westminster for the state opening of Parliament.
    Mr. Hunt: I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend has said. One of the prototypes for the new modern apprenticeship scheme is coming from the electrical installation engineering sector and I am delighted about that.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that the result of the Government's scrapping of the 20 statutory training boards and their statutory levies was a reduction of more than 150,000 apprenticeships? Industry did not invest in apprentices. Has not the time arrived to adopt the principle of a statutory training levy? Has not the problem with training in Britain been the lack of adequate finances to produce the skills required, as industry does not do this voluntarily?
    Mr. Hunt: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics he will recognise that one good feature of a pretty tough recession has been the way in which expenditure on training by employers has held up extremely well. Employers now invest some £20,000 million on training. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have a particular problem—although I disagree with him about its causes—in filling the much-needed skills level at NVQ level 3 through a new modern apprenticeship system. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me have his thoughts about how the new prototypes can be developed, since I am open to argument as to how best the scheme can be taken forward.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the enormous increase in spending on academic training through the Department for Education, the balance

    663
    must be redressed by putting more money into training for work, particularly in counties such as Liberal Democrat-controlled Dorset, where the council has slashed the discretionary grant for people going on to schemes which are job related?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. I should like to see a substantial increase in workplace training. We must deliver opportunities to young people leaving school not just to go down the traditional academic route, but to see exciting opportunities in the new modern apprenticeship scheme. I very much hope that there will be successful vocational training, particularly in specific new areas and in new industries, to deliver those much-needed skills in the future.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the changes in the number of men employed in each standard planning region since June 1979.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: With permission, Madam Speaker, I will arrange for the table of information requested to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry that the Minister could not see fit to give figures which have been given on previous occasions when I have been lucky enough to ask this question.
    May I draw attention to the figures for Wales, which have prompted me to ask about the United Kingdom? There has been a reduction in the number of jobs for men in Wales from 618,000 to 583,000, including 53,000 part-time jobs. That is a reduction of more than 20 per cent. When does the Minister expect to get back to the figures for employment for men that we had when Labour was last in power?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman looks at his question, he will find that he asked for the figures for each region of the United Kingdom, not for the United Kingdom. He is right about Wales, but he could have pointed to East Anglia where employment figures have gone up. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and others would welcome the fact that employment is rising and that in Britain we have a higher percentage of our population in work than most other European countries.
    Mr. Mans: In the context of the figures, does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is very good indeed in the north-west? Does that not show that this recovery, unlike previous ones, is manufacturing and export-led, rather than consumer and service-led?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to point out that in recent months unemployment has been falling in every region of the United Kingdom. That is good news, and it is because of the success of the Government's policies of getting inflation down and creating conditions in which business can thrive and prosper.
    Following is the information:
    664

    Civilian work force in employment1

    thousands

    Male all

    Standard regions

    June 1979

    December 1993

    Change

    South East

    4,884

    4,368

    -516

    East Anglia

    485

    511

    +26

    South West

    1,053

    1,118

    +65

    West Midlands

    1,464

    1,238

    -226

    East Midlands

    1,012

    927

    -85

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    1,305

    1,113

    -192

    North West

    1,714

    1,410

    -304

    North

    807

    661

    -146

    Wales

    721

    627

    -95

    Scotland

    1,323

    1,173

    -150

    Great Britain

    14,769

    13,147

    -1,622

    1 The civilian work force in employment comprises employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes. Figures are not seasonally adjusted.

    Modern Apprenticeships
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be able to benefit from the new apprenticeship scheme in each of its first three years.
    Mr. David Hunt: More than 40,000 a year.
    Dr. Spink: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent news. Will modern apprenticeship scheme places be available in smaller firms such as Mechtric Engineering, which employs 20 highly skilled engineers, designers and technicians in Castle Point? Would apprenticeship places be appropriate in a company such as Mechtric, bearing in mind that this week it celebrates its silver jubilee, the award of its BS 5750 certificate and the fact that it exports the world-beating 7150 material testing machine?
    Mr. Hunt: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Mechtric Engineering on the trio of achievements that he set out. He is right that engineering is one of the key areas. I am delighted to say that I have already been made aware that there are advanced arrangements for prototypes not only in electrical installation engineering, but in engineering construction and manufacture and marine engineering. Many other sectors are already lining up to start the new modern apprenticeship scheme next year and I am delighted about that.
    Mr. Clapham: Is the Secretary of State aware that President Clinton and his advisers are looking not to Britain as the model to follow, but to the Germans, because they believe that the German universal apprenticeship scheme will provide the necessary platform for a modern economy? What steps is he taking to link national vocational qualifications to a more universal apprenticeship scheme?
    Mr. Hunt: On the first point, when I attended the recent jobs conference in Detroit I found considerable interest, not only on the part of the United States but on that of our German colleagues in G7, in our new modern apprenticeship scheme.
    On the second point, we are linking the new modern apprenticeship scheme, as I said, to NVQ level 3 because

    665
    we believe that that is where the skills gap exists which we must fill. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of our plans for linking training much more to output and especially linking it much more to the opportunities that the new NVQ system offers to every member of the population.

    Unemployment
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the rate of unemployment has changed since January 1993.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Unemployment has fallen by 240,000 or 0.8 percentage points since January 1993.
    Mr. Marshall: Can any other European country boast such a record? Is the rate of unemployment in Britain lower pr higher than the European average? Are not there more people at work in Britain than in Germany, France, Spain or Italy? Does not that record reflect on Government—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am empowered to ask the Minister to answer only one question. I hope that hon. Members will take that to heart. Perhaps the Secretary of State can have a stab at answering a couple of those questions—sorry, the Minister of State.
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend will have to make do with me, but I can confirm that he has answered all his questions and has brought good news to the House. The record on jobs in Britain is very good indeed.
    Mr. Skinner: Why on earth should anyone in Britain believe those figures when more than 500,000 young people on slave labour schemes are not counted, more than 500,000 women are not registered and more than 100,000 ex-miners are not registered for unemployment? In pit villages in Bolsover more than 50 per cent. are unemployed and that is true of every coalfield in the country. What a pack of lies.
    Madam Speaker: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he say it was "a pack of lies"?
    Mr. Skinner: I was using the collective noun.
    Mr. Forsyth: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making an assessment of his own question. According to the internationally recognised definition by the International Labour Organisation—an organisation which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would support —Britain is leading the way in Europe with falling unemployment and in creating new employment opportunities, which I accept are required in communities that have been affected by the consequences of closures in the coal industry.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only does Britain have a higher proportion of people in work than any other country in Europe, but last year saw unemployment in the west midlands fall by no fewer than 73,000 people? Does my hon. Friend also agree that inward investment has protected some 76,000 jobs in the west midlands and that that inward investment would undoubtedly be jeopardised if we adopted the social chapter of which the Labour party is so fond?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to look to the future and to emphasise the importance of new jobs which come from inward investment. He also highlights the importance of having flexibility in the labour market which enables employers to respond to the needs of the marketplace in order to create future employment. That is why the Prime Minister's opt-out from the social chapter was so important in helping to create inward investment opportunities.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister accept that, according to his own labour force survey, another 2.2 million people are looking for work and available for work? If that information is true and he accepts it—giving a total of nearly 5 million unemployed—is that another example of, "If it's not hurting, it's not working"?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman seems to live by the code that one shoots the messenger when he brings good news, not bad news. The fact is that it is good news about employment. If the hon. Gentleman wants to claim that there are 5 million people unemployed, may we hear from the Opposition that they would accept that figure if they were in government? I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that, by any accepted criteria, the ILO figures are the figures which he should look to and which are consistent with those achieved by measuring the unemployment count.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fall in unemployment that he described is more than paralleled in the south-west region? Will he urge his right hon. Friends to continue to resist measures of regulation, taxation burdens and political correctness which, contrary to the advice of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will damage job creation?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend—in fact, about 250,000 extra jobs have been created in the south-west in the past 10 years. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the Prime Minister's deregulation initiative and the attempt to reduce the burden on businesses from red tape and regulations. It is undoubtedly true that the jobs of the future will come from small and medium-sized enterprises which must be encouraged to thrive and prosper.

    Senior Managers
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of senior managers were women in each of the last three years for which figures are available.
    Miss Widdecombe: The labour force survey shows that, in the autumn of 1993, 31 per cent. of corporate managers or administrators were women. The equivalent figures for 1991 and 1992 were 29 per cent. and 31 per cent.
    Mrs. Campbell: Has the Minister taken the time to study the report entitled "The Rising Tide" published by the Office of Science and Technology? Is she aware that one of the key recommendations of the report asks Government Departments to set a target that women will fill at least 25 per cent. of public appointments and senior manager positions by the year 2000?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, and because of the prime ministerial initiative announced in 1991 there has already been a rise from 23 per cent. to 28 per cent. of women in public appointments. Because of the initiative of Opportunity 2000, 25 per cent. of the work force are now covered by employers who are committed to those objectives.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important senior manager's post that any woman can aspire to is to run her home effectively and well, particularly where children are involved, because that is of enormous benefit to the nation?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is extremely important that we value properly those women who choose to run homes. That is why there are special exemptions for women returners in our training programmes; that is why my right hon. Friend introduced accredited prior learning and applied it also to those on career breaks; and that is why we have tried to make that choice available as widely as possible.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree, however, that under the Government of whom she is a member, women are still treated as second-class workers and that only in Ireland and Luxembourg, in the European Union, are women's average earnings lower, as a proportion of men's, than in Britain?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady completely misunderstands the position of women in this country. Under the Government, there has been an increase in the number of women in the work force. If the hon. Lady wants European comparisons, I am delighted to give them to her. We have the second greatest proportion of women in work in the European Union. We are also the only country in which female unemployment is less than that of men. The hon. Lady should be congratulating the Government and it is the tone of her question which sorely tempts me to be less moderate than I am generally trying to be today.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if 31 per cent. of all senior managers are women, presumably the rest of them are men? In those circumstances, will she also confirm that the criteria of qualification for the job count most, rather than the attempt to get sexual equality into every aspect of our business life?
    Miss Widdecombe: It can scarcely be doubted that, if 31 per cent. are women, the rest must be men. I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I would, however, point him to the initiative, "Fair Play for Women", and to what that has already achieved in Wales and what we expect it to achieve now that we have launched it in England, in terms of making women more valued in the workplace, better qualified, better trained and giving them more opportunities generally. That has remained a consistent objective of the Government.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the TUC to discuss matters relating to the right to belong to trade unions.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I met Mr. John Monks on 29 November last year.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister accept that, by banning trade unions at GCHQ, the Government are denying those workers their democratic right of freedom of association? Will he try to understand that a Government who deny democratic rights to their citizens, and who arm dictators around the world who genuinely threaten this country's security, are in no position to lecture GCHQ trade unionists about disloyalty or national security?
    Mr. Forsyth: Workers at GCHQ are able to join a staff association, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is the Conservative Government who have given everyone the right to join a trade union of their choice—something which Opposition Members have opposed.
    Mr. Jenkin: At his meeting with Mr. John Monks, did my hon. Friend obtain an explanation as to which unions oppose a national minimum wage?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Forsyth: Oddly enough, that was not a subject for conversation, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that there are some people in the trade union movement whose concern for jobs makes them oppose a minimum wage, unlike some Opposition Members, whose concern for dogma perhaps gives jobs second priority.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that in a decent democratic country, workers should have the right to be represented by the unions of their choice?
    Mr. Forsyth: This is a decent democratic country. It is the Conservative Government who have given workers the right to join a trade union of their choice, and it is the Conservative Government who got rid of the wicked closed shop legislation, which prevented people from working when they did not wish to join a trade union.
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the effects of trade union legislation since 1979.
    Mr. David Hunt: The legislation has transformed industrial relations.
    Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, freed from trade union shackles, British workers now produce more and compete better than many of our overseas counterparts? Is not it true that, in the 1990s, as a result of Conservative trade union legislation, many American and Japanese companies, which would not have touched us with a bargepole in the 1970s, bring to the country new investment, new factories and new jobs?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a stark set of facts that productivity growth in the UK is higher today and was higher in the 1980s than productivity growth in Japan and that the UK strike rate is now lower than in Germany. So not only is the United Kingdom leading Europe through recovery into a sustained period of non-inflationary growth, but it is leading the way in putting harmony in place of strife and increasing the growth in productivity.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Secretary of State give the House the answer which the Minister did not give to the question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)? Does he believe that, in a democratic society, an employee has the right to be represented at work by the union of his or her choice?
    Mr. Hunt: We have just answered the point by making it clear that we believe in a free democratic society. Employers should not be compelled to accept a negotiator who may not necessarily be the representative of the work force. It is very much up to trade unions to earn an increasing membership by appealing to their members and by selling their services to them. I take great pride in the fact that days lost through industrial action are now 20 times fewer than the average in the 1970s.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Will the Prime Minister agree to scrap the Child Support Agency in its present form and go back to the drawing board to produce a more efficient and fair method of supporting children of lone parents?
    The Prime Minister: I think that children are entitled to be supported by their own parents and that taxpayers should help only to the extent that parents do not have the means to do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in February we made some changes to the Child Support Agency and I repeat what I have said to the House on previous occasions: we shall continue to keep it under review and, if further changes are necessary, we shall make them.
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lidington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week's decision by the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill has caused immense dismay among my constituents in Aylesbury and among many other people in London and south-east England? Will he assure the House that the Government will look urgently at other ways in which that project might be taken forward?
    The Prime Minister: I share the disappointment that the Select Committee has rejected the Crossrail Bill. We have consistently made clear our commitment to the project and I am pleased to tell the House that that commitment remains. The promoters are now urgently considering the position and we are in discussion with them on how to proceed.
    Mrs. Beckett: When does the Prime Minister expect to publish the Department of Transport's report on the technical and legal aspects of fitting seat belts in minibuses and coaches, especially in view of the fact that the Government have been saying since January that that research would be published "in a few weeks' time"?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that it will not be very long before we are able to publish it. The report has now been delivered to Ministers and I hope that they will be able to announce their conclusions shortly.
    Mrs. Beckett: Could I urge the Prime Minister to make that very shortly indeed, as the report has been in preparation for some time and safety organisations, coach operators and the general public have been calling for a measure along those lines for a considerable time?
    The Prime Minister: We are looking at a range of things. The Department of Transport has been conducting a full review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to both minibuses and coaches. We also wish to take into account the circumstances of the minibus accident last Sunday and the vehicles in that respect are still being examined by the Vehicle Inspectorate. It is right that we examine all the circumstances. As soon as we are ready, we shall bring forward our conclusions.
    Mrs. Beckett: Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that when the Government have looked at this report they will be prepared to introduce legislation as a matter of urgency? I believe that the amendment paper contains an amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) which might make possible the adoption of a decision in principle as early as tomorrow night. I repeat the offer of all-party talks which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) as long ago as December, with a view to ironing out the difficulties regarding such legislation. I assure the Prime Minister that, subject to proper scrutiny, the Opposition would certainly give any legislation a speedy passage.
    The Prime Minister: We wish to conclude our examination of this matter before deciding what is the right way to proceed. Increasingly a number of minibus manufacturers are fitting seat belts as a matter of course. That is a decision for them. It is also open to potential customers, when making coach or minibus bookings, to ask whether belts are fitted. I do not wish to give any indication of the outcome of the review until we have had time to study the conclusions and to reach a decision based on all the evidence that is available.
    Mr. Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while regretting the need for such a course, the House will back the decision of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to increase the number of armed response units?
    The Prime Minister: There is a feeling—in the House and across the country, I suspect—that people certainly do not wish the police to be armed as a matter of course. This is a very limited measure and I believe that it is justifiable. Of course, the number of armed policemen will be very small—about 50. These officers are highly trained in the use of firearms and they will be called only to incidents where firearms might be needed.

    Mr. Ghazanfer Ali
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he had made to the Government of Pakistan to secure the release of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali from prison in Mirpur.
    The Prime Minister: Although Mr. Ali is not a British citizen, our high commissioner in Islamabad has followed this matter closely on a humanitarian basis. We are

    671
    concerned that Mr. Ali's case keeps being adjourned. Officials at the Foreign Office are arranging to meet his son to discuss future courses of action.
    Mr. Madden: I thank the Prime Minister, on behalf of Mr. Ali's wife and family, for his past efforts on this man's behalf. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Ali has been held without proper trial for the past four years. I urge him to make further representations to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and to the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir, who will be visiting Britain and calling at the House of Commons later this week.
    The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a very great interest in the matter. So far, we have pursued it on a humanitarian basis. Given the length of time that Mr. Ali has been detained without trial, I shall consider raising his case again with the Pakistani authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows that as Mr. Ali is not a British national we cannot assist specifically with consular advice. However, on a humanitarian basis, it is right that we should again raise with the Pakistani authorities the question of his lengthy detention without trial.

    Engagements
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Spink: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the breast cancer lobby that is taking place at the House of Commons today? Did he have time to read the report on the subject in The Daily Telegraph today? Will he draw its importance to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health?
    The Prime Minister: I think my right hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend's question. I am very pleased that the Macmillan Fund for Cancer Relief survey shows that there was a high degree of satisfaction with the treatment that women had received from the national health service. That was particularly marked among those who had received treatment more recently. I understand that the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales will publish tomorrow their consultative report on the provision of cancer services. I believe that it will have far-reaching consequences for the services provided for patients with cancer.
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Grocott: Is not it salutary for the international community to note that in Rwanda more people have been killed in the past six weeks—one estimate puts the figure at 500,000—than were killed in the former Yugoslavia in the whole of the past three years? Is not it vital that the United Nations, the European Community and other international agencies ensure that the time, energy and effort that they devote to the solution of crises worldwide are at least in some way proportionate to the degree of suffering on the ground?
    The Prime Minister: There are many people who feel as the hon. Gentleman clearly does about the dreadful bloodshed in Rwanda. It is clearly a bitter civil war and some of the atrocities that have taken place are unforgivable by any rational judgment. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously adopted resolutions calling for a ceasefire. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to assist where practicable. The mandate is primarily humanitarian, contributing to the security and the protection of refugees and civilians at risk. The resolution also imposes an arms embargo.
    Mr. Bowden: As we approach the 50th anniversary of D-day, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the war widows whose husbands made the supreme sacrifice, to see whether there is some way in which he can ensure that additional recognition is given to that sacrifice this year by some form of financial payment?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for pensioners generally, and war widows in particular, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will have heard what he has to say. My hon. Friend will agree that, over the years, we have taken great care to recognise the remarkable sacrifice made by many widows whose husbands were killed in the war and most people will consider it right of us to have done so.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Foulkes: If the economy is on the mend, as the Prime Minister keeps claiming, instead of increasing VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. in April, will he consider getting rid of it altogether?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that many people doubt that the economy is on the mend. All the indicators show that that is certainly the case. Not every single indicator in the months ahead may be as good as we would wish, but the overall trend is undoubted. One of the reasons why the economy is moving ahead is that we have taken the tax measures necessary to improve our public finances.

    Economy
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the prospects for economic growth and inflation in the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: The prospects for the economy are extremely good—[Interruption.]—and not only that, this year the United Kingdom is set to be the fastest-growing major European economy for the second year running. Underlying inflation is under control, at its lowest for 25 years and well within its target range. I shall spare Opposition Members all the rest that it says here.
    Mr. Luff: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the hardest lessons we have to relearn as a country is that British manufacturing industry can prosper only if it is competitive? Against that background, will he join me in welcoming yesterday's news that factory gate inflation is at a low level not seen in Britain for a generation?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about competitiveness. The more competitive we are, the more we will sell and the more jobs we will be able to create in this country. The figures on factory gate prices are extremely good—better than we have seen for many years. One of the reasons why we are competitive and will remain so is that we have no intention of saddling our companies with the social on-costs that so many in Europe have now undertaken and which so many in the House would be prepared to undertake.
    Mr. Purchase: Will the Prime Minister contrast the sweeping victories of many Labour groups in the local elections recently—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am listening carefully because the hon. Gentleman's question has to be tied to the question on the Order Paper on prospects for economic growth and inflation.
    Mr. Purchase: Indeed, Madam Speaker. Will the Prime Minister compare that record with the awful record of the Black Country development corporation on economic development in the black country? In the light of that comparison, would he care to give back to Labour authorities the money taken from them for that economic development?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the record of the Black Country
    674
    development corporation. It is clear that right across the black country and the country as a whole the prospects for manufacturing industry and other industries are rapidly improving. That is self-evident in the growth seen in the past 12 months, the growth that we are seeing now and the growth that we can safely anticipate in the future.

    Engagements
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Richards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sharpening the skills of our schoolchildren will improve the competitive edge of the economy in the future? Does he welcome the recently announced statistics showing that more of our schoolchildren are staying on at school than ever before?
    The Prime Minister: I do welcome that, just as I welcome the fact that the number of people who are unemployed is falling and has been consistently for 15 months. Some years ago, about one in eight of young people went on to further education; that figure is now one in three. Some 70 per cent. of our 16-year-olds are now in full-time education. I am sure that that trend is right and I thoroughly welcome it.

Merchant Shipping (Donaldson Report)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the report of Lord Donaldson's inquiry into the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping. The report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", is published today, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House and are available in the Vote Office.
The marine accident investigation branch has already reported on the loss of the Braer, and we also look forward to receiving very shortly the report of Professor Ritchie's steering group on the assessment of its ecological effects. I asked Lord Donaldson to undertake a wide-ranging inquiry following that incident—not confined to the Braer —including considering what steps could be taken to minimise the risk of any similar incident and to reduce the risk of pollution at sea.
The House will wish to join me in warmly thanking Lord Donaldson, his colleagues Professor Alasdair McIntyre and John Rendle, and all those involved with the inquiry for the diligence, high quality and comprehensive nature of their work. Many of the solutions that the inquiry has recommended can be achieved effectively only by international action. I welcome Lord Donaldson's agreement to present the report to the International Maritime Organisation on Friday.
The Government accept the thrust of Lord Donaldson's recommendations, many of which are in line with the approach and actions that the Government have been pursuing in recent years. I shall now be considering them in detail. To assist in this, the Government will welcome comments from those interested. I shall make further reports to the House in due course on the progress made in implementing individual recommendations.
Lord Donaldson has emphasised the importance of effective port state control. As long as some flag states do not enforce the agreed international standards on their ships, our marine surveyors will ensure effective inspections of foreign-flagged ships visiting our ports; we already inspect one in three. But Lord Donaldson considers that we should improve targeting in order to provide as effective a deterrent as possible to the sub-standard ship. The owner or operator of a sub-standard ship must know that his ship is certain to be inspected and that if it is found to be defective it will be detained.
To be fully effective, port state control has to operate on an international regional basis. That is particularly important for the United Kingdom as many of the ships passing our coasts do not call at our ports. We have already taken action to increase European co-operation on port state control and we shall pursue Lord Donaldson's further recommendations with our partners in Europe. We shall also continue to work in the International Maritime Organisation to improve the performance of flag states.
If we are to eliminate substandard ships, an effective exchange of information is essential, although the inquiry recognises some of the difficulties in obtaining commercially sensitive information. Nevertheless, I have decided that, in future, we will publish monthly the full details of the ships that we detain, their defects, their flags, their owners and those who operate or certify them. Such
676
public exposure will mean that unsafe operators and ineffective flag states will not be able to hide their identities.
The report correctly identifies the importance of crew training and standards; some 80 per cent. of marine accidents result directly from human error. Along with a number of like-minded states, we persuaded the IMO to use an accelerated procedure to enhance the standards and competence of the world's seafarers. The recommendations in the report will act as a further impetus to the necessary amendment next year by the IMO of the convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping. Along with our partners in Europe, we are paying particular attention to crew competence during port state control inspections.
There must be adequate and accessible waste reception facilities in port if waste disposal by ships at sea is to be controlled or reduced. We view with concern the report's findings on the adequacy of existing facilities at UK ports. I have asked the Marine Safety Agency to undertake an urgent survey of the facilities that are available and their use. In parallel with that survey, I will discuss with port, shipping and waste disposal authority representatives the inquiry's recommendations on the future provision, funding and certification of waste reception facilities.
Immediately following the loss of the Braer, my Department, with the Chamber of Shipping, prepared proposals for additional voluntary routeing and reporting measures around our coast, including extended "areas to be avoided" around Orkney and Shetland. Those measures were adopted with commendable speed by the IMO. Lord Donaldson has endorsed the measures that we took, and proposes further action. We will take them forward in consultation with local and shipping interests.
Lord Donaldson recommends that marine environmental high-risk areas should be identified around our coasts to protect areas that combine the highest degree of environmental sensitivity and the greatest degree of risk from shipping. Entry by ships could be either restricted or prohibited. However, as the right of a coastal state to interfere with ships on innocent passage is restricted by international law, any prohibitions or restrictions will have to be submitted to the IMO for its endorsement.
We propose that Government Departments, in consultation with the statutory bodies that advise us on environmental and conservation matters, should identify possible marine environmental high-risk areas. Lord Donaldson envisages a limited number of marine environmental high-risk areas, because he believes that excessive numbers of such areas would devalue their effectiveness and put their international acceptance at risk. The Government agree.
Lord Donaldson also makes recommendations about reporting by ships. If the IMO's maritime safety committee decides that coastal states should be authorised to require all ships to report to it, we will propose locations where such mandatory reporting would be appropriate. Mandatory reporting by vessels in transit is also being discussed within the European Union.
Lord Donaldson recommends that the Government should consider the enhancement of salvage capacity around our coast, and in particular the early provision of three salvage tugs covering the Dover strait, the south-western approaches and north-west Scotland. The

677
inquiry considers how those tugs could be provided and funded, and discusses offsetting their costs by using them for other Government or commercial purposes.
I have instructed the Coastguard Agency to consider urgently the report's recommendation on the three tugs and to provide a detailed analysis of their likely costs and benefits. The agency will need to consider how the tugs could be funded in both the short and the long term, the appropriate role of the private sector, the scope for using them for other purposes and the possibility of co-operation with other states.
The inquiry has endorsed aerial spraying of dispersants, in appropriate circumstances, to combat oil pollution. Lord Donaldson's findings and those of the review of the testing, approval and use of oil dispersants by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be taken into account in my Department's submission to the Public Accounts Committee following its request for a reappraisal of our aerial spraying policy. In the meantime, we will maintain our aerial spraying capability.
Last winter, serious problems were encountered with fish factory ships off the Shetland Islands. Such ships play an important role in providing a market for United Kingdom fish, but it is essential that they do so safely. Lord Donaldson has endorsed the steps that we have already taken to reduce the risk of any recurrence of last winter's problems, and has made recommendations for further action. We shall be considering those recommendations urgently so that we have appropriate measures in place before the klondyker fleet returns.
Lord Donaldson was requested to take into account the economic consequences of his recommendations. We are grateful to him for doing so. He supports the principle that the polluter, or potential polluter, should pay. The Government endorse that approach. He recognises that charges on shipping for port state control and other anti-pollution measures would best be levied on a north-west European basis, thus avoiding the potential distortions of trade that could result from their application in the United Kingdom alone. We shall take those recommendations forward in consultation with our European partners and with commercial interests.
In the time available, I have been able to touch only on the report's key points—particularly port state control, routeing, salvage and future funding. We warmly welcome the report, which will be regarded as a significant milestone, nationally and internationally, in achieving the aim of the report's title—"Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas". I repeat my gratitude to Lord Donaldson and his colleagues for the excellent work that they have done.
Mr. Frank Dobson: We welcome Lord Donaldson's report, which is thorough, comprehensive and heavy on technical evidence. It requires detailed consideration and careful consultation, and, I believe, merits a full debate in due course. What is needed now, however, is new, comprehensive legislation covering the whole field of marine safety and pollution.
Lord Donaldson's report is an almost endless indictment of the failure of the Government and international bodies to prevent the loss of ships and seafarers' lives, and to protect Britain's shores from avoidable damage and pollution. The report shows that, by accident or design, ships discharge oil, chemicals,
678
explosives, garbage and micro-organisms into the seas around our shores. They poison fish, kill birds and foul our beaches.
The report shows that the system is a direct product of unregulated competition between ship owners who cut costs by sending out ships that are unseaworthy, with inadequate and badly trained crews, in the charge of officers of doubtful competence—sometimes incapable of communicating with other ships, the shore or, in some cases, even their own crews. In the crowded waters of the English channel and the North sea, dangerous practices remain lawful, and negligence goes unpunished because it is undetected.
Does the Secretary of State accept Lord Donaldson's view that, with so many irresponsible ship owners and operators, we cannot depend on the necessary action being taken by the states whose flags they fly? Action must be taken by the states whose ports they visit, and it must be taken now.
Britain, and the other states whose shores touch on those crowded waters of the English channel and the North sea, must make it clear to the International Maritime Organisation that we will no longer tolerate their endless delays. We are in a strong position: between us, the North seam states—Britain, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Belgium and France—are responsible for more than a third of the world's trade. On our narrow seas, all the nations of the earth must come to trade, and they should be allowed to do so only on our terms, with safe ships with well-trained crews and responsible officers.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that what we need are tough new regulations, rigorously enforced by Britain, our European partners and international bodies? No longer must reputable ship owners in well-found ships with well-trained crews be put at a disadvantage and forced into cut-throat competition with ships that are cheap and nasty—ships that are cheap because they are nasty.
We welcome in particular Lord Donaldson's proposals for action to improve waste reception facilities and crew standards, to require ship routeing and reporting, to strengthen checks on vessels and to improve salvage arrangements. Does the Secretary of State accept that that will call for extra work to be done, and will he now therefore cancel the proposed cuts in the staff and budget of the Marine Safety Agency?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, without tough new regulations and the staff to enforce them, the hopes raised by the establishment of the Donaldson inquiry will not be fulfilled and accidents and pollution will continue? Will the Secretary of State accept my assurance of Labour's support for effective legislation, if he brings it before the House, to put things right?
Mr. MacGregor: Lord Donaldson's report is a good deal more balanced than the hon. Gentleman's observations on it at the beginning of his remarks, as right hon. and hon. Members will see when they read the report. It is not an endless indictment of the United Kingdom's failure to act. In fact, Lord Donaldson commented:
"We believe that the United Kingdom's performance as a Flag State … compares very favourably with that of most other Flag States but there is no room for complacency".
That is precisely my position—I agree that there is no room for complacency. Ever since I have been Secretary of State for Transport, I have sought to take forward action at every

679
level to deal with sub-standard ships and sub-standard crews. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is where the real danger lies.
The hon. Gentleman must accept that the matter cannot be tackled by the United Kingdom or by UK legislation alone. As he knows, only a comparatively small number of proposals are for UK legislation—a tiny proportion of the total. The majority of the action must be taken either through the IMO—and there are many recommendations for that—or, since that is sometimes slow-moving and does not completely deal with the issue of sub-standard crews and sub-standard ships, in the European Union and in the Paris memorandum of understanding group. That is precisely what I have been doing for the past two years —urgently pursuing within the European Union that the Transport Council takes steps to deal with all those issues.
Three matters will come before the Transport Council at its meeting in June, and port state control—which, like Lord Donaldson, I regard as a key—will come before it shortly thereafter.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I will take every possible step to follow up the Donaldson report. After all, I asked him to examine the whole issue in the most comprehensive way, taking into account the international aspect. I will do so particularly within the European Union, because that is where we get effective action on port state control—as I showed in my statement. I will make sure that we do everything that we possibly can, but we must recognise that this is an international business and that we need the co-operation of those not only in the European Union but in the IMO.
Mr. David Harris: As president of the Sea Safety Group (United Kingdom), and as someone whose constituency unfortunately saw both the Penlee lifeboat disaster and the Torrey Canyon environmental tragedy, I warmly welcome Lord Donaldson's report and my right hon. Friend's reaction to it.
As to the designation of marine environmental high-risk areas, which will be particularly welcome to the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, I urge my right hon. Friend to go one step further and ensure that those areas have statutory backing and do not rely merely on voluntary controls. I also ask my right hon. Friend and other Ministers to take the lead in the International Maritime Organisation. It needs a political impetus to ensure that all those desirable steps are taken as quickly as possible on an international front.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I repeat that we are taking the lead, and have done so for some time, in the IMO with others. However, because I recognise that the IMO takes time, it is important to take action earlier within the European Union and the Paris memorandum of understanding group. I repeat, because it is important, that that is where can get effective action to deal through port state control not only with sub-standard ships and sub-standard crews but with the point made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), which I have also made frequently. That will also help to deal with unfair competition from such ships and crews, which is every bit as bad as competition through unfair state aids. I assure my hon. Friend that I will certainly do that.
680
As to MEHRAs, as I believe they will come to be called, they do not require statutory backing at this stage. Lord Donaldson recommends that we identify and promulgate those routes but that if that does not lead to their effective observance we should consider through the IMO—and that is where it must be done—how to get sanctions to ensure compliance with MEHRA requirements.
My hon. Friend will notice that the inquiry recognised that the Isles of Scilly are both ecologically sensitive and at a busy shipping crossroads. The inquiry recommended that the Department of Transport should review the case for areas to be avoided or other means of enhanced protection and should consider the scope for setting up a voluntary system for the reporting of tankers similar to that in the Minch. I shall be following that up very shortly.
Mr. James Wallace: I warmly congratulate Lord Donaldson on producing a very comprehensive report, which, I am sure, will take a lot of digestion in the weeks and months ahead. Many of the points that he makes—he does not pull his punches—were identified by many of us before and it is regrettable that it took an incident such as the Braer to produce such a report. Nevertheless, it is important that we learn the lessons and take action at Government level, at European level and, indeed, at international level.
I endorse what the Secretary of State says about the need for a sense of urgency. For example, on the question of satellite tracking, which Lord Donaldson identifies as being important, between 1988 and 1993 there were only four meetings of the sub-committee. Will the Secretary of State say what more is being done to speed that up? Will there be more Department of Transport surveyors to undertake port state inspections? Is it true that there is to be a 30 per cent. efficiency reduction in staff and expenditure in the coastguard and in the Marine Safety Agency and, if so, how will that impact on the responsibilities which they will have to carry out to give meat and substance to implementing the recommendations?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general approach. He is right in saying that Lord Donaldson has done the job most comprehensively and that there is a great deal to be digested. In particular, Lord Donaldson has brought forward some very interesting ideas on port state control, which I am anxious to pursue in the European Union context because we have a draft Commission proposal coming forward on that. Lord Donaldson has been very imaginative in the way in which he has approached that matter and I am very attracted to it.
On the question of surveillance, Lord Donaldson has made a number of points. As the hon. Gentleman will see, Lord Donaldson has rejected the idea of radar all round our coasts and, in a good analysis, has put forward the reasons for that. He has especially placed emphasis on transponders, which, I believe, must be the only sure-fire way to move ahead—at least as sure-fire as we can make it. I shall therefore be anxious to pursue that as quickly as we can.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will resist the temptation to make long statements. I have to safeguard the remainder of this day's business. A number of hon.

681
Members hope to be called. They will not all be called unless the Secretary of State is asked direct questions and the House receives direct answers.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that one of the ways in which safety can be increased is to employ British officers and crews? Will he also give assurances to my constituents in Dover and Deal that the English channel will be a much safer place for shipping and for people whose homes are in towns alongside it as a result of the Government accepting the recommendations in the report?
Mr. MacGregor: If we can secure the action that I shall be seeking both at European and IMO level, undoubtedly the recommendations in the report, which follow up, as I have said, the approaches that we have already been making, they will greatly assist my hon. Friend's constituents in seeing that the Dover straits are a safer place for shipping. The report also makes specific recommendations about the Dover straits, which we shall be following up as well.
Of course, it is necessary for our ships to be competitive and flexible in their manning arrangements, but some of the policies that I have pursued recently, with assistance for the training of crews and so on, will certainly help to ensure that British crews play a prominent part.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: On the need to back up the voluntary arrangements with compulsory sanctions, a matter which has already been raised by the question asked by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), does the Secretary of State accept that the arrangement in the Minches is not working at present? The deep water route west of the Hebrides is not being followed and ships are going through the Minches. It would take only one of those ships to have an accident for there to be an environmental disaster.
Does the Secretary of State also accept that what was needed from him was not a cost-benefit analysis of the need for a tug on the north-west coast, but a decision to install a tug there to safeguard against a future disaster?
Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, Lord Donaldson, as he does in many of the recommendations, urges that we consider the cost benefits first, and that is what I shall be doing. I have said that I intend to move ahead with that swiftly. I am asking the Coastguard Agency to do that first analysis.
The report acknowledges the strong local objections to the passage of oil tankers through the Minch. It concludes that large merchant ships of all types should use the deep water route to the west of Harris and Lewis as a matter of routine, but that they should retain the option of using the Minch when exceptional weather or other conditions make it safer for them to do so. The Government endorse that view and will pursue the inquiry's recommendations on monitoring traffic in the Minch. The inquiry also proposes that the deep water route should be extended and we will take that proposal forward.
Mr. Barry Field: Is not Great Britain a giant roundabout for most of the world's shipping? It is not our own house which needs to be put in order, but the traffic that passes our doorstep. After the great debate about traffic separation from Ushant past Cap de le Hague through the Dover strait, which most people now agree has worked well, why can we not have black-box technology
682
on ships, particularly on oil tankers, which want to use the channel and require them to give a sample of their cargo so that we can discover and prosecute the culprits when they pump out and cleanse their tanks at sea?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will find that Lord Donaldson makes some comments and recommendations in that area. However, my hon. Friend's first point was important. A great deal of shipping passes our coast—we have one of the longest coastlines in the world—which does not come to our ports. Therefore, there must be action at international level. That is why I place such strong emphasis on tightening port state control throughout our northern European waters.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do the Government look favourably on the proposals of the Greek shipowner, George Livanos, that there should be a register of all major accidents, the lessons to be drawn from them and the facts about them? Also, will there be an undertaking for at least a 10–year study of the benthic consequences of what happens to the ocean floor after an accident like this and how the fauna are affected?
Mr. MacGregor: If by "an accident like this" the hon. Gentleman means the Braer, he will know that the study into the ecological consequences produced an interim report and we expect the final report next month. That will certainly give us some guidance, and I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is important to collect information from inquiry reports such as that of the marine accident investigation branch and to use that in international action. That is what we do. We have already followed up all the MAIB recommendations on the Braer.
Mr. George Kynoch: I especially welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals with regard to tightening up in-port inspections with particular reference to co-operation and targeted co-operation between European Union states. However, how quickly does my right hon. Friend expect that targeted co-ordination to get under way?
Mr. MacGregor: I wish I could say "immediately", but in international matters it sometimes takes some time. However, the Commission report on port state control will come to the Transport Council in due course. That is the peg that we can use to take forward Lord Donaldson's recommendations. I have today sent a copy of Lord Donaldson's report to the Commissioner and to all my European colleagues. I shall be raising the subject with them—I have given them notice of this—at the Transport Council in June.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I remind the Secretary of State that some of the recommendations in the report are as important to seafarers and maritime communities as some of the recommendations in the Cullen report? Can we expect early legislation to implement those recommendations, particularly recommendation 23.111, which relates to fish factory ships and the problems and dangers that they cause? Only an amendment to section 4 of the Fisheries Act 1967 is required to bring those vessels up to standard. Surely a quick Bill is needed.
Mr. MacGregor: The House knows that I cannot commit the Government to legislation. That is a matter for

683
the usual way of working out what the Government's legislative programme should be. On the other hand, if I recollect correctly, the particular recommendation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, while indicating that legislative change is ultimately desired, suggests that we can in the short term achieve the same objective through conditions attached to the licences for the klondykers. I will certainly be pursuing that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The owners of the Braer are members of Intertanko—the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners —to which I am parliamentary consultant. Does my right hon. Friend accept that international organisations such as Intertanko recognise that sub-standard tankers have to be rooted out? While measures such as local traffic schemes can improve matters, increase salvage and so on, what will really count in future is the speedy implementation of the International Maritime Organisation agreements, especially the Marpol agreements on improving tanker safety.
Does my right hon. Friend further accept that, while we all recognise the importance of collisions and other incidents, they must be put in perspective? Some 60 per cent. of world crude oil goes by sea and 98.98 per cent. of it arrives safely. Accidental discharge is less than operational discharge, which has declined by 85 per cent. over the past 20 years. Therefore, tanker owners are doing their best to provide safe, economic and environmentally—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have appealed for short questions. I will have to bring questions on the statement to a close unless hon. Members co-operate. A number of hon. Members have a direct interest in the statement and I want to call them. I can do that only if hon. Members ask one question. From now on, I want only one question and no statements; otherwise, hon. Members will be asked to resume their seats.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of action through the IMO. I also agree that it is important to concentrate on dealing with sub-standard ships and crews, which is what I intend to do.
Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr): I welcome the fact that inspection of foreign vessels by UK marine surveyors will be extended, but can my right hon. Friend assure me that the cost of it will be met by the foreign owners?
Mr. MacGregor: The Donaldson report recommends—and this is an important principle—that the polluter pays. Therefore, those who use sub-standard crews and ships should also pay. It should not be a burden on the taxpayer. I shall now pursue with my European colleagues the way in which that approach can be implemented.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the Secretary of State accept that paragraph 14.70 of the Donaldson report specifically states that the area between Grassholm and Skomer, off the coast of my constituency, should be made a marine environmental high-risk area? Will he ensure that that happens as soon as possible? Will he also change, again as soon as possible, the current voluntary code in that area to a compulsory one stating that the area is to be avoided? When will he introduce legislation to that effect?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that such action involves legislation, but I shall certainly follow up the Donaldson recommendation.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Have not the Government undermined the Donaldson report by their cuts in search and rescue and coastguard services? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if Donaldson is to be fully implemented, efficiency savings will not be enough and that new resources will be required? Will he provide them?
Mr. MacGregor: I want to be quite clear that I am seeking overall savings of 20 per cent. over two years in my Department. However, I give the assurance that that will not put at risk any approach to safety, including in this area. On the question of funding, I recommend hon. Members to read the interesting chapter 22 in the Donaldson report. It goes into financing and suggests that either charges or levies should be the main way of meeting the costs of his recommendations. I shall follow that up.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest risk of a disaster is still in the English channel? Is he aware that my constituents in Eastbourne and those of other towns along the south coast will, in particular, warmly welcome his support for more systematic inspections, especially in close co-operation with our European partners and other like-minded nations in the IMO?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with him.
Mr. Eric Clarke: I seek an assurance from the Secretary of State. The international salvage convention, to which we were a party five years ago, spelled out many of the aspects that we are discussing. However, the Government did not endorse it. I welcome the Donaldson report, but I am worried that the Government will delay, hiding behind the so-called difficulty about obtaining international agreement. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that other countries endorsed the convention. Is he sincere about moving forward on Donaldson's recommendations as soon as possible?
Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about ratifying conventions, he will know that currently going through Parliament—indeed, it is now in another place—is the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill. I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) for providing Parliament with the opportunity to debate a private Member's Bill. The Government were wholly behind the Bill and were anxious to find an opportunity to implement it. I am glad to see that Lord Donaldson is taking it through another place.
Mr. Matthew Banks: While welcoming the Donaldson report, and in particular its underlining of the importance of the direction that Government policy has been following for some time in this area, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important suggestions in the report is that the potential polluter should pay rather than a disproportionate and unfair burden falling on the British taxpayer as a whole?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, the chapter on that subject is extremely well

685
argued—indeed, the argument about the polluter or the potential polluter paying runs through the report in many places. I commend to the House study of what the Donaldson report says on that.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State finally repudiate the despicable Tebbit doctrine that,
"If British shipowners find it more profitable to flag out to flags of convenience, then that it is precisely what they should do"?
That is at the root of the virtual disappearance of the red ensign from the waterways of the world and the loss of tens of thousands of British seafarer jobs. Will the Secretary of State now repudiate that doctrine? If so, will he do something about the North sea where the encroachment of flags of convenience and cheap foreign labour are having exactly the same effect on the remaining rump of the British merchant navy as the Government have done to the rest of the British merchant navy?
Mr. MacGregor: As always, the hon. Gentleman goes right over the top and gets his analysis completely wrong. That is not what has been happening recently. It is important for United Kingdom shipowners, as for those throughout the European Community and elsewhere, to retain competitiveness. The key here is to ensure that it is not sub-standard crews and sub-standard ships which are providing that competitiveness. That is why, throughout my time as Secretary of State, I have strongly supported that approach. Nor is it just a blanket condemnation of flags of convenience. I commend the hon. Gentleman to read the Donaldson report; he will see that Lord Donaldson makes that very clear, not least with regard to the Braer.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On behalf of Teesport, which moves more hazardous cargo than any other port in the country, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take steps at the Council of Ministers in June to ensure that some form of Europe-wide navigation Act is put into force so that all ships trading into the single market are brought up to standard, which makes it pointless for them to be flagged out to a flag of convenience?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with the objectives behind what my hon. Friend says. I am not sure that a navigation Act as such is necessary. The right approach is to ensure that we get the widespread tightening of port state control to achieve what he wants to see and what I want to see.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Is the Secretary of State alarmed that, even in an area such as the English channel, the report says that it is not possible to guarantee that a tug could reach the scene of an accident within 12 hours, but things are even worse in areas such as the Bristol channel? As it is a matter of enormous importance for the tug to get to the scene—an incident might well turn into a disaster if the tug cannot get there in time—what guarantee can the Secretary of State give that he will improve the present situation and give proper protection to the coastal areas of wildlife in the Bristol channel?
Mr. MacGregor: The report makes a realistic and balanced analysis of the whole question of tugs, their costs and their cost effectiveness. When it comes to the recommendations, they include a salvage tug in the south-west. I have already said that I have asked the Coastguard Agency to do an analysis of that speedily, and we will then decide what action to take on the Donaldson recommendation.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that the safe routeing of ships is paramount, and obviously that is to be welcomed. With that in mind, does he agree that the proposal for the mandatory reporting of the position of ships, similar to air traffic control, is an excellent idea? Will he do his best to ensure a speedy passage of that proposal through the IMO and the European Union?
Mr. MacGregor: Without going into detail, because there are some complications, I have said that we are prepared to follow that up, and we will be doing so in both the European Union, where we will have recommendations on ships' reporting coming to us fairly soon, and the IMO. The ideal answer which currently can be achieved is the recommendation on transponders, and that is why I am keen to follow that.
Mr. John McFall: Does the Secretary of State accept that those affected by the Braer disaster will find little comfort in the recommendation for voluntary routeing? The reason why tankers go through the Minch is to save many hours on their journeys and many thousands of pounds. Without sanctions, that will be no use. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to consider a statutory framework for that recommendation?
Mr. MacGregor: I have stated that the right approach is to undertake to follow what Lord Donaldson recommends in that regard.
Ms Joan Walley: Given that the report is such a weighty volume, is the Secretary of State now prepared to go through it line by line and to allow a full debate? That would enable us to see what can be done in United Kingdom legislation and through European operations and the IMO. We need an annual report to see what progress is being made in shipping.
In view of all the work of those people who are absolutely committed to making sure that a disaster such as the Braer never happens again, and in view of what Donaldson says about transponders and the present anonymity of ships, is the Secretary of State prepared to fund a proposal from the Shetland Islands council to have radar—in the short term at least—until the long-term solutions can be considered? Will he also take on board the issue of flags of convenience?
Mr. MacGregor: I should be happy to have a debate when everyone has had a chance to digest the voluminous report. I agree with the hon. Lady on that, but that is not a matter for me. One of the recommendations in the report is for an annual report, and we will now be looking at that.
The hon. Lady mentions giving guidance line by line on where action is required in the United Kingdom, the European Union and the IMO. The report itself gives that guidance, and flags clearly where each lies. Responsibility for the majority of all major actions lies with international action rather than with purely domestic action.
There is an interesting recommendation in the report on the anonymity of ships to which I am attracted, and that would also require international agreement. The Donaldson report rejects radar in the Shetland Islands, and finally—[Interruption.] The report rejects permanent radar for Shetland.
The action I took with regard to the Braer included not only calling for the marine accident investigation branch report, but asking Lord Donaldson—a noted authority on

687
these matters, and that authority shines through the report —to undertake the inquiry. I can assure the House that I will now go through the report, not line by line but recommendation by recommendation, to ensure that we take follow-up action. I hope that we will take that action in the vast majority of the areas in which he recommended us to do so.

Homicide (Defence of Provocation)
4.12 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Homicide Act 1957 in respect of the defence of provocation.
The playwright Edward Bond said:
"You can live without kindness; you can't live without justice".
The injustice that I seek to remove is the blatantly sexist application of the law in homicide cases and the availability of the plea of provocation.
The Townswomen's Guilds recently produced a poster headed "Provocation—a male defence?", which showed a picture of a man, with the caption:
"man strangles nagging wife … sentence 18 months suspended."
and a picture of a woman, with the caption:
"after years of violent abuse, woman stabs husband … sentence life".
The poster went on to say:
"These are real life cases. Both defendants pleaded provocation. A successful plea reduces the sentence to manslaughter. The man was successful—the women was not."
This is the third time that the House has been asked to consider an amendment to the legal definition of provocation that would allow a woman who has experienced years of fear at the hands of a violent partner to name that as a cause if, driven beyond all endurance, she kills that partner.
I bring the Bill before the House because the plea of provocation is without doubt more easily available to men than to women. That perceived injustice does not concern only those of us in the House who share the belief that the law treats men and women differently. The Townswomen's Guilds recently presented a 40,000-signature petition to the Home Office, calling for the law to be changed, and that came from right across the political spectrum.
The noble Lord Ashley, then a Member of this place, first introduced a Bill to remove the present injustice in 1989. I presented a Bill last year and I return with it today. Hon. Members should make no mistake about it: this issue will not go away. If the Bill does not become law I, or some other hon. Member, will continue to present it or something similar until the British public are satisfied that justice, in the words of Lord Hewart, is
"manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done."
Lord Ashley is presenting a similar Bill to the other House next week.
At the heart of the matter is the law that specifies that the conviction of murder carries a mandatory life sentence. It is despicable that a woman who has suffered years of sustained domestic violence and acts out of fear and desperation on behalf of herself and her children should be treated as a common murderer and put away for life. Pleas of diminished responsibility or provocation are the two ways in which a person who is obviously guilty of the crime can be given a lesser sentence. It has been obvious for years that the law operates two different systems when deciding what is provocation for men and what is provocation for women.
Women are always barred from pleading provocation if the death was not the result of an immediate and "sudden loss of control"; that is the language of the law. Part of the argument about why that is discriminatory revolves around the differences between men's and women's reactions. Men act immediately and their physical strength alone can

689
mean instant death. Women often react more slowly. Inevitably, they must seek a weapon if they are to kill, and their fear may have to grow before they act. At present, however, the law does not recognise that difference. That oversight needs to be corrected.
The existing law and the judicial system that interprets it seem to work on the basic expectation that women must be completely obedient, submissive and subservient to their male partner's every whim. If they react after a sustained period of violence and abuse, or even in response to the threat of more to come, it is not understood or accepted as the reason for killing. The same underlying assumption does not apply to men.
Only in February, Mr. Roy Greech was given a two-year suspended sentence and walked free. The provocation that he had suffered was his wife's adultery—one of the 10 commandments that is broken, I am led to believe, by many people inside and outside this House. In Britain, adultery is not a legal crime and carries no sentence. Mr. Greech stabbed his wife 23 times and left the knife embedded in her throat. The judge told him:
"You have not only been a man of good character, but you are a good man also."
In 1991, Mr. Joseph McGrail killed his common law wife by kicking her in the stomach while she was drunk. The judge expressed his sympathy with Mr. McGrail, saying:
"this lady would have tried the patience of a saint".
Mr. Singh Bisla was given a suspended sentence after he strangled his wife. She had been nagging him and he wanted to shut her up. The judge told Mr. Bisla that he had "suffered".
Time and again the message is clear: it is the age-old message that is used against women whenever men do something violent to them—"She was asking for it." So British justice becomes an ass. Women can be murdered because they have affairs, are drunk or are nags. In some respects we have not moved on from 17th-century witch burnings.
Meanwhile, women like Sara Thornton, Carol Peters and Emma Humphreys still waste in prison. Emma Humphreys has been there for nearly 10 years. All three suffered years of violence and abuse and had been admitted to hospital because of the beatings that they suffered. They have been joined in prison by new women who are at the sharp end of that injustice, such as Josephine Smith. The organisation Justice for Women estimates that between 30 and 50 women are in prison although they have a history of being the victim.
Sara Thornton has been much maligned by the Home Office and some of the tabloid press, yet the police were called on many occasions when she was being assaulted and an Alcoholics Anonymous representative saw her violent husband punch her. A neighbour said that he had witnessed "her husband beat her black and blue" and she was admitted to hospital unconscious. Yet her husband was described as a "happy drunk". In Sara Thornton's case, the judge said that she could have walked out or gone upstairs. Why do judges never say that to people like Joseph McGrail? Where could women like Sara, Carol or Emma
690
go? There is no national provision for women's refuges, and if the Government's current proposals about homelessness are not altered, there will be fewer places in those that exist.
In our society there is still a reluctance to admit that violence is used against women. It is often seen as being the woman's fault and she is given little support. The Select Committee on Home Affairs, Lord Lane and the Law Commission have recommended that the law in relation to homicide be reviewed. Lord Chief Justice Taylor said that it is Parliament's job to review the law. It is obvious that, unless Parliament protects these women by amending the provocation law, the judiciary will continue to hand out uneven and unequal justice.
I stress that the Bill is not a licence for women to commit murder. These organisations, august bodies and personages would not support it if it were. In New South Wales, Australia, where the law has been changed, there is no evidence of any "licence to kill". The Bill proposes a recognition of provocation as a mitigating plea where domestic violence has been endured but it would still be a matter for a judge and jury to decide in all cases. We should recognise that we are legislating for desperate women who are victims of brutality—victims of a domestic war—and they should not be put in prison, especially for life.
I do not stand alone in my attempt to change the law. Apart from my many parliamentary colleagues who support the Bill—I believe, on both sides of the House—I have the privilege of speaking for the majority of women in this country who want to see the law changed. An alliance of women's organisations has been formed to campaign for the changes in my Bill. More than 6 million women are directly represented by groups such as the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the TUC Women's Committee, the Townswomen's Guild, National Women's Aid, Southall Black Sisters, and Women for Justice. All these groups have campaigned for a change in the law.
There is no question but that injustice occurs every time that a man walks free from a murder conviction under the provocation law while women who have suffered years of domestic violence are imprisoned. The question is: does Parliament still have the 17th-century mentality to which I referred, or does it feel that the time has come to change this unjust law? I give Parliament the opportunity to change the law.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Ms Clare Short, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

HOMICIDE (DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION)
Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Homicide Act 1957 in respect of the defence of provocation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 June and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Ordered,
That the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses, new Schedules, Amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 18, Schedule 3, Clauses 19 to 33, Schedule 4, Clauses 34 to 40, Schedule 5, Clauses 41 to 51, Schedule 6, Clauses 52 to 61, Schedules 7 and 8, Clauses 62 to 66, Schedule 9, Clauses 67 to 78, Schedule 10, Clauses 79 to 94, Schedule 11, Clauses 95 to 127, Schedule 12, Clauses 128 to 175, Schedules 13 and 14 and Clauses 176 to 178.—[Mr. Lang.]

New clause 21

  POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
  '. In section 88 of the 1973 Act (provision of information etc. on matters relating to functions of local authority), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(3) A local authority may assist voluntary organisations to provide for individuals—

  (a) information and advice concerning those individuals' rights and obligations; and

  (b) assistance, either by the making or receiving of communications or by providing representation to or before any person or body, in asserting those rights or fulfilling those obligations.".'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.24 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 17—Voluntary organizations—
  (1) 'Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall establish an interim committee with the power to consider, and as it deems appropriate to approve applications for grant aid from voluntary organisations in good standing funded by existing councils in 1995 whose funding applications to existing councils for the year 1996–97 and/or to new councils for the year 1997–98 have been refused or delayed.
  (2) The committee shall number not less than five and not more than seven members chosen from among people with knowledge and experience of the voluntary sector, at least two of which shall be chosen from a list drawn up by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and at least one of whom shall be chosen from a list drawn up by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, with a convener appointed by the Secretary of State.
  (3) The committee shall operate from an appropriate date in 1995 to an appropriate date in 1997 as determined by the Secretary of State.'.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In Committee, I undertook to consider an amendment that sought to confer specific powers on authorities to assist voluntary organisations in the provision of information, advice and representation. The original amendment was withdrawn on that basis. New clause 21 has been tabled following our further consideration of the issue. It seeks to amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 by giving a specific statutory discretion to local authorities to assist voluntary organisations in providing people with an information, advice and representation service. It will give the new Scottish councils the same powers as local councils in England and Wales.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I did not think that the Minister would be quite so concise in his presentation. My intervention will literally be an elongated question.
  I am being serious and I want a serious answer. Will the new clause allow the representatives of voluntary organisations to intervene in a strategic way in decision making about the disbursement of European structural funds? I remind the Minister that, in relation to structural funds for Northern Ireland, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), said at the Dispatch Box no more than two months ago that he could see a role on the monitoring programme committee for representatives of the voluntary organisations. So, with regard to the distribution of structural funds to voluntary organisations in Scotland, will those organisations' representatives be aided and encouraged by the clause to take part, with Scottish Office officials, in determining the way in which such money will be spent?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My understanding is that representatives of voluntary organisations are encouraged to act in partnership. I will inquire whether they are eligible to be appointed in that connection and will write to the hon. Gentleman, but certainly we would want a full input from the voluntary organisations. We would desire maximum continuity.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the other commitments given in Committee. We shall give guidance and, what is more, we shall issue directions to the new local authorities in due course, making it clear what assistance has been given to voluntary organisations in the past. We are keen that their interests should be borne in mind.
  I will follow up the detailed legal questions that the hon. Gentleman asked.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 22

  BYELAWS UNDER SECTION 121 OF THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982
  '. In section 121 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (control of the seashore, adjacent waters and inland waters)—
  (a) in subsection (5), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
  "(b) the local authority have given notice in writing of their proposal to make byelaws to each person having a proprietorial interest such as is mentioned, in relation to the byelaws, in paragraph (a) above whose identity has been ascertained as mentioned in the said paragraph (a);"
  (b) in subsection (6) the words from "and of to "that proposal" shall cease to have effect; and
  (c) in subsection (7)—

  (i) the words from "but the" to "his consent"; and

  (ii) the word "nevertheless",

  shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Stewart.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 194, 147, 214, 152, 216 and 154.

  693
  The intention of the new clause and the associated amendments is that they will overcome the current impasse experienced by councils wishing to make byelaws to control activities on the seashore, adjacent waters or inland waters. I believe that—
  Dr. Godman: What consultations has the Minister undertaken with the Crown Commissioners concerning the areas in the new clause?
  Mr. Stewart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the new provisions are, I think, widely acceptable to those concerned, including the Crown Commissioners.
  Perhaps I could give an additional answer to the hon. Gentleman's question by spelling out the provisions in more detail. The new clause will remove the arduous requirement for councils to obtain the consent of all those with a proprietorial interest in the waters and replace it with a more realistic round of consultation and consideration of objections. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has been personally involved in these matters in relation to Loch Lomond. I am sure that he will welcome the more realistic proposals that we are now putting forward.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 24

  STAFF: APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 2 OF PART I
  '.—(1) Sections 8 (except subsections (2A) and (3)), 9 and 12 of this Act shall apply also in relation to the transfer to the Administration of officers appointed under subsection (1) of section 36 of the 1968 Act and staff provided in pursuance of subsection (6) of that section with the following modifications—

  (a) references to an existing local authority shall include references to an islands council and references to a new authority shall be construed as references to the Administration; and

  (b) the reference in section 12(2)(a) to authorities which cease to exist by virtue of Chapter I of Part I of this Act shall include a reference to authorities which cease to have functions under section 36(1) and (6) of the 1968 Act.

  (2) Section 10 of this Act shall, with the modification specified in subsection (3) below, apply in relation to persons ceasing to be officers appointed or staff provided as mentioned in subsection (1) above and being subsequently employed by the Administration as it applies in relation to persons ceasing to be employed by an existing local authority and being subsequently employed by another person.
  (3) The modification referred to in subsection (2) above is that references in section 10 of this Act to an existing local authority shall include references to an islands council.
  (4) Section 11 of this Act shall apply also in relation to the remuneration of officers appointed and staff provided as mentioned in subsection (1) above with the following modifications—

  (a) references to an authority shall be construed as references only to an existing local authority and references to an existing local authority shall include references to an islands council;

  (b) the reference in subsection (4) to the Secretary of State consulting associations of local authorities and employees of local authorities shall include a reference to the Secretary of State consulting the Administration; and

  (c) the reference in subsection (6) to an authority not having ceased to exist shall include a reference to an authority not having ceased to have functions under section 36(1) and (6) of the 1968 Act.

  (5) Section 13 of this Act shall apply in relation to officers appointed or staff provided as mentioned in subsection (1) above with the modification that references in that section to an existing local authority shall include references to an islands council.'. —[Mr. Stewart.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 176 to 182, 60 to 62 and 185 to 187.
  Mr. Stewart: All the amendments in that group are either technical or fulfil commitments made in Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

  NEW WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITIES
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, before 1st April 1996, establish Joint Boards for the Local Government areas comprised in each of the combined areas set out in the Table at the end of this subsection for the provision in the combined area of the services required by the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968.

  Grampian

  Aberdeenshire, Moray, City of Aberdeen

  Tayside

  Angus, City of Dundee and Perthshire and Kinross (except for water purposes the former County of Kinross)

  Central

  Clackmannan and Falkirk, Stirling

  Lothian

  City of Edinburgh, West Lothian, Mid and East Lothian

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute, Dumbarton and Clydebank, City of Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire, North Ayrshire, East Ayrshire, South Ayrshire.

  (2) The provisions of Sections 62A and 62C of the 1973 Act shall apply to a Joint Board established by an Order made under this Schedule as they apply to a Joint Board established by an order made under the said Section 62A.
  (3) The Water and sewerage areas mentioned in subsection (1) above and in column 1 of Schedule (Water and Sewerage Areas) to this Act comprise the areas for the time being respectively described in column 2 of that Schedule.'.—[Mr. George Robertson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment (a), in line 1, leave out 'The Secretary of State' and insert
  "The local authorities in the areas concerned'.
  Amendment (b), in line 17, at end insert—
  '(1A) The members of the Joint Boards shall be elected councillors appointed in accordance with Schedule 7.'.
  New clause 15—New water and sewerage areas—
  '-With effect from 1st April 1996 there shall be established

  (a) a body, to be known as the Borders Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Borders water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Borders sewerage area;

  (b) a body, to be known as the Central Scotland Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Central Scotland water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Central Scotland sewerage area;

  (c) a body, to be known as the Dumfries and Galloway Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  695

  (i) the water authority for the Dumfries and Galloway water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Dumfries and Galloway sewerage area;

  (d) a body, to be known as the Fife Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Fife water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Fife sewerage area;

  (e) a body, to be known as the Grampian Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Grampian water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Grampian sewerage area;

  (f) a body, to be known as the Highland Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Highland water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Highland sewerage area;

  (g) a body, to be known as the Lothian Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Lothian water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Lothian sewerage area;

  (h) a body, to be known as the Strathclyde Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Strathclyde water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Strathclyde sewerage area;

  (i) a body, to be known as the Tayside Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Tayside water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Tayside sewerage area;

  (j) a body, to be known as the Orkney Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Orkney water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Orkney sewerage area;

  (k) a body, to be known as the Shetland Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Shetland water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Shetland sewerage area; and

  (l) a body, to be known as the Western Isles Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Western Isles water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Western Isles sewerage area.'.

  New clause 20—Constitution and proceedings of water and sewerage authorities—
  '.—(1) Schedule 7 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution and proceedings of, and other matters relating to, each of the bodies established by section (New water and sewerage authorities) above (those bodies being, in this Act, collectively referred to as the "new water and sewerage authorities").
  (2) The water areas and sewerage areas mentioned in section (New water and sewerage authorities) above and in column 1 of Schedule (Water and Sewerage Areas) to this Act comprise the areas for the time being respectively described in column 2 of that Schedule.'.
  New clause 25—Water supplied by meter to domestic consumers—
  'Without prejudice to section 41A of the 1980 Act, no meter shall be installed in any domestic premises unless it has been requested by the occupier, and also has been consented to by the owner of the premises.'.
  New clause 26—Determination of disputes—
  '(1) It shall be the duty of the Customers Council to refer to the Secretary of State for determination any complaint which the Customers Council has investigated under section 66(2) above, but is unable to resolve.
  696
  (2) The practice and procedure to be followed in connection with the reference to the Secretary of State shall be such as he considers appropriate.
  (3) Where the Secretary of State determines any dispute under this section he shall give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.
  (4) On making such determination under this section the Secretary of State may make such incidental, supplemental and consequential provision (including provision requiring either party to pay a sum in respect of the costs or expenses incurred by the Secretary of State) as he considers appropriate.
  (5) A determination under this section—

  (a) shall be final; and

  (b) shall be enforceable as if it were a judgement of court in so far as it included such provision as to costs or expenses as is mentioned in subsection (4) above.

  (6) The Secretary of State shall not determine any relevant dispute which is the subject of proceedings before, or with respect to which judgement has been given by a court.
  (7) In including in any determination under this section any provision as to costs or expenses, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the conduct and means of the parties, and any other relevant circumstances.'.
  New clause 30—New water and sewerage authorities (No. 2)—
  '-(1) There shall be established—

  (a) a body, to be known as the Borders Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Borders water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Borders sewerage area;

  (b) a body, to be known as the Central Scotland Water
  Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Central Scotland water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Central Scotland sewerage area;

  (c) a body, to be known as the Dumfries and Galloway Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Dumfries and Galloway water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Dumfries and Galloway sewerage area;

  (d) a body, to be known as the Fife Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Fife water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Fife sewerage area;

  (e) a body, to be known as the Grampian Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Grampian water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Grampian sewerage area;

  (f) a body, to be known as the Highland Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Highland water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Highland sewerage area;

  (g) a body, to be known as the Lothian Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Lothian water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Lothian sewerage area;

  (h) a body, to be known as the Strathclyde Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Strathclyde water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Strathclyde sewerage area;

  (i) a body, to be known as the Tayside Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Tayside water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Tayside sewerage area;

  (j) a body, to be known as the Orkney Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Orkney water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Orkney sewerage area;

  697

  (k) a body, to be known as the Shetland Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Shetland water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Shetland sewerage area; and

  (l) a body, to be known as the Western Isles Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Western Isles water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Western Isles sewerage area;

  (2) The Secretary of State shall, before 1st April 1996, establish Joint Boards for the Local Government areas in each of the combined areas set out in the following table:

  Grampian

  Aberdeenshire, Moray, City of Aberdeen

  Tayside

  Angus, City of Dundee and Perthshire and Kinross

  Central Scotland

  Clackmannan and Falkirk, Stirling

  Lothian

  City of Edinburgh, West Lothian, Mid and East Lothian

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute, Dumbarton and Clydebank, City of Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire, North Ayrshire, East Ayrshire, South Ayrshire.

  (3) The Water and Sewerage areas mentioned in subsection (1) above and in column 1 of Schedule (Water and Sewerage Areas) to this Act comprise the areas for the time being respectively described in column 2 of that Schedule.'.
  No. 1, a new schedule-'Water and Sewerage Areas'—

  Water or Sewerage Area

  Area by reference to existing or former administrative areas

  Borders Water Area

  Borders Region

  Borders Sewerage Area

  Borders Region

  Central Scotland Water Area

  Central Region

  The former county of Kinross

  Central Scotland Sewerage Area

  Central Region

  Dumfries and Galloway Water Area

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  Dumfries and Galloway Sewerage Area

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  Fife Water Area

  Fife Region

  Fife Sewerage Area

  Fife Region

  Grampian Water Area

  Grampian Region

  Grampian Sewerage Area

  Grampian Region

  Highland Water Area

  Highland Region

  Highland Sewerage Area

  Highland Region

  Lothian Water Area

  Lothian Region

  Lothian Sewerage Area

  Lothian Region

  Strathclyde Water Area

  Strathclyde Region

  Strathclyde Sewerage Area

  Strathclyde Region

  Tayside Water Area

  Tayside Region except the former county of Kinross

  Tayside Sewerage Area

  Tayside Region

  Orkney Water Area

  Orkney Islands

  Orkney Sewerage Area

  Orkney Islands

  Shetland Water Area

  Shetland Islands

  Shetland Sewerage Area

  Shetland Islands

  Western Isles Water Area

  Western Isles

  Western Isles Sewerage Area

  Western Isles'.

  No. 24, in page 53, line 32, clause 61, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 54.
  No. 260, in page 53, line 41, leave out 'and'.
  No. 263, in page 54, line 1, at end insert—

  '(d) a body, to be known as the Orkney Water Authority which, as from that date, shall be—

  (i) the water authority for the Orkney Islands water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority for the Orkney Islands sewerage area;

  (e) a body, to be known as the Shetland Water Authority which, as from that date, shall be—

  698

  (i) the water authority of the Shetland Islands water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority of the Shetland Islands sewerage area; and

  (f) a body, to be known as the Western Isles Water Authority which, as from that date shall be—

  (i) the water authority of the Western Isles water area; and

  (ii) the sewerage authority of the Western Isles sewerage area; '.

  No. 274, in page 138, line 17, schedule 7, leave out lines 17 to 23 and insert—'Membership of Water and Sewerage Authorities
  3. The members of an authority shall be—

  (a) elected councillors from the Joint Board area reflecting the votes cast for each political party or independent grouping at the most recent local government elections.

  (b) appointed by those councils (hereafter referred to as the "appointing authorities") within the area of the Water and Sewerage Authorities.

  (c) such number of elected councillors as the councils in the area covered by the authority shall by agreement determine.'.

  No. 10, in page 138, leave out lines 18 to 23 and insert—
  '3. The members of an authority shall be—

  (a) such number of elected councillors as the councils in the area covered by the authority shall by agreement determine and shall be appointed by those councils (in this schedule referred to as the "appointing authorities"),

  (b) the person who is for the time being the chief executive of the authority.'.

  No. 259, in page 138, line 22, after 'authority', insert
  'provided that in making appointments to the North of Scotland Water Authority, he shall appoint at least one person who appears to him to have knowledge or experience specifically relevant to the discharge of the Authority's functions in the Islands Area;'.
  No. 11, in page 138, leave out line 24 and insert—
  '4. The appointing authority shall be satisfied-'.
  No. 12, in page 138, line 25, leave out 'he' and insert
  'it'
  No. 257, in page 138, line 29, at end add—
  '(c) before the appointment of any person under paragraph 3(a) above comes into effect, that the person has declared in a form which the Secretary of State shall prescribe and make public, current membership of any political party, and details of any financial contribution to a political party in the previous five years;
  (d) from time to time, and at no longer than yearly intervals, that each person so appointed has updated the declaration of party political interests required in sub-paragraph (c) above.'.
  No. 13, in page 138, line 30, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appointing authority'.
  No. 14, in page 138, line 31, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appointing authority'.
  No. 15, in page 138, line 32, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appointing authority'.
  No. 16, in page 138, line 33, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appointing authority'.
  No. 17, in page 138, line 38, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appointing authority'.
  No. 18, in page 139, line 1, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appointing authority'.
  No. 19, in page 139, leave out lines 13 to 18 and insert—
  '8.—(1) The members of an authority shall appoint one of their number, other than their chief executive, to be chairman and may appoint another to be deputy chairman; and a chairman, or as the case may be deputy chairman, shall hold and vacate the office in question in accordance with the terms under which he is appointed to that office.'.
  No. 279, in page 139, line 13, leave out
  'The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the members of an authority, other than their chief executive,' and insert
  'Water Authorities shall appoint one of their members'.
  No. 20, in page 139, line 20, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'authority'.
  No. 21, in page 139, line 24, leave out 'Secretary of State may vary the terms of the instrument' and insert
  'the authority may vary the terms'.
  No. 23, in page 140, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert—
  '11. An Authority shall appoint its Chief Executive on such terms and conditions as it may determine; and the authority may make subsequent appointments to the office of Chief Executive on such terms and conditions as they may determine.'.
  No. 22, in page 140, line 34, after 'committees' insert
  'comprising solely of persons who have been elected to serve as councillors in local authorities which lie within the geographical area of the water authority.'.
  No. 243, in page 141, line 32, at end insert—
  '17A (1) All Water Authority meetings shall be held in public with the exception of confidential items agreed by a majority of Board Members, with suitable notice and publicity given to them and minutes of meetings shall be available on request and at reasonable cost to members of the public,
  (2) Water authorities shall prepare and publish annual plans and arrange for public consultation on them.'.
  No. 9, in page 142, schedule 8, leave out lines 1 to 42.
  No. 261, in page 142, line 38, leave out 'The Islands Area'.
  No 262, in page 142, line 42, leave out 'The Islands Area', and insert—

  'Orkney Water Area

  Orkney Islands

  Orkney Sewerage Area

  Orkney Islands

  Shetland Water Area

  Shetland Islands

  Shetland Sewerage Area

  Shetland Islands

  Western Isles Water Area

  Western Isles

  Western Isles Sewerage Area

  Western Isles.'.

  No. 82, in page 56, line 2, clause 64, after 'access' insert
  '(including access for recreational purposes)'.
  No. 266, in page 56, line 11, at end insert—
  '(3) The new water and sewerage authorities shall consult the Customers Council established under section 66 below on such matters as appear to effect the interests of the customers or potential customers of that authority.'.
  No. 267, in page 86, line 33, clause 65, at end insert—
  '() An authority shall publicise its procedures for dealing with complaints in such manner as may be agreed with the Customers Council.'.
  Government amendment No. 184.
  No. 268, in page 143, line 19, schedule 9, leave out 'and' and insert—
  '(ab) customers and potential customers who are disabled; and'.
  No. 258, in page 143, line 20, at end insert
  'provided that, where appropriate, there shall be at least one representative of customers living in the Islands Area;'.
  No. 269, in page 143, line 20, at end insert
  'provided always that a majority of the Members shall be representative of the interests of domestic customers.'.
  No. 252, in page 143, line 20, at end insert—
  '(4) Each local authority shall appoint one councillor to the Customers Council.'.
  No. 256, in page 143, line 27, after 'him', insert—
  'which terms shall include a requirement that the member shall declare and keep up to date, in a form prescribed and made public by the Secretary of State, any current membership of a political party and the details of any financial contribution to a political party in the previous five years;'.
  No. 253, in page 144, line 41, leave out
  700
  'with the approval of the Secretary of State'.
  Government amendments Nos. 83 to 88.
  No. 265, in page 61, clause 75, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—
  'except that the same basis for charging shall apply throughout the area served by the authority.'.
  No. 264, in page 61, line 50, at end insert—
  '(8) A draft charges scheme shall be presented in a form to be specified by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Customers Council.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 89 to 95, 158 to 161, 96, 162, 98, 148 and 149.
  Mr. Robertson: I confess that this is a difficult day on which to resume our debate on Scottish water, one of the most contentious issues in Scottish politics today, because our proceedings are inevitably overshadowed by the death of and mourning for John Smith.
  First, I should like to express publicly my gratitude and that of the whole Labour party to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the sincerity and feeling of his reaction in Inverness last Thursday to the news of John's death. Many people throughout Scotland have remarked on the honesty and frankness of the Secretary of State's instinctive comments, which were deeply moving and clearly came from the heart. We were also touched by the decision to suspend the Conservative party conference as a mark of respect. Scottish politics can often be noisy and tough, and its passion mirrors the strength of feeling on the issues that divide us. But in Scotland, too, we know when to separate the person from the message. Last week, uniquely, our whole nation put aside its political differences to grieve together for one of Scotland's greatest sons.
  Although this debate takes place in tragic and unique circumstances, the subject of the new clause—Scotland's water and sewerage services—still represents one of the most important and divisive issues in Scotland today. The issue is divisive not just between the parties. How water is to be controlled, administered and financed drives a wedge right down the Conservative party as well. In the present atmosphere of non-combativeness, I shall not labour the fact that what the Government propose for water and sewerage is simply not acceptable in Scotland. To put it in the gentlest and most diplomatic way possible, what the Government are doing in relation to water is unpopular, unnecessary, impractical and just plain undemocratic.
  After 150 years of municipal control and administration—a century and a half in which local, close, accountable control was deemed both efficient and effective for delivering such fundamental services—the Government are handing over the service to three new super-quangos which are unelected, centralised, remote and as unaccountable as all the other quangos have turned out to be.
  It need not be like that. New clause 1 and amendment No. 10, together with the consequential amendments, offer the House a practical and implementable solution to the future of Scotland's water which should attract the support of all Members of the House. There would be 12 joint water boards—exactly the same number as currently run Scotland's water services—based on the new local authorities concerned, and there would be a clear legal injunction that their members should be elected councillors from the areas that they serve. This is a practical and workable proposal. It would provide for local, open,

  701
  efficient and effective delivery of these council services. Most importantly, the administration would be close to the citizens involved.
  Having, in the interests of decency and moderation, put forward a way in which the Government could satisfy public demands concerning water, I want to put a number of questions to Ministers. I do so in all innocence. How have the Government reached a position in which the once-mighty Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland languishes in fourth position and enjoys the support of fewer than 14 per cent. of the Scottish people as expressed through the ballot box?
  First, why do the Government continue to insist that their own plan for three quangos is the only course of action that is open following this proposed reorganisation? After all, we have in new clause 1 a perfectly sensible and practical plan for Scotland's water. It is perfectly in tune with the alternatives that the Government themselves laid out in the consultative document, "Investing for Our Future", which was published two years ago. That document makes the position quite clear:
  "Over the years local authorities, of various sizes and configurations, have shown that they can effectively deliver water and sewerage services."
  I could not put it better, and nor could any Scottish councillor, of whatever political view.
  Under option (b)—the joint board option—which the Government themselves explore, the document says:
  "The creation of joint boards to undertake services which require a larger area of operation than the structure of local government units is precedented; and it is acknowledged in the local government consultation paper as a positive way of providing certain services in the future."
  That is what "Investing for our future" has to say about the alternative that I am putting before the House. In any event, the argument about how the Government can deal with the issue of water and sewerage following their proposed reorganisation has been adopted in relation to police and fire services in Scotland. These services, the importance of which is undeniable, will continue to be delivered and administered by eight joint boards.
  While we are on the subject of delivery quangos and the number of organisations that will be required, may I ask why the Government have settled on the figure three? Why is three the optimum? In the consultative document it is not so. Why should not the number by six, eight or 12? The consultative document refers even to 15 as being perfectly feasible. With three centralised boards, areas will be so big that they will cease to be logical. Power and control will be taken well away from the people. We shall have three quangos, unelected and remote.
  The Opposition's solution would not in any way contradict the Government's stated objective with regard to water and sewerage. It would have no effect at all on the raising of capital that might be required over the next 15 years. It would have no more impact than would the three quangos themselves on the public sector borrowing requirement, and it would have no effect whatever on the future price of water, but it would provide the important reassurance that people's views matter and that their water supplies will still be controlled locally by individuals answerable to and removable by the people themselves.
  The second innocent question in my pursuit of knowledge is why the Government will not acknowledge that the principle of close, open, local, accountable control
  702
  of water, which has governed for 150 years the administration of that basic service, is now being compromised?
  The principle of municipal control of water and sewerage is hardly new. It goes back some 150 years, when far-sighted, public-spirited and far from ideological council leaders realised that public health could be guaranteed, not by a fragmented shambolic private sector, but by public control of water and sewerage supplies. Generations of civic leaders in Scotland embracing all political complexions invested public funds, bought land and lochs, constructed reservoirs, laid the pipelines and made the regulations. Their legacy today—a century and a half later—is a water supply safer, healthier and cheaper than possibly anywhere else in the world.
  The Government do not have to listen to the 97 per cent. of the Strathclyde electorate in the water referendum, although they certainly should; they need only look at the history books and learn the lessons of municipal water over the years. Even if, with the recklessness and disdain that cost them dearly in the regional elections, they continue to ignore the crushing verdict of the people, and even if they can somehow rationalise their dismissal of opinion polls which regularly and relentlessly show massive rejection of their plans, even by Conservative supporters, and even if they are daft enough, or deaf and blind enough to do all that, will Ministers not listen to the message that comes loud and clear from their own political families?
  A pretty plain view is being given to the Government by many sections of their own party in Scotland. They should listen to the words of Councillor Ian Hutchison, the leader of Eastwood district council, one of the last outposts of the Conservatism in Scotland and the local authority of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). They are close associates, but friends would be to stretch the meaning of the word slightly too far. If one had to pick out of the 5 million people in the Scottish population anyone who is not likely to be a member of the three super-quangos, Councillor Ian Hutchison is probably at the top of the list.
  Mr. Stewart: Quite right.
  Mr. Robertson: The Minister says, "Quite right," and Hansard will record it. However, he may not have anyone else to appoint, so perhaps he should not block off his options.
  Councillor Ian Hutchison said:
  "The board members should be directly responsible to the local electorate. I do not believe it is good enough for the Secretary of State to say they are responsible to him and through him to Parliament".
  They are not my words or those of the Labour party, but the words of one of the last few Conservative activists in Scotland.
  What about listening to the views of the now decimated Tayside region Conservative group? Alan Powrie wrote to me in April to explain its view:
  "For your information I quote from an unsuccessful amendment which we proposed at the Water Services Committee and which … said 'The Secretary of State be urged to consider that the appointments to the new Water Authorities should be elected accountable councillors, who would be nominated by their Constituent Councils."'
  That is the view of one of the significant Conservative groups in the country at that time. It was a view shared by the Conservative groups on Edinburgh district council and Stirling district council.

  703
  Perhaps all those I have quoted and more in the Conservative party are misinformed, too. Perhaps they have all been converted by Labour propaganda and leaflets. Perhaps they are all deluded, diverted and confused, like everyone else identified by the Government as being opposed to their proposals, or—and I ask the Secretary of State in all sincerity—could it be that they, like everybody else in Scotland, have got it right and that the Government have got it wrong?
  4.45 pm
  My third question is why Ministers do not understand the fears in Scotland about water privatisation. Why do they continue to denigrate the genuine fears that exist? Why do Conservative politicians of seniority and apparent intelligence not comprehend that words and promises are simply not reassurance enough to a electorate which is not convinced by mere words and promises from the Government?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), is not here this afternoon. His wife suffered a heart attack yesterday and we send him the strongest sympathy and deepest good wishes of everybody in the House. He made a real stab at putting some meat behind the words of the new clause, which will now underline the illegality in Scotland of disconnections from water supplies. It was an honourable effort and 56,000 disconnected families south of the border will look on with envious astonishment, but it was still not enough to convince people.
  The electorate of Scotland, including Conservatives, look at what happened in England and Wales and ask themselves the following question, and it is not a naive question: if the Government thought it so brilliant in England and Wales to privatise water, why stop at Gretna Green and Berwick-upon-Tweed?
  The bemused public seeking reassurance will recall the words of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box on 9 March 1993:
  "Privatisation means a better, more efficient service for the consumer and no more subsidies from the taxpayer. I have no reason to doubt that water privatisation in Scotland will be effective and efficient, as elsewhere".—[Official Report, 9 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 783.]
  We were told afterwards that it was a slip of the tongue and that he had simply wrongly anticipated the result of the consultation. But people outside here will remember the words of the Prime Minister and not necessarily those of junior Ministers in the First Scottish Standing Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.
  People will also look at that revealing consultative document again, and it is well worth reading. They will look at the way in which the Government outlined the different options for the future prospects for water in Scotland. I venture to suggest that they will find it significant that the option that the Government are defending in the House of Commons today, the option chosen by the Government after the consultation exercise, is described in the document in a mere 15 lines while the privatisation option, the full privatisation in accordance with England and Wales, takes up 218 lines. When people compare 15 lines with 218 lines, they come to a conclusion. One can call them misled or misinformed, but very often they are much cleverer than those who seek to hoodwink them. It is no wonder that suspicion grows.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I am following his argument with care and I agree with it. Does he agree that one factor which heightened the suspicions to which he rightly draws the attention of the House was the fact that the Government have steadfastly refused, against all odds, to publish the Quayle-Monroe report, which looked into the background of the options available to the Government?
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that issue, which has added to the secrecy of the exercise. The decision has simply fuelled the suspicions that I identified and that Conservative Members must have taken into account and must be finding on their doorsteps. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), are intimately familiar with the strength of people's suspicions. There has been a vote on the specific issue to remind them of the fact. All Conservative Members—representing, as they now do, only 13.7 per cent. of the Scottish electorate—cannot but be riveted by the fact that people do not believe the way in which the Government have put forward their position.
  I have offered the Government a way out. My hon. Friends and I have tabled the proposals contained in new clause 1 and amendment No. 10 which, if adopted today, would give the reassurance that privatisation is not an option.
  Mr. George Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman seems once again to be raising the spectre of privatisation, despite the fact that in Committee my hon. Friends clearly said that that was not on the agenda. How can he reconcile his own comments on the BBC television programme "Scottish Lobby"—made after the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), had introduced in Committee his amendment to prevent water supplies from being cut off —that it was now virtually impossible to privatise Scottish water?
  Mr. Robertson: It is not I who am seeking to persuade the electorate, but the electorate who have not been persuaded by the assurances given. I have already made it clear—I think that I have been more open than many of the Government spokesmen—that the amendment tabled by the Under-Secretary of State valuably underlined the state of the existing law and attempted to put some meat on the promise. But he did not manage to make a convincing case because of the other aspects.
  However, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) has a means of doing so: if the Government accept new clause 1 and amendment No. 10 today, I shall appear on "Scottish Lobby" or any other programme and say that it now looks as though the Government mean what they say and do not intend to privatise Scottish water. That is the test and I hope that, if the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside considers it important—for his own political future and for Scotland as a whole—he will take up that challenge today.
  I now come to my final innocent question for today. Why will not the Secretary of State, in one simple sentence today, unite his party and—if only for one fleeting moment —the whole of Scotland, by welcoming, recognising and saluting the overwhelming view of the people of Scotland? The vast majority of the people do not see water as merely

  705
  another commodity to be traded in the marketplace. They know that it is expensive, even when plentiful; they also know and believe that it is precious, natural and life-giving.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland faces a test, and no small one. He can either plough on, driving the new quango structure through this House and the House of Lords in the face of hostility and rejection unprecedented on any issue in modern times, hoping and praying that it will all come right in a blinding revelation just before the next election—the politics of the tooth fairy—or he can put the interests of his country and its people, which on this issue happen to coincide with the interests of the survival of the Conservative party, before the unpopular and ideological model for Scotland's water. In this unique week of remarkably reflective politics, the Secretary of State should not heed me or any other politician who gives him advice: he should just listen to the people.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I shall be relatively brief. When we talk of privatisation we must recognise—as I did in Committee—that the Government's original intention was to see the privatisation of the water and sewerage systems. I do not dispute that; I feel that we were given a guide to Government thinking when the Prime Minister made his remarks about the privatisation of Scottish water. But the Secretary of State went out to consultation and the massive response from Scotland showed that privatisation was not wanted there. It was to the Government's credit that they listened to that message and found a means of treating water and sewerage so as to achieve the objectives of providing water and sewerage services under a new local government structure that would be of benefit, in terms of cost in the longer term, and in terms of quality.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am closely following the hon. Gentleman's argument. Can he name any body of opinion in Scotland that supports quangos or the expansion of quangos and the quangoisation of water?
  Mr. Gallie: Given the Labour party's record of establishing quangos and the fact that the Government have recently set up so-called quangos, with enterprise companies and other organisations, with people becoming involved and giving so much of their time and effort, does not the hon. Gentleman believe that those who have given so much would argue the benefits of quangos? The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is looking into the position of Scottish Enterprise, which is basically a quango, and it is finding much support throughout Scotland for the efforts of the enterprise companies. I see no reason to doubt that the water and sewerage authorities, providing that they deliver the goods—I have every reason to believe that they will—will achieve widespread support in the future.
  Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend agree that those were choice words from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), as there are significantly fewer quangos now in Scotland than there were under the Labour Government?
  Mr. Gallie: I agree with my hon. Friend. I also made that point when I suggested past Labour Governments had created many organisations, perhaps in many cases for good reason.
  I believe that the three structures envisaged for the new water authorities, given their size, are just about right. The geographical requirements of the system have been recognised, especially with regard to the requirements for
  706
  fairly large catchment areas. The fact that the scale of water treatment is also an important element has been recognised. Transmission and distribution are major features that can benefit from the reasonable scale and geographical basis of the authorities that are to be established.
  People have concentrated on the water issue in Scotland; perhaps people have tended to forget about that other important service, sewage treatment and disposal. Local authorities do not have as good a record on that as they should have. I believe that when the bodies with sole responsibility for looking at water and sewerage provision, or sewage treatment and disposal, are concentrating their minds on those issues it will almost certainly result in their giving the people of Scotland a better service.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that I spoke on that subject at the Conservative party conference and at a fringe meeting organised by the Glasgow Herald, and at that meeting I did find hostility within the Conservative party, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, on the issues of water and sewerage. But I have to say that, by the time the meeting had finished—[Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but the editor of the Glasgow Herald was there. His reporters were there. They saw exactly what happened and heard the remarks.
  Quite honestly, even within the Conservative party, to our discredit, the real situation with water and sewerage, the real arguments for my right hon. Friend taking the steps that he has—despite the massive amount of information that was given, and despite the consultation paper and the detail behind it—have just not got out. But I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, if he pursues the objective as currently set out in the Bill, the people of Scotland will come to appreciate why he took that line.
  5 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the night of 5 May, when he and I were in the Dam Park hall in Ayr and saw Labour votes piling on Labour votes, and when the people of Ayr made it quite clear that they rejected the Conservative party and its policies on water and sewerage, just as they did in the Strathclyde referendum? Would not the hon. Gentleman be well advised to start thinking about the possibility of representing the views of his constituents, which were so clearly expressed, when he speaks in the Chamber?
  Mr. Gallie: I can remember back to the regional elections in 1990 in Dam Park. I can think back to the general election in 1992. I can think back to the district elections in 1992, when the Labour party was minimalised; it was almost wiped out, but not sufficiently. But having said that, what Members of Parliament must do is stick by their principles and strive towards their objectives. I believe that the best interests of my constituents will be served by adopting the line that my right hon. Friend has taken. I welcome that. I would also like—
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gallie: Well, finally, because I do not want to delay the House.
  Mr. Graham: Is the hon. Gentleman rejecting the people of his constituency who voted overwhelmingly

  707
  against the Government's privatisation of water in Scotland and the road that the Government are going down to force privatisation? If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he listens to his constituents, he will support us tonight.
  Mr. Gallie: I do listen to my constituents. I believe that there were issues other than water. What happens in regional elections—very sadly for local authorities—is that people do not judge, nor do they vote on, the issues that are before them, such as regional handling of local government affairs. In that regional election, they forget that. They created a protest atmosphere and went down that line. I am sad about that, because it undervalued local government, which many Conservative Members value.
  We particularly welcome two issues: the commitment not to have disconnections in Scotland; and the commitment, so strongly given by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), to stand out totally against privatisation in Scotland.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I agree entirely with the apparent assessment of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) of the local government election results in Scotland—that it was a massive vote of no confidence in the economic policies of the Tory Government, their policies on local government reorganisation and their disastrous plans for water, sewerage and everything else.
  I support new clause 1, which was moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), and associate myself with the other new clauses and amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends.
  The Government's declared aim in the Bill is to make local services more accountable to the people of Scotland. Whatever we think about the rest of the Bill—many of us know that it is a charter for gerrymandering and nothing else—if we measure the Government's proposals on water and sewerage services on that test of accountability, they fail. Instead of making those services more accountable to the people of Scotland, the Government are proposing to do the opposite.
  Water and sewerage are currently administered by authorities consisting of the elected representatives of the people, who are directly elected by the people and are directly accountable to the people. That measure of democratic accountability will be lost entirely if the Government's proposals go ahead, because the Government are saying that, instead of those elected representatives administering water and sewerage, there should be three over-centralised quangos, which, in effect, would remove any local accountability.
  New clause 1 is a very sensible proposal. If the Government are hell-bent on going ahead with the rest of the local government carve-up, as proposed in the Bill, they could at least keep an element of local accountability in water and sewerage, if they accept new clause 1. The proposals contained in it are modelled by and large on a body that already exists in Scotland—the Central Scotland Water Development Board. Some people might not know about it. It consists of representatives from the various local authorities that it covers.
  If the Government are hell-bent on going ahead with the carve-up of Scotland, they could still retain some local accountability if they accepted new clause 1 and accepted the water areas envisaged in it. Members of those water
  708
  boards would be elected representatives of the people. That solution, perhaps, is not as good as the one at present where the representatives are directly elected by the people on to the regional and islands councils, but at least it would offer an element of indirect election and therefore indirect accountability.
  I ask the Secretary of State to consider that and bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said about the history of municipal enterprise regarding the provision of water and sewerage services to the people of Scotland. It has never been one of nationalisation. It has never been one of an over-centralised, bureaucratic style of public ownership. The reason why the initiative was taken—on what has turned out to be one of the most successful pieces of public enterprise in the country—was not because of any Marxist, or even socialist, doctrine. People realised that, if they were to have adequate standards of public health, representatives elected at local level would have to take the initiative that private enterprise was unwilling, indeed unable, to take. The initiative grew up from grass-roots level, rather than being thrust on people by the state.
  Before previous reorganisations of local government, many small towns and burghs had their own reservoirs and pipe systems to provide a good, reliable, clean water supply. As people in third-world countries know, water is one of the basic essentials of life: it is an even more fundamental necessity than food. What is true in third-world countries is just as true in so-called developed countries such as ours.
  My grandfather was a Labour councillor on Cowdenbeath town council back in the 1920s. I remember that one of his proudest possessions was a photograph of him and other councillors at the annual inspection of the town's reservoir, which was Loch Glow at the time. I am sure that many councillors throughout Scotland had similar experiences. It was not just an annual outing; the annual inspection of one of the most important services they provided for their people was something they took very seriously.
  No doubt my hon. Friends from Glasgow could speak more eloquently than I about the initiative that was taken by their city fathers back in Victorian times. Many were right-wing Tories; indeed, their economic policies may have been even more right-wing than those some of the Ministers who are present today. But they took the initiative—a public-enterprise initiative—in launching that wonderful project to provide the people of Scotland with water piped from Loch Katrine and other parts of the country.
  They may have done it for selfish reasons. Perhaps they realised that public health was universally important: if the poor people in their slum housing or work places became sick, they too might be affected. Disease is no respecter of persons; it can spread like wildfire through a whole community, regardless of whether the people in that community have money. Even if self-preservation was the motive, however, I must give those city fathers and other pioneers the credit for initiating one of the most successful examples of public enterprise that Scotland has ever seen.
  Mr. Graham: As my hon. Friend may know, our Scottish water is, on average, £70 a year cheaper than English water. Wales pays an average of £233 a year for its water. Our forefathers certainly gave us a good deal—and these folk want to get their grubby hands on it.
  Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is quite right. I shall deal with water prices shortly.
  I suppose that, at the time of the last local government reorganisation, with the advent of regionalisation, a certain amount of merging of water authorities was necessary. Now, however, the Government are proposing a gross over-centralisation—and the boards will not consist of locally elected representatives, accountable to the people directly or indirectly. The Government may claim that the privatisation threat is just a bogey man created by us; they may say that they have no intention of privatising. They should ask the people of Scotland, who have already given their verdict in the Strathclyde referendum.
  We need only observe the effects of privatisation south of the border and the number of disconnections resulting from massive price increases. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) mentioned prices. The Government's own consultation document points out that Central region has the cheapest water in the United Kingdom—possibly the cheapest in Europe—costing £20 per annum for domestic consumers. There may have been a modest price increase since, but Central regional council can nevertheless be justly proud of its record.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. William McKelvey: The Government have said that they will not privatise Scottish water in the foreseeable future. We should give them some credit for that; after all, it is similar to what they said about the extension of VAT just before the general election. No one foresaw any such extension—but VAT is now charged on fuel.
  Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said, people can see what has happened south of the border as a result of privatisation, with increased charges and disconnections. They have had a drastic effect on public health: huge percentage increases have been reported in cases of dysentery. I believe that, in south Staffordshire, one in seven households in one particular multi-storey block were disconnected, and people were throwing excrement out of the windows. No wonder there is a serious threat to public health as a result of privatisation.
  The Government should listen to the people. The people are afraid of privatisation; they do not trust the Government and they reject the Bill's proposals—as the Strathclyde referendum clearly showed. The Minister may say that the referendum did not cover the whole of Scotland. Well, the recent local government elections covered the whole of Scotland—and, as I have said, they produced a massive vote of no confidence in the Tory Government, in regard to water and everything else.
  I plead with the Government to listen to the voice of the people. The people of Scotland want Scotland's water to remain their property and they want democratic accountability through the elected representatives of the people. If the Government are hell-bent on destroying the status quo, they might at the very least accept my hon. Friend's new clause.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Let me say to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that the loss of John Smith has had an impact on all of us. This is another sad case of a man of great intelligence and ability being
  710
  taken from us far too young. Although his loss is felt most acutely by the Labour party, I think that Labour's feelings are shared by all. On behalf of the Scottish National party, let me extend our thoughts and condolences to John Smith's family and wish them all strength and courage at what must be a trying time.
  I will be brief, as I know that hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee wish to speak. Brevity, however, will not lessen my anger at the Government's proposals. Quite simply, no change is wanted in Scotland. The people of Scotland do not want water services to be taken out of local government; they want to retain local accountability and local control.
  The Government had no mandate for this move at the last general election. On the contrary, the people of Scotland rejected their policy. They certainly had no mandate at the recent local government elections: indeed, they were specifically rejected, gaining less than 14 per cent. of the Scottish vote—about 6 per cent. of the electorate. There could be no greater rejection of any Government, yet this Government are intent on forcing through their proposals for water, against the wishes of the people.
  That is not fair or democratic; in fact, it is the opposite of democracy. Scotland is powerless. The system will be run by Unionist-created quangos. It is just not good enough for three unelected quangos to meet secretly, behind closed doors, especially when they are commandeering, indeed stealing, Scotland's water assets, which were created not by central Government but by generations of local taxpayers.
  The SNP wants water to be provided as a local authority service run by democratically elected councils in the public interest and for the public good. The Bill should be dumped. The message given to the Government at local elections was simply that. They should take the hint and keep water services a local authority provision. Sadly, I do not think that that will happen.
  If the Government go ahead, our amendments propose an SNP alternative organisation for water and sewerage services in Scotland—water authorities organised on a regional basis with the minimum disruption of staff or services, with maximum continuity of water services provision. There would be no extra financial cost and no extra bureaucracy, which is inherent in the Government's proposals.
  Our amendments outline a sensible solution, but regrettably it is not the Government's solution. The water authorities that we propose would be chosen not by the Secretary of State but by democratically elected local authorities in proportion to votes cast, following the democratic will of the people and not the will of the Secretary of State. Their chairpersons would be chosen not by the Secretary of State but by democratically elected local authorities.
  Our amendments seek to reduce the Secretary of State's role and to increase the powers given to local authorities elected by the people. Meetings of the water boards should be held in public, apart from obvious safeguards in cases of exceptionally confidential matters, and minutes of their meetings should also be publicly available. There should be local authority representation on the customers council, as well as representatives from consumer and other interests, such as the disabled.

  711
  Such an open, accountable system contrasts starkly with the closed, remote and unaccountable organisations proposed by the Government. Their three giant quangos will provide at most minimal accountability.
  There is an unanswered paradox in the Government's proposals. They attack regions as remote and unaccountable, yet the Government are creating even larger non-accountable water boards, and no doubt fattening them for eventual privatisation. The Government are providing no real safeguards to the general public in respect of an essential, monopolistic service that is used by everyone daily. The public cannot avoid using water services, yet there will be no public control or accountability over those assets, which generations of local taxpayers created. Now they will be commandeered or stolen by central Government and handed to quangos.
  I have no questions for the Government because their minds are clearly closed on that issue, but I have a message for them: dump this unwanted stealing of Scotland's water assets. It is unwanted, unnecessary, unfair and undemocratic. They should dump their proposals, because that is what the people of Scotland want the Government to do.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I thank the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for his opening remarks, for which I am grateful. This is of course a difficult day to join battle across the Floor of the House on Scottish issues. Nevertheless, the future of Scottish water and sewerage is a controversial and important matter. It is no less controversial because our debate today may be a little more muted, but I hope that thereby we may shed more light in place of some of the heat that has gone before.
  I will begin by speaking to the Government amendments in the group. Amendment No. 82 stems from an undertaking given in Committee that we would introduce a specific reference to access for recreational purposes in clause 64. That was not by way of changing the intention behind the clause as originally drafted, but by way of making that intention clearer. The amendment fulfils the undertaking that was given.
  Amendments Nos. 158 to 161 also stem from an undertaking given in Committee, to re-examine clause 109 —formerly clause 105, which deals with the vesting of certain supply pipes. We looked again at the clause and have concluded that some change is required to ensure that apparatus, such as pumps, used in connection with a pipe is covered by the clause. Those amendments make the necessary changes.
  Amendment No. 184 is a small change suggested to us by the Scottish Consumer Council, which put in a power of work on this Bill, to ensure that authorities' complaints procedures and other features of their codes of practice are brought to the attention of customers—the potential beneficiaries of the codes. I am happy to table the necessary amendment, which I am sure is acceptable.
  Amendments Nos. 83 to 92 and amendment No. 96 are purely drafting amendments, to remove any possible ambiguity from the term "sewerage services". Amendment No. 93 is a technical amendment, the effect of which is to make explicit that disconnection for non-payment of charges for domestic supplies cannot take place, whether
  712
  those charges are demanded by the water authorities under clause 73 or by the local councils acting under a clause 78 order. I am sure that that is welcome.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Has the right hon. Gentleman held discussions with the team of the Secretary of State for the Environment, with a view to extending his welcome amendment to the Bill to the Water Act 1989, so that that provision will apply also to England and Wales?
  Mr. Lang: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I have held no such discussions. It is open to the hon. Lady to draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Her question allows me to emphasise that we do things differently in Scotland, according to our priorities there. I am happy to reiterate that disconnections will remain illegal in Scotland.
  Amendment No. 95 is a drafting amendment that makes clause 92 refer specifically to clause 96, which was introduced at Committee stage, rather than generally to chapter 2 of part 1. Amendments Nos. 94, 148, 149, 98 and 162 are purely drafting amendments, to insert appropriate definitions into the Bill. I commend those amendments to the House.
  I refer now to the Opposition amendments. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, new clause 1 would establish five joint boards of the new unitary authorities, to provide water and sewerage services in the areas of the current Grampian, Tayside, Central, Lothian and Strathclyde regional councils.
  New clause 15 and amendment No. 1 would establish 12 new water authorities, to provide water and sewerage in the areas of the current regional and islands councils. Amendment No. 10 would ensure that the members of the new water authorities were elected councillors appointed by the new unitary authorities in the water authority areas.
  The Labour party's proposals would result in water and sewerage being delivered by 12 new authorities effectively run by the new unitary local authorities, or by a mixture of such authorities and joint boards of the new unitary authorities where the water authority areas cover several unitary authorities. I hope that that sets them out succinctly. New clause 20 and amendments Nos. 9 to 24 are consequential on or secondary to those main proposals.
  The Scottish National party's amendments to new clause 1, together with their new clause 30 and amendment No. 274, would ensure that members of authorities and joint boards were elected councillors appointed by the appropriate councils themselves, with the appointment in the case of those coming from joint board areas reflecting the relative strength of the political parties.
  There was extensive debate in Committee on those points. Consideration of clause 61, dealing with the new structure for the water and sewerage services, began at 6.45 pm on 24 March and clause 61 was agreed to just before 10.30 pm on 29 March. That gave some nine hours of debate. The arguments were fully examined and comprehensively answered.
  The current structure fits the current organisation of local government into regional, district and islands councils. Those councils, however, are, for good reasons, to be replaced by the new unitary authorities. In those

  713
  circumstances, it does not make sense to perpetuate the current areas for the provision of water and sewerage alone.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The arguments were not comprehensively answered in Committee. One particular problem was referred to at length yesterday, at a briefing by Lothian purification board at Clearwater house in Livingston which I attended, and at which the Scottish Office was represented at senior level. Who will take responsibility for the problem of pumps that no longer pump water from coal mines into rivers such as the Almond? There is a real, massive, urgent ferruginous problem of which the Scottish Office is well aware. The unanswered question is, who will pay for the investment created by the problem of pits no longer working and pumping, and all the difficulties that arise therefrom for the water of central Scotland?
  Mr. Lang: I have no doubt that the Coal Board and the existing water authorities will have some responsibility in that direction, but that is not the subject of these amendments.
  Mr. Wallace: Of course, the islands councils have not changed, so what is the argument for incorporating them into much larger water authorities, when, for the past 20 years, they have had their own water and sewerage authorities?
  Mr. Lang: If I may, I shall come to the islands councils later in my remarks.
  The issue that has dominated the debate, however, is the question of privatisation.
  Mr. Eric Clarke rose—
  Mr. Lang: I really must make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
  Mr. Clarke: It is central to that point.
  Mr. Lang: All right, I give way briefly on that point.
  Mr. Clarke: It is on the same point as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). During the privatisation of coal in the Coal Industry Bill, an unsatisfactory answer was given to us on the same subject. It is a serious problem, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom, especially in Northumberland, Durham and other places of that nature, to which hon. Members have drawn attention. It is very important, because if that problem is not addressed, it will pollute all the waterways and even the water that sinks into the reservoirs from where we draw water.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Lang: I envisage that the responsibility on that matter lies with the Coal Board and if I find out that there is a problem that takes that matter outside its responsibility, I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and clarify the position.
  The present debate has been dominated by the question of privatisation. I welcome the opportunity that the debate gives me to say yet again to the House that privatisation is not part of the Government's proposals. The hon. Member for Hamilton raised the question of the Government denigrating the fears of those who suggested that water was
  714
  to be privatised. I do not denigrate those who have fears about those matters, but I denigrate those who have placed those fears in people's minds without foundation.
  The hon. Gentleman quoted the Prime Minister in March last year, but those remarks of the Prime Minister were before the Government had consulted and considered and decided on their way forward in Scotland. Now, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has confirmed, along with others in the Cabinet including myself repeatedly, that we are not privatising Sottish water, nor are we planning to privatise it.
  May I go back—
  Mrs. Helen Jackson rose—
  Mr. Welsh rose—
  Mr. Lang: I have already given way to the hon. Lady, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Welsh: I understand what the Minister is saying, but does he understand the scepticism with which the remarks are greeted? People believed his Government colleague in England, Neil Macfarlane, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, when the boards were created and he gave a clear assurance that there would be no privatisation. Yet, two years later, another ministerial colleague said that the boards were perfectly placed for such privatisation. Does the Secretary of State understand the scepticism when such clear assurances were given in the past and were clearly broken?
  Mr. Lang: The assurances that I am in a position to give are regarding water and sewerage in Scotland.
  May I trace some of the history of the matter? As long ago as 1991, we consulted on the matter and we indicated that the new organisations for water and sewerage may need to be separated from local authorities. In June 1992, we appointed financial consultants to secure advice on the basis of which we framed a number of optional proposals, which we included in our consultation paper published in November that year. That paper canvassed eight options in an entirely evenhanded way. The fact that it took longer to explain some of those options than it took for others is entirely irrelevant to the underlying attitudes of the Government and relates solely to the novelty or the complicated nature of the proposals being canvassed.
  The option that we decided on was similar to option D in that consultation paper. Having listened to the views that were submitted, we specifically rejected the privatisation option and chose instead three publicly owned water authorities. We were told at the time that it would be the acid test of the Government's ability to listen to public opinion in Scotland whether we chose a separate Scottish solution from that which had been chosen south of the border. We met that acid test. Indeed, the solution that we brought forward thereafter was welcomed by the Opposition a year ago. They even claimed credit for the fact that they had secured a success in persuading us not to privatise Scottish water. What a difference a year makes.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State knows that the Scottish nationalists were not that gullible a year ago. With respect, he has not answered the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). My hon. Friend made the obvious analogy that assurances were given south of the border which were

  715
  subsequently broken by Ministers. There has been some speculation over the past few days about the Secretary of State's position in Scotland. Can he tell us the most recent estimate of the opinion on water privatisation held by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? For example, if that hon. Member became Secretary of State for Scotland, could this Secretary of State be absolutely certain that his successor would hold the same opinion?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is being frivolous. I assure him that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, like all other members of the Government, strongly and fully supports the proposals that the Government have brought forward. What we have brought forward—
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Mr. Lang: I must make some further progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. I know that the House is keen to make progress.
  We have brought forward a solution that specifically meets Scottish requirements and that is durable for the long term. As some references to the history of water and sewerage have been made in the debate, it is worth pointing out that at the end of the second world war, there were no fewer than 210 water authorities in Scotland. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is right to point to the civic pride with which the city fathers in various cities around Scotland and the provosts and councils in various towns took pride in the quality of their water and the provision that they made for it. I understand and respect that. My own great-grandfather was provost of Greenock about 100 years ago and I have no doubt that he took the same pride in the quality of the water there.
  In 1946, with the Water (Scotland) Act, introduced by a Labour Government, central Government took powers that were more far-reaching and dramatic than anything that we have contemplated since then to rationalise and improve the handling and the delivery of water services for the future. That Act first provided the basis for most of the powers and duties of local authorities today. In 1967, there was a 13–board structure. In 1975, the present structure came into being. As recently as 1973, there were no fewer than 234 separate sewerage authorities.
  We are not proposing some dramatic and sudden change in something that has been in position and unchanged for one and a half centuries. Rather, it is a further progression down the road of rationalisation and improved efficiency which dates back to former times, with the major legislation of the Labour Government of 1946 forming one of the most pivotal landmarks along the way.
  Mr. George Robertson: The one continuing thread which goes right through that century and a half and through the period when the Secretary of State's great-grandfather was provost of Greenock is absolutely fundamental to the debate. Those water authorities, however numerous they were, whatever form they took, were run by local councillors, who were elected by the people and were removable by the people. Does not he understand that that is what the people of Scotland are saying today, as they have said over all those years? They are saying: let control of water and of all commodities be left in the hands of people who are close and accountable to the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Lang: The point that I have just made to the hon. Gentleman is that it was a Labour Government, in 1946, who took the power to rationalise and reorganise and establish their clear authority over the handling of water services.
  Let me emphasise the nature of what we are discussing. We are not only talking of a service, but about a substantial industry that employs some 6,000 people in Scotland. That industry supplies about 2.3 million cu m of water each day. It services some 2.2 million households. The water is supplied through some 28,000 miles of water mains. It is collected from some 800 or more sources, including 350 lochs and reservoirs, and there are some 17,500 miles of public sewers. There are 603 or more water treatment plants and more than 900 sewage treatment works.
  Sewage treatment produces sludge-80,000 dry tonnes in 1990, which is expected to rise to 140,000 dry tonnes by 1999. That is a major industry which would incur colossal expenses in future development and maintenance and therefore it is vital that it is handled in the most efficient way.
  Mr. Michael Connarty rose—
  Mr. Lang: I must make further progress and then the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to take part in the debate. I want to emphasise the scale of the industry and the increase in expenditure that is necessary to upgrade it if we are to meet our targets for the high quality of water and sewerage services that we now rightly regard as important.
  I must point out to the House that capital expenditure provision for 1996–97 will be almost 80 per cent. higher than it was at the beginning of the decade. Present plans provide some £740 million of capital provision for the three years to 1996–97, but about £5 billion is needed in the next 15 years or so—some £2 billion for water services and £3 billion for sewerage. Of that £5 billion, around half will be needed to meet the requirements of EC directives and the balance to provide water and sewerage services to housing and industrial developments and to maintain and improve the existing infrastructure.
  We are talking about a major industry which must be run efficiently. We need to take the opportunity afforded by the reform of local government to put in place for water and sewerage the structure that is best tailored to meet the needs of those services, the structure that will most readily accomplish the massive investment programme that lies ahead and the one that will do so in a way that gives best value for money to the customer. That is the structure that we are proposing: three new water authorities.
  I was asked earlier why there should be three new water authorities. The answer is that that number will provide the most efficient system and the most coherent and comprehensive size of unit. The proposal is based on advice that we have received from our consultants. We need larger units to capture the economies of scale that will be so important in addressing a large investment programme at least cost.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that we were over-centralising. I have to tell him that we are not a Government who are keen to centralise—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but centralisation and control are fundamental to socialism and are the exact antithesis of our philosophy. Our philosophy is one of decentralisation and that is inherent throughout

  717
  our local government reforms.The exception is the water and sewerage service, where we believe that the overriding need to improve the efficiency of the system requires the establishment of three large units. Not for us a separate Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh to draw powers into the centre from local authorities in Scotland.
  The trend of water and sewerage services over the past century or more has been to form larger units to exploit increasingly sophisticated technology.Today is no exception and we would miss an important opportunity to take a further step along that road if we were to perpetuate the current area divisions out of regard, understandable though that may be, for the record of the regional and island councils.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked about the islands. The practical alternative to inclusion in the northern authority is to establish island water authorities legally quite separate from the councils.That proposal was discussed in detail with representatives of the islands, including the convenors of Orkney and Western Isles, earlier this year.We listened to those arguments carefully and with some sympathy. However, the implications for charges if the islands were separate authorities are severe.That is particularly so in the Western Isles, where the price of being a separate authority is likely to be more than double what it could be within the northern authority and in Orkney, the difference could be more than 50 per cent.
  I know that the island authorities are anxious to know whether, if they become part of the northern authority, they would be guaranteed to benefit from a smoothing of prices across the northern area. However, I repeat what was said in Committee: we would fully expect the new authorities to move rapidly to uniform pricing. The Bill now also stipulates that the needs of rural areas should be paid regard to by the new authorities and the Secretary of State and the membership of the customers council area committees has been increased from a maximum of eight to a maximum of 12. That will allow a better spread of representation, including from the islands.
  I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to ensure that an islands representative is a member of the northern authority. I am sure that the claims of any suitable candidate from the islands will be considered very seriously. However, it would be wrong to pre-empt the choice of members in the way that the amendment seeks. The paramount requirement in a small membership is to get the best people for the job.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton asked why our plan was the only plan open for Scotland's water and sewerage. It is not the only plan open for the future of water and sewerage in Scotland, but it is the best one. The Government have considered very carefully all the alternatives. We have consulted and considered. We have decided on our policy and we are now asking Parliament to support it. We do that believing that efficiency and cost are vital for those very significant and large industries in Scotland. We are proposing a Scottish solution for the future of those important Scottish industries. I urge the House to reject the new clause.
  Mr. James Wallace:I associate myself with the remarks that have been made about the background against which this debate takes place. On behalf of my party in Scotland, I extend to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and, through him,
  718
  to his party and the family of John Smith, our deepest sympathy at their loss. John Smith was a great Scot and his contribution to Scottish politics, as well as to British politics, was immense. As has already been said many times, his loss is felt across the party divide.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Hamilton also referred to the wife of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is unwell. I was born and brought up in Dumfrieshire and I have known Lady Monro for many years. I hope that our good wishes can be conveyed to the hon. Member for Dumfries.
  5.45 pm
  It would be wrong if we did not fully explore and thrash out the important arguments when we debate the future of our water and sewerage services. Those services have been the key issue in Scottish politics over the past 12 months or more. The Secretary of State said that the issue was not one of privatisation and, as he is a right hon.Gentleman, we must take him at his word.However, he is in no position to say what a future Administration might do.
  If people are afraid of something in politics, that is a reality. It is not something that we can discount. People fear that, as a result of the Bill, we are placing our water and sewerage services in a position where they can be more readily privatised in future by a future Administration who may have a change of heart from the current Government's policy. If those services were to remain in local authority hands, that threat would at least be one stage removed. The fear that I have described cannot simply be blamed on speeches made by Opposition politicians.
  I have always tried to be very careful about what I have said. No doubt I will be tried if I have, at any stage, misrepresented the position. However, the position was set out quite clearly in the Strathclyde regional referendum. The Government propose to set up three boards which will be appointed by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: They will be quangos.
  Mr. Wallace: As the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) rightly points out, they will be quangos.
  The people of Strathclyde overwhelmingly voted against that proposal. While the percentage of people who voted against the proposal was exceptionally high and not surprising, the percentage of people who actually returned their ballot papers was perhaps the most striking point about the referendum. Those people have been angered because the Government have refused to heed the message that those people delivered in the referendum.
  The people in Strathclyde and elsewhere in Scotland voted again on 5 May and they gave the Government their verdict on that important regional council service. The Government again tried to use the excuse that people were voting on national issues. It was a national issue, but it was a national issue about a regional council function. It was not unreasonable for people to take that into account when they cast their votes.
  In the aftermath of those elections, I heard the Secretary of State say that he thought the verdict of the Scottish people on 5 May was one of not proven. Of course, "not proven" is a matter of current political debate. The Secretary of State must know, as well as anyone knows, that not proven is a verdict of acquittal.
  However, in no way was the Tory party in Scotland acquitted on 5 May. The Tories were found guilty by the

  719
  jury by a large majority. If I may say so, at some risk of extending the legal metaphor, they have been given a deferred sentence. The jury and the court will meet again on 9 June. If the Secretary of State has not learnt his lesson and has not committed himself to good behaviour, a suitable penalty will surely be imposed then.
  Regrettably, it seems from the Secretary of State's responses today that he has not learnt the lessons. He maintains that his proposal for three quangos is, in his words, the best solution.
  It has been the position of my party throughout that the responsibility for water and sewerage services in Scotland should remain in the hands of people who are democratically elected and accountable to their electorate. That is why we support the amendment to that effect. I accept that if we are changing local government boundaries, it might not necessarily be efficient or sensible to have as many local water and sewerage authorities as there are going to be new local councils. However, if joint boards comprising elected councillors are an acceptable way to run our police and fire services, why are they not an acceptable way in which to run our water and sewerage services?
  The Secretary of State was on weak ground when he tried to give us his history lesson. He referred to what a Labour Government did in 1946, but he missed the obvious point—which was put to him, but which he refused to accept—that, throughout all the reorganisations, authority and responsibility has rested with those who are electorally accountable. He said that water and sewage had to be handled in the most efficient way by people with the most experience.
  I have yet to hear anyone on the Government Front Bench suggest that our local authorities—our regional islands councils—have done anything other than discharge their responsibilities with regard to water and sewage in a responsible and efficient way. Who are the people in Scotland who will be able to run an efficient water and sewerage service? They are all the employees of the existing regional and islands councils. They are the people who have the expertise and experience which have been built up over many years.
  Nor have the Government made it clear how the new water authorities will have an easier financial route to raise the money that is needed. I understand that the strict Treasury rules will apply to the new water authorities—because they will be within the public sector—as much as they will apply to local authorities. It should be remembered that since 1989, our local authorities have had to have separate water accounts—indeed, they have managed those accounts—and most of the investment and loan charges have been covered by charges directly on the customer through meter charges, originally through the community water charge and now through council tax payments, and through the non-domestic water rate.
  Our argument is that that should continue. Indeed, if something must be sacrificed, surely it is better if the Treasury rules are sacrificed, rather than local democracy. We have not yet had any suggestion of why that course cannot be adopted, other than the fact that the Treasury rules are there and, because they are there, we must abide by them. Perhaps it is time that we examined the merit of the Treasury rules.
  720
  I should like the Secretary of State to give us his estimate of the amount that will have to invested in water and sewerage services to bring them up to EC requirements —and, indeed, what the time span will be. I understand that the time span has lengthened somewhat since the argument was put forward for adapting and changing the new structure of our water services.
  Why is it that, unlike the water authorities in England and Wales, Scottish water authorities have not had their debt written off? That would ease their position considerably. Nor have the Scottish water authorities had the benefit of a green dowry. That raises the question whether large-scale water users—industrial water users —in England and Wales have been put at a competitive advantage to large-scale water users in Scotland, which have not had the benefit of such a massive capital investment.
  I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has clearly considered the question of the islands areas. Indeed, he admitted to having some sympathy with it. Before this part of the Bill is debated in another place, I hope that he will think again because there are important arguments for the islands areas to be treated separately. My ideal position is that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in Committee—keeping those areas within the control and responsibility of local authorities, the islands councils.
  If that is not possible, I would argue for a separate water board for each of the islands areas because we would get a better integrated approach if we had a separate authority. After all, there is no link with any part of the North of Scotland water authority, other than the sea itself. If we are looking at a development involving water services, sewerage services, roads, harbours and quarries, it is obvious that an integrated approach, where we can have the other existing responsibilities in the islands, would make it much easier to plan and develop water and sewerage services.
  My concern is that if the North of Scotland water authority has a target for the percentage of houses that it must reach and is faced with a proposal to provide a water and sewerage scheme for a small housing development on the western side of Shetland, which might serve only those houses, and a scheme for a housing development in Aberdeen, which would serve 60 houses, the Aberdeen scheme would inevitably take precedence. However, until the water and sewerage facilities are put in place, it may not be possible to proceed with a much-needed housing development—with very few houses, but nevertheless an important one for the community.
  If that means that there is a slightly higher price to pay —I should like to see the detailed figures to discover how the Secretary of State comes up with 100 per cent. more in the case of the Western Isles and 50 per cent. more in the case of Orkney—and if we will not get the service at the level price, we must ask whether it is a price worth paying because we will not get the level price for some time. The Secretary of State said that he hoped that the authorities would move to it quickly, but there is the implication—and, of course, the provision for it is in the Bill—that there can be differential pricing, including pricing based on localities. There is a serious possibility that not only will we not get priority, but we will have to pay a higher price, compared to other parts of the north of Scotland area. I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the matter.

  721
  I also hope that the Secretary of State will accept my amendment, which would oblige him to appoint a member from the islands area. It is all very well for him to say that he has it in mind to do so if a suitable candidate appears. There is nothing better than obliging him to do so. I am sure that if he does not appoint a member from the islands area, he will always find some plausible excuse for why he has not been able to do so on this occasion.
  With regard to the western Scotland area and the many islands there, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyle and Bute (Mrs. Michie) is also concerned that the expertise of someone with some experience of the delivery of water services in the islands areas should be used in terms of the customers council and the water authority.
  The House will note that there are amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends which would require those who are appointed by the Secretary of State to the water authority or the customers council to make a political declaration—either a direct declaration of membership of a political party or a declaration stating whether any financial contribution has been given to a political party recently. That would be a welcome step in opening up quangos.
  It is not simply a question of quangos being established; there is an unhealthy scepticism that those who are appointed to them are not always appointed on the basis of their expertise but because they happen to wear the right party colour. Hon. Members are obliged to make many declarations—obviously, our political affiliations are already known. It would not be a bad thing if we knew the political lights by which those who will be appointed to the quangos are guided.
  Finally, I must make it clear that on this Bench we do not have knee-jerk reactions and say that we will immediately want to repeal anything that is done. However, after listening to all the arguments, it is certainly our conclusion that if we have any part of, or influence in, Government after the next election, it would be our intention to find ways of restoring water and sewerage services in Scotland into the hands of locally elected and accountable people.
  Mr. John McAllion: It is interesting to note the Tory Members representing England who have listened to most of the debate. Obviously, one of them is here because he is a deputy Government Whip and must be here. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) is here because he is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland and he must also be here. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was here for more than one hour because the Tory Benches are so empty that it is one of the few quiet places where hon. Members can read in the House of Commons.
  It will be interesting to note that when we vote on the new clauses and amendments, out of every opening in the buildings and the palace of Westminster will pour Tory Members who have not listened to the debate and who do not know what the issues are about, but who will guarantee that the amendments and new clauses tabled by the majority parties in Scotland are defeated and that the Government's proposals, which have been rejected overwhelmingly by the Scottish people, will be passed by the House. If ever I have seen a case for a Scottish Parliament, it is the debate taking place in the House tonight.
  Mr. Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his customary courtesy. Where are all the absent Scottish Labour Members of Parliament?
  Mr. McAllion: I can guarantee that if the Bill were being debated in a Scottish Parliament by people directly elected by and accountable to the Scottish people on Scottish issues, the Chamber would be packed and every Member would be held to account by the Scottish people. The first requirement of any democracy is that where a Bill only affects the people of a single country, it should be accountable to the people of that country and should not be decided by hon. Members from any other part of the UK.
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: Where are their lot?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Seated interventions are not helpful. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to catch my eye later, he should be a little quieter now.
  Mr. McAllion: The Secretary of State said that it was not a part of the Government's proposals for Scotland to privatise Scotland's water. He said that they had consulted on the issue and, having consulted the Scottish people, they had listened. Does he really expect us to believe that? That comes from the same Government who consulted on the poll tax and, having listened to the Scottish people's objections, went ahead and legislated for the poll tax.
  6 pm
  Does not the Secretary of State understand that, on Thursday 5 May, there was a massive consultation in Scotland on his proposals to introduce three new super-quangos, and that his party got less than 14 per cent. of the vote? Does not he understand that the people of Scotland have said no to the three super-quangos? If he had really consulted and listened to the people of Scotland, the Bill would have been scrapped and we would have gone back to a system where regional councils are the water authorities in Scotland—the way it should be.
  Nobody believes the Government when they say that they do not intend privatising Scotland's water industries. The same Tory Government continually preaches to Opposition Members that this is a unitary Parliament and a unitary state, and that every part of the UK is treated exactly the same. If privatisation is good enough for England and Wales, the message is that, in the long run, it will be good enough for Scotland as well.
  If people in England and Wales can be disconnected from the domestic water supply, sooner or later people in Scotland will be disconnected also. That is the lesson which one draws from the unitary Parliament and unitary state which is supported on the Government Benches, and is supported there only.
  For that reason, nobody believes for a minute the Government's protestations on the issues. The Government are not retreating from the principle of privatisation, but there has been a tactical retreat. The Government, under pressure in Scotland, have been forced to withdraw. But when the circumstances allow, they will be back with a vengeance and will be looking to privatise the Scottish water industry. Everybody in Scotland knows that—even the Government's own supporters.
  Mr. Gallie: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that Conservative Members believe in the Parliament that represents the Union, but which recognises that there are

  723
  different legal systems in Scotland and England and that there are different customs between the nations? Is not that one of the strengths of a Unionist Parliament?
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman—as always—is compeletely unconvincing in trying to intervene on an hon. Member.
  Opposition Members remember what happened in England and Wales. What was the first stage towards privatisation there? Water was taken away from local authority control, and quangos were set up as the water authorities. A number of years later, when the situation had quietened down, those quangos were privatised. That pattern will be repeated exactly in Scotland if the Government are allowed to remain in office and to carry out their long-term plan for the Scottish people.
  I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, and I remember that the hon. Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made it absolutely clear that water in Scotland should be privatised. I know that, deep down, the Minister believes that water should be privatised, although he will not say so publicly. We know that every Conservative Member representing English and Welsh constituencies believes that there should be privatisation in Scotland, because they have accepted it in their own constituencies. Why should they not accept it for Scotland? The Prime Minister has said from the Dispatch Box that he wants water in Scotland to be privatised.
  Therefore, we do not believe for a second the protestations of the Secretary of State or Scottish Office Ministers. They may say, "Us? No, we would never dream of it." But they do dream of it. Their innermost hope is that, in the long run, they will not have to use public money to fund the investment that is required in the Scottish water industry in the next 10 or 15 years, and that the private sector will come in and supply that money for them. The private sector will supply that money only if it can get the profits back out of the water industry, and it can only do that under privatisation. Nobody is fooled by the Government's arguments.
  I was not impressed in the least by the hon. Members for Ayr and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch)—who have at least sat through most of the debate—and the pantomime which they had between them. They tried to suggest that there were fewer quangos in Scotland now than ever before. Hon. Members know fine well that if the Bill gets on the statue book, more people will be appointed to quangos in Scotland than we will have elected councillors in Scotland. That is the state to which the Conservative party has reduced Scotland. It is undermining every aspect of democracy in our country.
  There is no democracy in this House or at local government level. We have quangos, centralisation and authoritarian decisions which are taken here by people who do not represent the Scottish view. The Conservative party wonders why it does so badly at elections in Scotland. If it were prepared to listen to the Scottish people, it might understand why it does so badly.
  The hon. Member for Ayr thinks that, in a fringe meeting at the Tory party conference with a 10 or 15-minute speech, he convinced Tory activists of the strength of the Government's case. The hon. Gentleman has had two years since 1992 to convince his own
  724
  constituents, and I am sure that I do not need to remind him of the result in Ayr in the Strathclyde referendum on water. Ninety-three per cent. of his constituents voted against the Government's proposals. He supports those proposals and tried to sell them to the people of Ayr during that period. He failed to convince them that the proposals are right.
  For the Secretary of State to tell us that his proposals are the best possible for Scotland is absolute nonsense. It is not for the Secretary of State to tell the people of Scotland what is best for them. It is not even for me or for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to tell the people what is best for them. The people tell us what is best for them, and that is how democracy works. But so divorced from democracy has the Tory party become that it no longer recognises when it has been completely undemocratic and has done things which, in the long run, can only destroy the Tory party in Scotland.
  I speak in support of new clauses 1, 15 and 20 because they seek to re-establish regional councils, through bringing together the new, single-tier authorities into joint boards. I do not see any difference between the Scottish National party's amendments and the new clauses proposed by my hon. Friends. Under the joint board provisions, those will be bodies corporate which are covered by statute. Therefore, under the requirements placed on bodies corporate such as joint boards, it will not be the Secretary of State who appoints people to those boards but the constituent councils. In reality, the SNP amendment and the new clauses tabled by Labour are the same.
  In the circumstances, the idea that joint boards could be the new water authorities is not the best that can be achieved for Scotland, but it is the best that can be achieved through this place. The best would be that the Government for once actually listened to the Scottish people, and what the people are saying came across loud and clear on Thursday 5 May. The Conservative party was reduced not to fourth place, but to fifth place in Scotland—if one includes the independents—with less than 14 per cent. of the vote.
  I and the hon. Member for Tayside, North come from Tayside, and the Conservative party held Tayside beyond challenge, it was thought, in the early 1980s. When I came on to the council in 1984, the Tories held 28 of the 46 seats, and there was no party within touching distance of them. Ten years on, the Tories hold four seats out of the 46 in Tayside regional council and they received one in five of the votes cast in the Tayside regional elections. An area that was once regarded as the jewel in the Tory crown in Scotland is now almost absolutely anti-Tory. Even the Tory councillors in Tayside do not agree with what the Government are doing to the people of Scotland.
  The Conservative party is so remote from the Scottish people that those people go to the ballot box with one view in mind—"How do we get at this Government?" In some areas, that means voting for the SNP, while in others it means voting for the Liberal Democrats or Labour. Wherever the opposition to the Tories is, that is where the Scots go and that is how they vote.
  If Conservative Members cannot see that, they are terminally in decline. I look forward to the day when every single one of them who represents a Scottish constituency is wiped from the face of the electoral map in Scotland, and we can have a Scottish Parliament in which we will decide things for ourselves.
  Mr. Dalyell: It may not be entirely their fault, but do Ministers realise how much senior Ministers in our system are deferred to and become cocooned? I wonder whether the Secretary of State realises how doubly friendless he is on this issue.
  First, the right hon. Gentleman is friendless among those who understand the water and sewerage industries. I went to a meeting yesterday of the Lothian purification board in Livingston when water experts from right around Scotland were present. He did not have friends there, other than the loyal representatives of the Scottish Office. When people such as Dr. Jean Balfour say how terrible the policy is, it confirms the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).
  I think that I was the only Opposition Member who, rightly or wrongly, did not sign the "Claim of Right". I have a particular political history, which entitles me to say this to the Secretary of State. In view of the election results and the fact that the Scottish people can see that such a huge percentage are against water privatisation, which is an emotional, central and important issue, if he cheerfully overrides those views—saying that they are of no account —it will go far beyond water. The issue will become the attitude of people in Scotland towards the Union. Because of political history I, of all people, am empowered to tell him that if he goes ahead he must not start lamenting when the Union turns sour.
  Mr. Graham: I was born in Glasgow. When I was a young boy, there were wells in every part of Glasgow and if people felt like a drink they just had to turn the water on —it was free. We have all seen animals—cats, dogs or whatever—supping the free water.
  I also lived in Govan when I was a kid—in Elder park. There was a rumour that people became Govanites if they fell in the water in the park. It was a great honour to be called a Govanite. If someone falls in the water there now, under the Tory proposals, they would not only get a scolding from their mother but they would probably have to pay for the water that they used in the pond.
  I am astounded at the Government's reluctance to accept the referendum that was held by the people of Strathclyde and their elected members and adjudicated by a neutral body. The figures that I am holding here are the result of one of the most democratic decisions ever reached by a huge proportion of the population of Strathclyde; 1,194,667 people voted no to the Government's proposals.
  The Government have tried to run roughshod over the opinions of those people, as if to say that 1.2 million people are kidding, or that they have no brains and canna get it right—as if to say that the Government are the only ones to get it right. That is absolute nonsense.
  I see that the Secretary of State has a pencil in his mouth. Perhaps because of this Government, some day when he is putting a glass of water to his mouth it might cost him about 10p.
  If the referendum had taken place throughout Scotland the floodgates would have been opened. I am sure that the result would have been the same throughout Britain and that a higher percentage would probably have been against in the highlands, which are awash with water. The people there certainly would not want it to be privatised in the fashion that the Government propose.
  I am appalled that the Government are continually trying to water down the Strathclyde results. They are
  726
  trying to push them under the carpet and it will cause one great fountain. A huge eruption will take place at the general election.
  6.15 pm
  I do not call those three bodies quangos, Madam Deputy Speaker. I call them "langoes". Do you know what the headlines will be in the Scottish papers? "Lang goes—drowned by the people of Scotland." I am sure that that is what will happen.
  Earlier, we heard the Secretary of State say that there was no way that they would privatise water and we have heard other hon. Members repeating old statements to the House. I will remind him. In December 1984 Neil Macfarlane, then Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment said:
  "We have absolutely no intention of privatising the water industry".—[Official Report, 19 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 457.]
  By February 1986, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), then Secretary of State for the Environment, was telling the House that the Government were ready to privatise water. In December 1984 it was, "No privatisation", by February 1986 it was "Yes, privatisation" and by 1990, it was privatised.
  Last week, in an interview with The Courier and Advertiser, the Prime Minister did not rule out water privatisation in Scotland completely. He said:
  "It's not going to be privatised in this Parliament. It's not going to be privatised for a long time. It's gone into public bodies. Whether we will ever return to that in the future we don't know. No one ever says never in politics if they are wise, but there are no plans whatsoever to privatise water in Scotland".
  Is that the same sort of promise as Neil Macfarlane's promise that the Government had no intention of privatising English water? It is no wonder that the Scottish people do not believe the Government when they promise that they have no plans to privatise Scottish water.
  We are sick and tired of seeing Government promises broken. One broken promise that got my goat was when they said that they wouldna increase prescriptions charges. Look at the price of prescriptions now, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a punishment—an absolute evil—to be ill under this Tory Government. Their punishment of putting VAT on fuel is horrific. They do not understand the world that we live in.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman should know that, under the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution, no Parliament can bind a succeeding Parliament to anything other than matters within the jurisdiction of the European Union. Thus far, water does not come under the European Union.
  Mr. Graham: I find that hilarious. We have had Conservative government for nearly 15 years. They have kidded the folk on at every election, saying "We'll not do this" or "We'll not do that" and then they have done it. They said, "The lady's not for turning" and they said, "We'll go on and on." I am sick and tired of it. I do not have water on my brain, but perhaps they have. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman believes it when the Government say that they will not privatise water in Scotland. They are up a gum tree—the biggest gum tree that has ever grown.
  I want the Secretary of State to dump this Bill. He should not foist what is happening in other parts of the world on to us. We have an efficient water service—a service into which local authorities have channelled their

  727
  energies, to make it one of the best and cheapest in the country. They have given us water that we can drink proudly and boast about.
  I will bring you a glass of water from my house, Madam Deputy Speaker. You would probably have to pay 30p a glass for it, but I do not pay that in Scotland, where every woman, child and elderly person can turn on the tap and have a damn good drink. They are not paying through the nose or into the private coffers of some entrepreneur who has decided to buy a few shares in water. Water is owned by us, and drunk by us, and I want it to be kept by us.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) for breaking through the sense of melancholy and sadness which pervades the Opposition Benches just now. Clearly, there is a sense of shock on this side of the House, but we have to come to grips with the issues. We have to tell the Government that this type of legislation is not tolerable and that they will not be allowed to get away with it in Scotland or anywhere else.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland prefaced his remarks by saying that we had to return to the issues of state in Scotland today and consider this controversial issue. I have news for the Secretary of State for Scotland: this is not a remotely controversial issue. It is one of very few issues about which it would be impossible to start an argument in the streets, households, pubs, clubs or anywhere else in Scotland today. There is no support anywhere in Scotland for the proposal to take the water and sewerage industries out of the control of democratically accountable local authorities.
  We all knew that. If the Secretary of State required proof of it, he received that proof from Strathclyde regional council. In a 71.5 per cent. turnout of electors in Strathclyde, 97.2 per cent. gave a very clear answer to a very simple, straightforward question. There was nothing obtuse or convoluted about the question on the ballot paper that was put before the people of Strathclyde.
  It explained what the Government wanted to do. There was no mention of privatisation; it was simply explained that the Government wanted to transfer control of the water industry from democratically accountable local councillors to nominated quangos. What did the people think of that? Some 97.2 per cent. said that they wanted their water and sewerage industries to remain under the control of their local authorities.
  Frankly, the result did not surprise me. What surprised me was the massive turnout of electors. I am amazed that even this Government think that they can shrug it off. As Sir Michael Hirst would say, it was a "poke in the eye" for the Government. That is how he dismissed the recent regional election results. How many more pokes in the eye do the Government require before they understand what is going on?
  I have no doubt that the result would have been exactly the same if the question had been put to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in the Lothian region. It is no wonder, because the service is provided very well by democratically accountable local authorities and their staff in every part of Scotland. People value their right to influence decisions in this essential industry.
  728
  I am very proud that an elected local councillor from my constituency, John Ross from Musselburgh, recently took the chair of the water and drainage committee of Lothian regional council following the recent elections. He and his colleagues, elected by the people of the Lothian region, have a mandate to take decisions which affect that industry. He conducts surgeries so that people from his ward and other parts of the Lothian region will be able to go along and say, "We don't like the way in which you are managing these services; do something about it." That is what happens at the moment. There is plenty of evidence that the water and sewerage industries are being operated in a responsive, as well as responsible, manner.
  What is the alternative offered by the Secretary of State for Scotland? He proposes that there be three monster quangos, nominated and appointed by him personally. They will not be accountable to the people of Scotland in any sense of the word. Will they hold surgeries for people to come to see them? There is no chance of that. They will hold meetings behind closed doors like the rest of the quangos in Scotland and they will not be accountable to anyone.
  We have been through all the issues over and over again in Committee and they have been discussed plenty in Scotland. Whatever else this issue may be, it is certainly not controversial. There is no support from any quarter for what the Secretary of State proposes.
  If they are established, the quangos will be unjustifiable and intolerable. I agree, for once, with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that it raises a particularly dangerous constitutional issue. If we impose this sort of rubbish legislation on Scotland, it raises fundamental questions about the credibility of the Union and the Parliament.
  I welcome, above all, the statement made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in his capacity as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. He said that, if the legislation is forced through and the quangos are appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, one of my hon. Friend's first acts upon assuming his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Scotland following the next general election will be to demand the resignation of the quangocrats so that we can replace them with directly elected local councillors. That is what the people want, and that is what they will have.
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that we are short of time and that quite a number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  It is absolutely disgraceful that we are debating an issue that takes democratic control away from the people of Scotland and that the House and the Scottish people are being misled.
  I do not know how any Government could talk about privatising boards, quangos or any other system after looking at the evidence from down south—the disconnection of meters, the extortionate charges and so on. All those systems have failed; they have created only misery. I remember very well being told in debate that the private sector would invest the money needed to provide the services. We know from the media where the money went and who invested it. The private sector has not paid for the services; the people who are paying the bills have paid for them. Charges have increased by possibly as much as 70 per cent.

  729
  The Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) said that, as far as they were concerned, the problems could be solved by this system. No one wants quangos or privatisation in Scotland, but the Government never paid any heed to that at all. It is remiss of the Secretary of State for Scotland to mislead the House as he did today. He said that there would be a great deal of investment as far as local government water and sewerage industries were concerned. That is nonsense, and the Secretary of State for Scotland knows it.
  I will take the right hon. Gentleman back through the years to a paper that he knows very well. In 1991 the Clyde river purification board and the sewerage department of the Strathclyde regional council formed a working party. The Secretary of State for Scotland was well informed about the proposals that were put forward at that time. The working party talked about a number of schemes and a plan that would stretch over 15 years and cost £920 million. It maintained that the profile of the plan would be £42 million in 1994, £90 million in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and so on to the year 2003. The amount would then be reduced to £55 million in 2004.
  Eight projects were proposed. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ayr has left the Chamber, because his project in Ayr was affected, which is important. As a result of the lack of response from the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office, the Dalmuir sewage works will be delayed until 2001; the Ayr sewerage scheme will be delayed until 1999. Those eight projects will cost £102 million, £41 million, £59 million, £350,000, £1.15 million, £1.05 million, £225,000 and £1.5 million. Only one project has been started—the Kelvin valley project.
  6.30 pm
  The Secretary of State knows about those works that the EEC asked us to implement, the incentives that it was going to give and the directives that were issued in a 15–year period, with a deadline date in 1997 that will never be met. The Scottish Office Environment Department sent a letter in January 1991 and another in July 1992, when the warning bells were sounded by the River Clyde purification board. It said that it could never implement any of the directives because there was a shortfall of £8 million. The Secretary of State has known that for some time.
  Let us suppose that the shortfall of £8 million in one year continues throughout the 15-year plan. The document, "Investing for the Future" emphasised that the private sector would then come in and give the money. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland never mentioned the private sector and its investment, because very little investment is coming from the private sector, and I shall tell hon. Members the reason. It is a result of the referendum, which was a result of the opposition of Labour Members to boards, quangos or any type of privatisation.
  I shall not forget the time when the Prime Minister, at Question Time in the House, said that, yes, the Government would privatise Scotland's water. Every Member of the House knows that, unless that investment is forthcoming, we can forget about Upper Clyde estuary improvements; we can forget about Scottish coastal waters and bathing waters. There is no way that we shall ever meet the deadline and there is no way that the Government will supply the money.
  Every local authority has a responsibility under the Water (Scotland) Act 1946 and the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 to make water wholesome for drinking for the public.
  730
  We already know how many people oppose the proposals for quangos and the dishonesty. We could go back to 1992, when The Herald published an editorial entitled, "Yet Another Fine Mess". The proposals were called "Laurel and Hardy" proposals.
  Mr. McAllion: The minority in Scotland.
  Mr. Wray: The Government.
  The Strathclyde regional council sent a letter to the Scottish Office, saying that the estimated cost was £45 million for water and £45 million for sewerage. Also, £60 million per year would be needed to implement the EC requirements. The letter also mentioned the shortfall. The 15–year plan would take about £750 million, and £900 million would be needed to implement the requirements of the Government. The council also said that the total sewerage bill would be £990 million, but that £1,300 million would be needed to implement the EEC directives.
  The Secretary of State told us at great length how much would be done, but he never told us about the total expenditure and that he will never be able to meet that target.
  I shall give the House one piece of information that is relevant and important to Scotland. It is said that the total bill that must be met for Scotland's water is £4.5 billion in a 15-year period, and the Government have proposed to give only £3 billion. That leaves a shortfall of £1.5 billion. When the River Clyde purification board and the sewerage department wrote to the Scottish Office, they were told that Strathclyde regional council would be responsible and that they would have to take the money from current revenue or cuts in other services or capital receipts from selling off assets. That is important because, in answer to a question, the Secretary of State for Scotland told me that the boards will have the responsibility for selling off the assets when they take over, and that that is the way that they will make them pay.
  In the last letter that was sent, the policy and resources committee of Strathclyde regional council asked the sewerage department to give it the minimum legal requirement over a five-year period. It sent the estimated cost, and the Scottish Office was notified that it was £500 million. The council was told to cut it to £225 million. The result was a delay in 53 proposed schemes of from four years to three months.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland never told the Opposition how the plans for the sewerage and water departments were being wrecked. The type of revenue that has been proposed and the allocation that is supposed to be coming from the Scottish Office will never meet the requirements. We shall meet those requirements only by keeping water in public control.
  Mr. Salmond: As often happens, the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) put his finger on one of the buttons of the debate when he mentioned the admission by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that one Parliament cannot bind another Parliament. That is absolutely true. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Tayside, North holds himself for a few seconds, he may intervene later.
  Obviously one Secretary of State cannot bind another Secretary of State. We know, as I said earlier, that there is speculation about the Secretary of State's position. He may or may not be Secretary of State for Scotland in a month's time. If it holds true that one Parliament cannot bind

  731
  another, it also holds true that the current Secretary of State cannot bind the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), or the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) if the honour fell on him. He could not bind the hon. Member for Tayside, North, if he was called to serve as Secretary of State in a few weeks' time.
  It is absolutely reasonable for Opposition Members—
  Mr. Wallace: That would be very unreasonable.
  Mr. Salmond: That would not be absolutely reasonable, but it is certainly reasonable for Opposition Members to ask—given the history of the assurances that were given south of the border in 1984, which were then transformed two years later into an intention to privatise south of the border—why on earth should not that happen in Scotland in 1994, and why cannot that be translated, as one Secretary of State cannot bind another, into something quite different in 1996? Opposition Members do not need a crystal ball to fear that the measure will facilitate privatisation. All we need to do is to look at the book south of the border.
  It was also reasonable for Opposition Members to point out what the Prime Minister said in March 1993. That was before the consultation period on Scottish water, but it also showed clearly that the Prime Minister's own mind was that he was sympathetic to privatisation. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde read a more recent quotation from The Courier and Advertiser, in which the Prime Minister said that no one ever says never in politics. Usually when people say never, they mean that certainly they will do it at some time in the future, but it would be too embarrassing to admit it now.
  A more recent quotation comes from the magazine supplement of the Scottish Sunday Express last Sunday. Mr. Bruce Anderson, the biographer and, I understand, confidant of the Prime Minister, which makes him one of a small, select band at present, wrote an article advocating the privatisation of Scottish water.
  Mr. Lang indicated dissent.
  Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State for Scotland shakes his head. That article appeared last Sunday.
  Mr. Lang: I did not wish to put the hon. Gentleman off his stride. I wanted to indicate not that the journalist in question did not say that but that he was wrong.
  Mr. Salmond: The journalist was wrong to advocate the privatisation of Scottish water. The point that I was making was that Mr. Anderson is rumoured to be close to the Prime Minister. He is certainly his biographer and I think that he is a confidant. Therefore, the Secretary of State cannot pretend to us that the privatisation launch has been eradicated from the Conservative Benches. Given that we have already explained that he cannot commit his successor or a future Parliament, what assurance do we have that privatisation will not rear its ugly head again when the political temperature is different? The Secretary of State can give no assurance that will satisfy Opposition Members or Scottish public opinion.
  I wish to deal with the Secretary of State's argument about efficiency. He said that his solution was the most efficient of the various permutations. It is more efficient than the privatisation option. There is huge disquiet south
  732
  of the border about the efficiency of and public interest being served by privatised water companies. Only a few months ago, I received a letter from Thames Water informing me that, for the sum of £60, I could water my garden. I was surprised, as I live in a second-floor flat in Westminster. There is huge concern in all areas of England about the performance of private water companies.
  The Secretary of State said that his solution was the most efficient. Most Opposition Members would argue that the municipal way of managing Scottish water assets has proven itself, over more than a century, to be the most efficient way of handling those assets. Even if we agree that creating three water boards is an efficient solution, why should the Secretary of State appoint members of those boards? Why should Secretary of State appointees be more efficient than people elected by local authorities and directly accountable to the people? That is the acid test for democracy and autocracy.
  Regardless of whether the Secretary of State's appointees are excellent people, and even if he appoints some councillors, as he has said he is mindful to do, the proposal cannot be democratic. For example, if Councillor Brian Meek were appointed to one of the three water boards in Scotland—probably to all of them, given his track record of obtaining appointments—it would not make them democratic simply because he is one of the few remaining Conservative councillors in Scotland. The key to democracy is not who is appointed but who appoints. The only solution that would satisfy Opposition Members and the people of Scotland would be to allow that election to be by the democratic local authorities, which have a mandate directly from the people.
  Will the Secretary of State consider his mandate, not just for the water proposals but for the whole Bill? It is a subject that we have discussed many times in Scottish politics. I remember the Secretary of State arguing in 1979 that, although a majority voted in a referendum for devolution, it constituted only 33 per cent. of the total electorate, which was no mandate to proceed with substantial change.
  By the same argument, this Bill was tested last Thursday before the jury of the Scottish people. The result was that less than 14 per cent. of them voted. But only 6.3 per cent. of the total electorate—one in 15 of the adult Scottish population—went to a polling place and cast a vote for the Secretary of State's proposals.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about a legal fact. He is making some interesting debating points but the referendum on the Scotland Bill was a legal measure brought about as a direct result of an Act of Parliament that was in place. Moreover, last week's vote was not under similar conditions, so the two cannot be compared.
  Mr. Salmond: "Clutching at broken reeds" might be the best way to describe that intervention. The comparison that I made is reasonable. The Conservative party's argument in 1979 was that there was not a sufficient mandate to proceed because only a third of the population could be bothered to vote for that proposal, although it received the majority vote of those who voted. By comparison, a week past Thursday, the Conservative party managed to motivate and mobilise one in every 15 members of the Scottish population to go to a polling place and cast a vote for the proposals before us tonight.

  733
  To put the matter another way, the Conservative vote in the Strathclyde region was 82,862 a week past Thursday. Compare that to the 1.2 million who voted against the proposals in the Strathclyde water referendum. I do not accept the nonsense that people did not understand, or were too silly to realise, what the measure was when they voted in that referendum.
  During the local government campaign, I did a party trick at public meetings around the Strathclyde region. I would ask people to raise their hands if they had voted in the Strathclyde water ballot. The vast majority of people at those meetings raised their hands. I would ask them to put down their hands if they had not understood the question. Every hand at every public meeting stayed up. People knew exactly what they were voting on in that ballot and, by a massive number, they gave the thumbs down to the Government's proposals.
  6.45 pm
  The Secretary of State should therefore consider his mandate and look at the facts and figures with at least a degree of humility. He caused enormous offence in Scotland by parachuting five Conservatives from English constituencies on to the Standing Committee and by deciding each of the 102 Divisions by using those five Members. It will cause even greater offence in Scotland if the forecast of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) comes true, as I suspect that it will, that people will pour out of the dark recesses of this place—hon. Members who have not even bothered to attend or listen to this debate—and once again the issue will be decided against Scottish interests.
  The Secretary of State has already heard from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has been a far more consistent Unionist than him over the past 20 years of Scottish politics, of the repercussions and implications of the actions that he has taken on this Bill. It may be acceptable to the Secretary of State for Scotland to behave in that manner. It may even be acceptable to the empty Conservative Benches. It is not acceptable to the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Connarty: I wish to set the record straight regarding some of the misinformation given to the Committee by the Minister responsible.
  First, may I pass on, through his Front Bench, to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), my best wishes to him and his wife. I hope that she gets better and that he is relieved of his troubles which prevent him from being here.
  In Committee, the Minister consistently said that no alternative was put forward when the consultation took place on the Government's paper on securing a future for the water industry. But people wrote in, and Ministers kept quoting the Government's own summary of those responses to the consultation paper, which said:
  "Most responses (84 per cent.) came from individuals. Preponderantly they expressed opposition to privatisation."
  The Minister consistently said that, as people did not give an alternative, no alternative was on the table to be discussed.
  We quoted back to the Minister and English Conservative Members from the same Government analysis of the submissions:
  "Sixty-four per cent. of all respondents, and 67 per cent. of those opposing privatisation, preferred a solution which kept the services in local authority control".
  734
  The Minister then gave the impression that only those who bothered to write a letter—4,834 letters were received—had troubled to suggest an alternative.
  In an earlier parliamentary question, I asked for an analysis of all submissions. In fact, as is shown in page 7 of the summary, 60,000 preprinted postcards were returned. With my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), I delivered some 25,000 postcards signed in his constituency and mine. The rest came mainly from mid-Scotland, Fife and some constituencies in Strathclyde. People said quite specifically that they wanted water and sewerage services to remain under the direct control of elected councils.
  Despite that, the Government continued to misrepresent the position in Committee. That was very sad, as it enabled the Prime Minister to be deluded. Some people may say that the Prime Minister is easily deluded about many things. He stands at the Dispatch Box quoting from briefs that do not provide sufficient facts to enable him to deal with the subject at hand.
  I put to the right hon. Gentleman a parliamentary question about what he thought of the results of the Strathclyde referendum. As these matters are on record, I shall not go into any detail. In reply, the Prime Minister said:
  "Since Strathclyde wilfully misrepresented the Government's proposals"—[Official Report, 22 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 131.]
  That was the Prime Minister's defence. It is quite clear that he had been briefed by the Secretary of State for Scotland or one of the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues.
  I sent the Prime Minister a copy of the ballot paper, which says:
  "Parliament is presently considering the proposals for the future of water. The Government proposes that from April 1996 water and sewerage services should be provided by a West of Scotland water authority, with a separate customers' council. The members of both bodies will be appointed by the Secretary of State."
  A quango—or a "Lango"—would be appointed, and a "Lango" or a quango would be appointed to oversee it. The people of Strathclyde knew what they were voting on. They voted overwhelmingly not to make the Government do anything but to tell them that they did not want what was being proposed. That was the view of people throughout constituencies, regardless of political colour.
  The party piece of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—as it was called by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)—became a piece of street theatre. The Labour party leadership, my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and others went down to Eastwood. They took with them a letter, which people who had voted in the referendum were asked to read and sign. People of all political colours said that they had understood the process.
  The letter says:
  "We deeply resent being told by you"—
  "you" being the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—
  "and the Prime Minister that we did not understand the question that we had been asked or that we were misled by propaganda."
  Everyone queued up to sign. People told us that they had been lifelong Tories but they would not be Tories much longer. They had found the party out and realised that voting for representative democracy in respect of water and

  735
  other local authority matters did not mean voting Conservative. They volunteered many other comments about the Government's misguided principles.
  What is it all about? It is about jobs for the boys—boys of the right political colour and creed. The Government will probably take a side step and appoint a few councillors, including—if the individuals in question are foolish enough to accept—a few of non-Conservative ilk. I hope that non-Conservatives who are offered positions will have the guts to say no, as they would not be representing anyone.
  This is all about what we have seen in England and Wales—the appointment of people who fit the bill. During the Standing Committee's deliberations, we were told to have a look at the Yorkshire Post. There we saw what Ofwat and Mr. Ian Byatt were up to in sacking people who did not take the right political line and in appointing friends, golf partners—this is rather like Mr. Peterken and the Secretary of State—old school chums and people known through previous employment, as well as the wives of individuals who had been Treasury colleagues.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has heard the disgraceful news that, despite the revelation that the Director General of Ofwat recognises expressly that his first duty is not to the customers but to the water industry, subject to the interests of the customers, and despite the fact that his performance in Yorkshire is such that he must have put his position in jeopardy, he was reappointed yesterday for a further two years. That ought to fill the Scottish people with fear as to what might happen if their interests were put in the hands of so-called regulators.
  Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) is a great campaigner. In fact, she set up the all-party group on the water industry. It must be recognised that many people are worried about what is happening to the privatised water industry in England and Wales. Just as many people in Scotland are worried about the Government's long-term aim for the water industry there.
  There is a financial agenda here. I refer to the £5 billion that the Secretary of State has said will be required over 15 years to bring water and sewerage services up to. the standard required by the European Community. In Committee, it was agreed that £3 billion of that amount would come through the public sector borrowing requirement if the Government were to continue the present funding level of £340 million a year under PSBR.
  The other £2 billion is already earmarked to be raised through capital finance through current revenue. In their submissions, many local authorities have said that they are capable of getting the £2 billion from the consumers, who are willing to pay in order to balance the accounts. The Government have not been able to demonstrate that I ought not to be worried that the Treasury will lower its PSBR target and that the £3 billion for water and sewerage services in Scotland will be withdrawn slowly but surely.
  Our concern is that we shall end up in the same situation as people in England and Wales, where 60 per cent. of all capital is provided from current revenue—in other words, through consumers' bills. In Scotland, the current figure is only 25 per cent. That is the Government's real agenda.
  736
  They intend to mug the people of Scotland and make them provide the capital that is required to keep the services going.
  My final message to the Tories is "Stop, thief. The people of Scotland know what you are up to." Maybe they are not thieves; maybe they are water fascists—people who can take from Scots by passing laws in this Parliament. That is what water fascism is about. But the Tories will not succeed. The Scots will not allow them to succeed. We are not the mugs. This time, the Tories on the Government Front Bench are the mugs, and the people of Scotland will send them, with the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) —and I should like to see them bald and tied to a mule —down south to seek seats after the next election. But, as last week's elections demonstrate, there are not many seats down here for Scots scurrying south in an attempt to secure their future. Perhaps it is time for the pipe and slippers. Redundancy is coming.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: Most hon. Members are conscious of the rather sombre mood that pervades the Palace and the Chamber. None the less, this has been a very good debate. Points have been well intentioned, and we have highlighted what most people regard as one of the key scandals of Scottish politics—the Government's pursuit of changes in our water services when there is no public support for them.
  What dismays Scots is that, despite the Strathclyde referendum, in which more than 1 million people said no to the Government's proposals, and despite the regional council elections, in which the Government were decimated on the ground and humiliated in spirit, Ministers are still hell-bent on pursuing the most unpopular policy to have been adopted in Scotland since the war.
  Let me put it in context. Mine is probably one of the only Conservative-free local authority areas. In addition, it must be unique in Europe in having more Communist party seats that Conservative party seats. That is a measure of how this party of the past is being dealt with by Scots.
  Tonight, there is a simple test for the Government. The Opposition do not have to be complicated about what they are trying to say. Our message is simple. First, we have argued that water should be retained in public ownership. The Opposition parties agreed to that, but the Government only grudgingly accepted—up to the next election.
  Secondly, we have argued that the three super-quangos should be scrapped and replaced by 12 water authorities, which is essentially the status quo. Of course, we have argued that the members of all the 12 water boards should be councillors. Why do the Government not accept that?
  The Secretary of State, who must have been suspended from the real world, suggested that the Government have found the best solution in the circumstances, but no Opposition Member has heard a case to justify why it is the best solution. The simple test for the Secretary of State and the Minister is to tell Scotland loudly and clearly why they will not accept 12 boards comprising all councillors.
  Of course there is a precedent for that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said: they are doing it with police and fire services. This local government reorganisation is such a half-baked measure that we shall end up not with a single tier but a multi-tier. If it is good enough for the police and fire services, why is it not good enough for the future of Scotland's water industry?

  737
  The Government have also argued that we need investment. If so, what is the essential difference between from 12 water authorities working in the marketplace, borrowing in the marketplace and delivering a service and three super-quangos operating in the marketplace but still subject to the same PSBR constraints as the current regional authorities in Scotland? If the Secretary of State were being honest, he would tell us that there is no difference.
  There is an ideological preference for three super-quangos with appointees from the Secretary of State, but it makes no sense in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and value for money for Scottish consumers, who currently enjoy all three qualities in great abundance.
  7 pm
  The Government can end the water torture and we can end the Tory turmoil. Far be it from the Opposition to give the Government a way out, but we are telling the Government, on behalf of the Scottish people, that there is a way out; they can start to resurrect their political fortunes in Scotland if they merely accept the wisdom of our advice.
  Let me state again—before the Minister, who is desperate to get on his feet, rises to finish the debate—the simple proposition: why not have 12 water authorities, comprising elected members whom we trust with £7.5 billion-worth of expenditure every year on vital services such as education, police, fire and every other service? Are we really saying to the Scots and to elected councillors that we simply cannot trust them to run water and sewerage services? Surely not.
  I hope that the Secretary of State remains conscious of the figures imprinted on every Conservative mind—that in the Strathclyde water referendum 1.1 million people did not say no to privatisation; they said no to the crazy, half-baked proposals for three super-quangos and a grudging acceptance of councillors. We will certainly have none of that. The Scots agree with us, and that is why we will divide the House on this important new clause.
  Mr. Stewart: First, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), may I thank Opposition Members for their best wishes to Lady Monro? Secondly, I welcome the debate, in which a number of important and constructive points have been made.
  We shall return to the particular point raised by the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) about the water pollution problems caused by abandoned coal mines.
  We have heard a number of rumbustious speeches, including that of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). He will forgive me if I regard his advice on how the Tory party should increase its vote in Scotland with a wry smile. I am not sure that he is the best source of advice on these matters.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) put the case for what the Government were proposing extremely well. We need extra finance for water and sewerage in Scotland. There needs to be a partnership between the public and the private sector in order to achieve that.
  It is a practical problem, not a problem of ideology. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), have talked about privatisation and asked for an assurance that there will be no privatisation of water and sewerage in future. I say simply that the answer
  738
  that the Government are proposing to the practical problem of the need for extra finance in water and sewerage—the problem is sewerage, not water—means that there is simply no need for privatisation in Scotland in future. There is clearly a need for a new structure which maximises the benefits of economies of scale.
  What is the essential difference then between the two sides of the House, given acceptance by Opposition Members that the new amendments on disconnections clear that matter up without any equivocation? It is about the number of councillors on the new water authorities. Opposition Members take the view that all members of the new authorities should be councillors, but we believe that there should be a partnership and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries reassured the Committee, there should be a significant number of councillors on the new authorities, but that it would be unreasonable to bind the Secretary of State on specific numbers, and that other people also have the right to be considered on merit for the new authorities.
  I believe that we are putting forward a practical solution to a practical problem, and I therefore recommend that the House does not accept new clause 1.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 278.

  Division No. 240]

  [7.06pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbett, Robin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Alton, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cox, Tom

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

  Benton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobson, Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Blair, Tony

  Dowd, Jim

  Blunkett, David

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Boyes, Roland

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bradley, Keith

  Eastham, Ken

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

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

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Burden, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Byers, Stephen

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caborn, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Callaghan, Jim

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Canavan, Dennis

  Galloway, George

  Cann, Jamie

  Gapes, Mike

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Garrett, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  George, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Graham, Thomas

  Coffey, Ann

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  739

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mullin, Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  Murphy, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hall, Mike

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hanson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Olner, William

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Parry, Robert

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoey, Kate

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pope, Greg

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmora)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prescott, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hoyle, Doug

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hutton, John

  Reid, Dr John

  Ingram, Adam

  Rendel, David

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Janner, Greville

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Keen, Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Salmond, Alex

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lewis, Terry

  Short, Clare

  Livingstone, Ken

  Simpson, Alan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

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

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Snape, Peter

  McCartney, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  McKelvey, William

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McLeish, Henry

  Stevenson, George

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  McMaster, Gordon

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Straw, Jack

  MacShane, Denis

  Turner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Madden, Max

  Vaz, Keith

  Mandelson, Peter

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Marek, Dr John

  Wallace, James

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Walley, Joan

  Martlew, Eric

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Maxton, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Meacher, Michael

  Watson, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Michael, Alun

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Milburn, Alan

  Wilson, Brian

  Miller, Andrew

  Winnick, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Worthington, Tony

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliot

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Mudie, George

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  740

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dykes, Hugh

  Alexander, Richard

  Eggar, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Elletson, Harold

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Amess, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evennett, David

  Ashby, David

  Faber, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baldry, Tony

  Forman, Nigel

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forth, Eric

  Bates, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bellingnam, Henry

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  French, Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gallie, Phil

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Body, Sir Richard

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  Booth, Hartley

  Gill, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bowis, John

  Gorst, John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butterfill, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

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

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Couchman, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cran, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Day, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Key, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, Sir David

  Dover, Den

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Duncan, Alan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dunn, Bob

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  741

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lidington, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stephen, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stern, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marland, Paul

  Sykes, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Thomason, Roy

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moss, Malcolm

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

  Needham, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Norris, Steve

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Waller, Gary

  Pawsey, James

  Ward, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Watts, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Richards, Rod

  Willetts, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Wilshire, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Yeo, Tim

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Sackville, Tom

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Bowen Wells.

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 2

  INITIAL REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS
  '.—(1) As soon as practicable the Boundary Commission shall review such local government areas or parts thereof as the Secretary of State may direct, for the purpose of considering whether to make such proposals in relation to them as are authorised by section 13 of the 1973 Act, and what proposals, if any, to make; and the commission shall formulate any such proposals accordingly.
  (2) The provisions of paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the 1973 Act shall apply to a review under subsection (1) above.'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: New clause 3—Cost of re-organisation—
  '.—(1) The Treasury shall undertake a review and publish a report on the costs likely to be incurred as a result of the provisions of this Act; and the report shall be laid before Parliament no later than 6th April 1995.'.
  New clause 29—Review of cost of reorganization—
  '(1) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall report annually to Parliament on the costs incurred by the Secretary of State, any Staff Commission, residuary bodies, and Property Commission established by this Act, and by local authorities as a result of the implementation of the provisions of this Act and associated costs, in respect of each of the Financial years ending on 31st March in each of 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998.
  (2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and local authorities to provide the National Audit Office with all the information required to compile the reports referred to in subsection (1) above.
  (3) In this section, "local authority" includes all new authorities and joint boards, (including Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands and the Western Isles) and until 31st March 1996, all existing local authorities (including the islands councils), and joint committees and joint boards.'.
  Amendment No. 25, in schedule 1, page 124, line 8, leave out
  'Banff and Buchan District Council'.
  Government amendments Nos. 287 and 288.
  Amendment No. 26 in page 124, line 39, at end insert—

  Banff and Buchan

  Banff and Buchan District Council.'.

  Amendment No. 42 in page 124, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert—

  'Ayrshire

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun District Council;

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council;

  Cunninghame District Council;

  Kyle and Carrick District Council.'.

  Amendment No. 5, in page 124, line 45, after 'The', insert 'Scottish'.
  Government amendments Nos. 289 and 290.
  Amendment No. 28, in page 125, line 2, leave out 'East Dunbartonshire' and insert 'Lennox'.
  Amendment No. 29, in page 125, leave out lines 3 to 8 and insert
  'Cumbemauld and Kilsyth District Council and Strathkelvin District Council.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 292, 291 and 293.
  Amendment No. 169, in page 125, leave out line 25 and insert—

  'North Highland

  Caithness, Sutherland, and Ross and Cromarty District Councils

  South Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey, Inverness, Lochaber, Nairn, and Skye and Lochalsh District Councils'.

  Amendment No. 30, in page 125, line 27, leave out 'Cumbernauld and Kilsyth'.
  Amendment No. 31, in page 125, leave out lines 29 to 31.
  Government amendments Nos. 294 to 296.
  Amendment No. 170, in page 125, line 46, leave out from 'Council' to end of line 39 on page 126 and insert—

  'Renfrewshire

  Renfrew District Council.'.

  Amendment No. 270, in page 125, line 46, leave out from
  'Council' to end of line 37 on page 126.
  Government amendment No. 297.
  Amendment No. 271, in page 126, line 38, leave out
  '(except the areas included in East Renfrewshire)'.
  Amendment No. 272, in clause 5, page 3, line 43, at end insert—
  '(7) For the purpose of the first ordinary election of councillors, referred to in sub-section (2) above, the electoral wards for each local government area shall comprise the electoral wards for existing district councils insofar as they fall entirely within a local government area established under section 1 of this Act, and provided that where the boundary between two local government areas divides an existing district council ward, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland shall, within eight weeks of this Act coming into force, submit to the Secretary of State proposals for areas within such part district council wards to be added to contiguous district council wards within the new local government area.
  (8) Within twenty-one days of receiving proposals from the Local Government Boundary Commission of Scotland in accordance with subsection (7) above, the Secretary of State shall, by order, give effect to the proposals without modification.
  (9) An order made under subsection (8) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 280 to 285.
  Mr. McLeish: I wish to speak to new clause 3 and amendment No. 42.
  The debate is important because it covers not only local government boundaries but the important question of how they were determined and the costs of what the Opposition still regard as a half-baked proposal. There has been widespread concern in Scotland throughout the passage of the Bill; that concern has been apparent both during the Committee stage and right up to Report.
  The key issue about which we are all concerned is how the Government arrived at some of the boundaries that we see not only in the Bill but in the amendments before us. The Bill has been framed with no consensus in Scotland among political parties, local government or the trade unions. There is no consensus for any form of change. There has been no in-depth independent review. The hallmark of the 73 proposals building on Wheatley was the desire not only to attain consensus but to have an independent commission assess the implications of change and report to the House where decisions were taken.
  The boundaries in the Bill are not built on any notion of improved service delivery. It seems ludicrous that we are debating boundaries this evening when no consideration has been given to the link between boundaries and effective service delivery. I shall develop that theme later. Despite the Government's rantings, no regard has been given to historical communities, historical links or natural boundaries.
  If the boundary changes are not linked to any of those issues, what we are faced with is simple gerrymandering. The Government do not like that word; they complained in another place about its use. There is no other word to sum up how the Opposition and the people of Scotland feel
  744
  about a set of proposals that bear no relationship to their needs and aspirations, but much relationship to the needs and aspirations of the Conservative party.
  After the trouncing that the Conservatives were given in the regional elections in Scotland, England and Wales, one might have thought that Ministers would be visited with some degree of humility. It is clear from the initial water debate that that has not happened. We wait with interest to see whether that will change in relation to this debate.
  No one—even the Government—could argue that policies and boundaries that were built on gerrymandering could ever endure. I warn the Government that we will fight to ensure that the elections that the Government hope will take place next year will be derailed and delayed. The proposals before us, because of their instability, simply could not endure a change of Government? Why are the Government not saying, "Yes, we need to build consensus. Yes, we need an independent review." If they did that, it would save us having to move and debate the issues this evening.
  Mr. Stewart: Which of the Government's proposals is the Labour party specifically against? Is the hon. Gentleman saying, for example, that the Labour party is specifically against moving Kincardine-on-Forth into Fife?
  Mr. McLeish: The Minister is trying to challenge my humility. The suggestion was daft in the first place. I do not think that I should applaud in any way the Government coming to their senses in one minus way to deliver Kincardine back to its people. We are against the Bill root and branch. It will do nothing for Scottish local government. It will do everything for the Conservative party—
  Mr. Stewart: Well, maybe.
  Mr. McLeish: I will qualify that. I want to discuss that in a minute.
  The Bill does not deserve to survive. The Secretary of State may smile. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and his colleague the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord Douglas-Hamilton) may just carry on with note filling, but the point is that the Bill is thoroughly bad and obnoxious.
  On gerrymandering, when the Bill was conceived, the hon. Members for Eastwood and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and some of the other apparatchiks who work out of Conservative central office decided, "Let us build the reorganisation around those two seats. So what we had in the first instance was Stirling becoming a single tier. We need not go into it, but it is legendary"—
  Mr. Graham: Eastwood.
  Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend makes the point. That constituency seems to have been the marvellous focus for a Bill, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may not have read, but which, clearly, we have. It is great credit to the Minister that he has been able to wrap the whole of the Conservative machine in Scotland around his little finger to come up with such a daft, divisive and dangerous system. Perhaps he should be applauded for that, but he will get little applause from the Opposition.
  Clearly, major issues are involved in the boundaries. I cannot miss the opportunity to say that, last Friday, when the Government tabled new amendments, they also conceived the smallest unitary council so far. We started with 28. Then, through the Government's inspiration—or, I should say, that of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)

  745
  as he rampaged through Scottish councils looking for anyone for whom he could move an amendment—we ended up with 30. On Friday, the figure went up to 32.
  I ask the Government to accept a challenge. Can a council covering 47,000 people constitute an all-singing, all-dancing, all-purpose authority? That is what we now have in Central region. I do not doubt for a moment the quality of either councillors or officials, but it is important for us to flag up one point. Fiction has been turned into sheer farce. We now know that Stirling was gerrymandered for political reasons—and we have also discovered that the Government are willing to go to any lengths to demean the processes of review and local government reorganisation. We have seen that with Clackmannan, a council covering 47,000 people.
  7.30 pm
  I am led to believe that Clackmannan has half the number of schools that my constituency contains. Now its water will be provided by three super-quangos, its police will be provided by one of the eight police authority boards and its fire services will be delivered by one of the eight fire authorities. Sadly, the Stirlings and Clackmannans of the world will be wholly dependent on larger authorities: they will be like colonies of Fife regional council, which will bestride it with its 350,000 people. Where on earth is Clackmannan to find its education and social services? That is not an abstract question. The Minister smiles, but he knows full well that, although the Government's plan may fulfil the politics of madness on the Conservative Benches, it does not fulfil the politics of reality for those poor people in small authorities. They will suffer greatly.
  The Minister laughs ruefully, because that is not his agenda. His agenda does not concern the quality of services enjoyed by people in Central region, Lothian, Tayside and Grampian, whose councils will be dismembered. His interest is in what the Government call enabling councils, referring to the ability of any council—regardless of its size—to purchase services wherever it wishes. Health boards do it; health trusts will do it. It is called "purchaser provider". But it simply is not working, and if the Government approve the relevant amendments—the vote may take place tomorrow, because of the scheduling of business—certain people in certain communities all over Scotland will be condemned to much poorer services. We cannot accept that that could be a legitimate aspiration in any reorganisation, Conservative or otherwise. It seems to us that the Government have now come clean, and decided that they are willing to plumb any depths to provide local councils with few services to administer.
  One of the key issues behind all the rantings of Ministers and all the gerrymandering has been cost. In new clause 3, we ask for a Treasury inquiry into Scottish Office-inspired madness—for that is all that it can be. I am delighted to see the Secretary of State sitting in on the debate; he was absent during the 170 hours that we spent in Committee, and we sincerely hope that he will wish to contribute to the debate on costs. Costs are crucial. Whether we believe the £720 million figure given by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or the back-of-an-envelope job provided by the Scottish Office —which suggested savings of £60 million for 1995–96 —we cannot deny that there is a huge disparity in the estimates of the cost implications of the Bill.
  That would be enough to persuade any sane Government to submit the matter to independent scrutiny.
  746
  We do not argue that the Treasury is independent; but we have a feeling that—when faced with a possible public sector borrowing requirement of £35 billion at the next election, a position in which front-line services are starved of resources and circumstances in which such innovations as "care in the community" have little funding to implement the proposals involved—the Treasury would be happy to investigate the kind of madness that we are seeing in the Scottish Office.
  The crucial aspect of costs is the question of staff cuts, with which the question of savings is inextricably linked. It was in the House, at our last Scottish Question Time, that the Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag: for the first time, he talked about redundancies.
  Mr. Lang: Rubbish.
  Mr. McLeish: The Secretary of State says, "Rubbish." I hope that the Minister who replies will explain away that first reference to redundancies. In the House and elsewhere, the Government have given the impression that these massive savings can be made by means of a painless cut in staff numbers—but the word "redundancy" implies something more sinister and significant. I hope that the Minister will begin to clarify its meaning.
  Playing politics with 300,000 jobs in Scotland is not just a sinister process, however; it is even worse than that. The Government were unwilling to write into the Bill the arrangement introduced by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which automatically transferred all dedicated committee staff to the new authorities. Why? And why did the Government then decide to turn their back on the European acquired rights directive and the transfer of undertakings legislation? Every conceivable legal opinion is telling the Government that of course all the staff will be transferred; whether it takes the courts to do that is immaterial.
  The Government have sought to justify this half-baked reorganisation by reference to savings. That is why they did not include in the Bill provisions for those people to be transferred automatically and why they have turned their back on European legislation. Ultimately, however, there will be no savings, because there will be no staff sacrificed on the altar of this reorganisation. The Minister should tell us why the Government are able to ignore both precedent and Europe, and play politics with the future of 300,000 people.
  It has already been suggested that 30,000 jobs could be lost—up to 10 per cent. of the current number of jobs in Scottish local authorities. Is the Minister willing to say from the Dispatch Box, "Yes, that is the case," or will he continue to play politics and talk about figures between 700 and 2,000? However we look at the figures, they simply do not add up: the Government are behaving in a sinister fashion, unwilling to own up to the truth about costs.
  If we take the labour savings out of the equation, it will mean that the Government will save nothing at all. Unison, the public service union in Scotland, will take the matter to the European Commissioner and to every existing local authority: if they decide that there will be no scrapping of staff but an automatic transfer, the Government will have no savings with which to justify the reorganisation.
  The Government amendments constitute a firm commitment to gerrymandering of a high order. They also constitute a commitment to massive savings, when none will be made. If we discount the gerrymandering and the

  747
  bogus savings, what on earth are we left with? Why did we spend 170 hours in Committee, and why are we to spend two and a half days on the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading, when the Government have now been fully exposed?
  I believe that this is a real tragedy. We gave the Government a chance to rescue themselves in the last debate, and they failed; in our new clauses and amendments on boundaries, we ask them to see common sense. When will they wake up to the fact that there is no suspension of political reality in Scotland? That has not happened over the past 12 months, and it will not happen over the next 12 months. Scots simply do not want this reorganisation, and opinion polls show that two thirds of them do not support the single-tier concept.
  What we need is an independent commission, and at least a Treasury first look at the costs involved. We want the people of Scotland to appreciate that what the Government are doing is not in their interests, but in the interests of the Conservative party. I hope that what I have said, and what my hon. Friends will say, will be taken on board.
  It is a sad occasion when the Secretary of State and his junior Ministers totally ignore public opinion. There can be no greater and more sinister development in any democracy than when the gap between the Government and the governed grows so large with no prospect of being bridged; at that point, we move from an issue of reorganisation to a dangerous issue of democracy and politics.
  Even if the Government do not give a damn about the services enjoyed by 5 million Scots, the effectiveness of the £7.5 billion spent every year on services or the Strathclyde water referendum, do they not have any pride in democracy? Hon. Members on both sides of the House are supposed to support that, but at times it seems that, while the Opposition support democracy, the Government only pay lip service to it. We have reached a dangerous situation in Scotland, and all because the Government will not listen. Tonight, they have an opportunity to listen and to respond. We hope that they do so.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that Channel 4 news has just released information that the Cabinet Committee will meet on Thursday to consider the selling off of 51 per cent. of the Royal Mail and 51 per cent. of Parcelforce. Have you received notification of a statement on that matter? Given that Scottish Office Ministers are present, and that they must surely have been consulted about such a proposal, perhaps one of them can make a statement at the Dispatch Box to confirm that Channel 4 report.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have received no notification of anything, other than the fact that the House is debating new clause 2.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) made an astonishing attack on Clackmannan and East Lothian district councils, which are the subject of Government amendments before the House. I expected the hon. Gentleman to speak to the Opposition new clauses but he chose not to do so.
  For the record, new clause 2, to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer, is unnecessary because the
  748
  legislative powers to which it refers already exist. The hon. Gentleman referred to costs. New clause 3, which he did not address at any length, suggests that the Treasury should make a fundamental review of the costs of reorganising local government in Scotland. That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how central Government conduct their business. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, he and his colleagues displayed that misunderstanding in Committee, when they constantly suggested that the Scottish Office was putting forward figures without the Treasury's consent. That kind of scenario is completely inconceivable.
  Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister confirm that he suggested to the Treasury that this muddled mess might cost £720 million? Did that happen?
  Mr. Stewart: No. The Treasury has rather more sense than that. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury have more sense than to believe the figures presented by the hon. Member for Fife, Central. As he raised the point, I will refer to his own estimates of council tax rises in Fife, which he represents, following reorganisation. They suggest that band D council tax in Dunfermline would rise from £621 to £1,061, and in Kirkcaldy from £664 to £1,094.
  Mr. McLeish: May we have the Minister's estimates?
  Mr. Stewart: I am not giving the hon. Gentleman my own estimates; I am simply giving him the estimates of Labour-controlled Fife regional council.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: How many Conservatives are on that council?
  Mr. Stewart: Not a lot. That is precisely my point. That council cannot reasonably be regarded as some kind of crypto-Conservative organisation, yet it estimates that a single-tier Fife authority would produce savings of £4.9 million per annum. That is the estimate of Labour-controlled Fife regional council.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister agree that all the arguments relating to Fife apply equally to Ayrshire?
  Mr. Stewart: No, I do not agree—but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I hope to be able to respond to his points later. I will have to take fully into account the points made by the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohue) in favour of the Government's present proposals for Ayrshire.
  Mr. Connarty:Before we debate who prefers what in relation to democratic responses and public feeling about representation, perhaps we may focus on costs. Has the Secretary of State asked the Treasury to make a reasonable and rational assessment of the report on which he based his figures, compared with that produced for COSLA by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy? They seem to take different views and to give different estimates. In Committee, more credibility was attached to the CIPFA report. Has the Secretary of State asked for an independent assessment of costs? That aspect will affect every other decision on resources and services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said.
  Mr. Stewart: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we in the Scottish Office are in constant and close touch with the Treasury.
  Mr. Canavan: The Treasury tells him what to do.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Treasury tells me what to do, but Labour Members suggest that the Treasury ought to tell us what to do. That is the purpose of their new clause. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Canavan: We are calling for an independent element in assessing the costs.
  Mr. Stewart: Labour's amendment suggests that the Treasury should have an estimate of the costs. I am saying that that happens in any event. It is inconceivable that any major Government measure is adopted without the Treasury's full involvement. That has been the case in relation to the Bill, as with every Government Bill that is put before the House.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central did not refer specifically to new clause 29, which would involve the National Audit Office in the auditing of local government reorganisation costs. I am sorry about that because I was going to say that the amendment's heart was in the right place but that it is unnecessary because the NAO has a relationship with central Government costs, not local government costs.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to respond specifically to points made by hon. Members representing highlands constituencies, because the highlands case was not, by agreement, debated in Committee.
  It may help the House if I said something about costs and and about the Government amendments. My main point in answer to the hon. Member for Fife, Central is that the estimates to which he has referred to, and especially the COSLA estimates, assume, first, that more than 3,000 local government staff will be made redundant and paid extremely generous sums—my understanding is that the sum would be between £100,000 and £200,000 each—and, secondly, that they will all be replaced by new staff. I regard that as a ridiculous and unreasonable proposition and certainly the Government would not finance a scheme of that nature.
  Moreover, estimates by individual local authorities of all political persuasions throughout Scotland consistently show savings as a result of the Government's proposals. The Scottish National party authority of Angus shows savings of £8.45 million over the status quo; the Borders shows savings of £22.4 million, for the unitary authorities in Tayside; Dundee shows savings. I have already referred to Fife and I know that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will have studied Fife regional council's estimates in great detail.
  Mr. McLeish indicated dissent.
  Mr. Stewart: He is wrongly shaking his head.
  Mr. McLeish: I do not like statistics.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not like statistics. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I shall give way when I have finished the point.
  Fife is suggesting that the Government's proposals would result in savings, over 15 years, of some £68 million.
  Mr. Dalyell: May I ensure that we have understood exactly what the Minister said? Do I misquote him in saying that, when he was talking about compensation to employees, he said that the Government would not finance figures of that nature? The figures are put at £100,000. There are many employees, who have to make decisions about their futures and their careers, and who would like to know exactly on what basis they are to be compensated. If the Government are saying that they are to compensate in a niggardly manner, that ought to be known.
  Mr. Stewart: I accept that the hon. Gentleman has raised a legitimate point. What I regard as completely unreasonable is the proposition that local authorities—because. ultimately, it is their responsibility—would make people redundant at an enormous cost and then take people on to replace them, which is the essential assumption made in the COSLA figures. In the Bill, we are introducing powers to control such things.
  Mr. Welsh: Why is no transitional figure given for property in Scotland when the figure has been calculated for England and for Wales? Will the Minister comment on COSLA's point about the staff turnover effect, following on from what he said? Does he dismiss that idea, and does he think that that would not have an effect on costs?
  Mr. Stewart: Of course there must be staff turnover; nobody denies that. The hon. Gentleman asks about property. I hope that he will recognise that the decisions are for local authorities—and, as I understand it, his own SNP-controlled local authority has no particular difficulty over that matter.
  Government amendments Nos. 287, 292, and 295—which relate to Dundee—reflect the undertaking that I made in Committee to look closely at the boundary of the city. They have the effect of including Invergowrie in Perthshire and Kinross. In response to the reasoned arguments advanced by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and by the City of Dundee district council, we proposed to include in the city the Balgarthno area to the east, Birkhill cemetery, Clatto Moor and Baldovan Wood, and an area to the east of the Forfar road. The case put to us was that those areas were integral parts of the city's overall strategy for future development.
  The only essential difference between the amendments and the case put to the Government by the hon. Members for Dundee, East and for Dundee, West was over Strathmartine. The community council there argued that the area is predominantly rural, and we have respected that view, which favours an Angus link.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I do not want to delay the House in any way, because I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not think that the Minister is being at all honest with the House. When he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East in Committee, he almost misled him by the way in which he said that he would introduce amendments to reflect what my hon. Friend said. As I shall show if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the amendments in no way meet the points put to

  751
  the Minister by Dundee district council, my hon. Friend and myself. The Minister knows as well as I do that his father is still very disappointed about what he is doing here tonight.
  Mr. Stewart: My father always expresses his views with great lucidity. May I say to the hon. Members for Dundee, East and Dundee, West that I do not accept that general criticism? I accept, of course, that the Government have not agreed to what was proposed by Dundee district council, but in essence we have agreed to all the proposals put forward by the district council except those in relation to Strathmartine, which the community council indicated it wanted to remain in a rural authority.
  Mr. McAllion: The Minister knows very well that the Scottish Crop Research Institute at Milnefield is one of the areas which, as I clearly explained in Committee, has been excluded from Dundee—as has the Tay estuary nature reserve. A whole series of areas that were raised with the Minister in Committee have been kept out of Dundee, and very few concessions have been made to the case that I put on behalf of Dundee district council.
  Mr. Stewart: I am not disputing the geographical facts with the hon. Gentleman; I am saying that I believe that, in the face of conflicting arguments, we have responded to the case put by the City of Dundee district council. We have not entirely accepted the case that has been advanced but we have conceded that the case—which I thought was the most important point—for Balgarthno and the industrial estate there was valid. It is clear from the amendments that the Government have listened.
  There is a detailed amendment to the boundary in relation to Luss and there is a major change to the Government's proposals in relation to Central region. We decided that there should be three councils in Central region—Clackmannan, Falkirk and Stirling—based on the existing district council boundaries. That was an extremely difficult decision to make.
  It was clear that the Government's original proposal to link Clackmannan, Falkirk and Kincardine was not generally acceptable. We therefore decided that Kincardine-on-Forth should go back into Fife. We then faced a choice between one council or three for Central region.
  I emphasise that the fact that we decided in favour of three councils was not a criticism of Central regional council, which has many achievements to its credit. However, there is no doubt that the district councils—and Falkirk and Clackmannan in particular—put forward a very pragmatic case to the effect that they would be able to supply the necessary services to their people, if they were on their own, by co-operating with neighbouring councils and with the private and voluntary sectors.
  8 pm
  Mr. Connarty: The Minister must realise that I would express concern because the original amendment, which was tabled by my hon. Friends and me and which was debated and discussed at great length in Committee, proposed that Stirling and Clackmannan should be together; that was the recommendation of the Wheatley
  752
  commission for the district authority without the education and social services functions allocated to it. That was the proposal put forward in Committee.
  The Government must explain at greater length why they rejected the two-council solution. If it was not to be one council, I cannot understand why the Minister should diminish the size and resource base of local government in Stirling, of which I was previously the leader, and of Clackmannan, which I know very well, to the point where we think it will not be viable in the long term.
  Mr. Stewart: I fully accept that there is a balanced argument here. However, the view expressed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East is not the view that Clackmannan district council put to the Government. That council put forward the view that
  "As a unitary authority the District Council would continue … maintaining a flexible and responsive approach to decision-making and internal management."
  It stated that the council
  "has enthusiastically embraced the concept of enabling and working in partnership."
  It added that that
  "has not been solely in response to the Government's view, but was more a result of an appreciation of the needs and aspirations of the area and its people and the need to reach pragmatic, practical solutions which involved working with other interested parties and service providers."
  That was the view of Clackmannan district council which, as the House is aware, is not run by the Conservative party. It is a Labour authority. It believed that it could deliver the necessary services as an enabling council.
  Clackmannan district council concluded that it believed that
  "it is uniquely placed to carry this structure of local government forward as a unitary authority and to build on it as a model of quality local government for the future."
  Those are not the words of the Scottish Office. They are the words of Clackmannan district council. I accept entirely the point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East that different arguments apply and that reasonable people can take a different view. The view that we eventually took was that the question about Central regional council turned on the Clackmannan case. We eventually agreed to accept the view put forward by Clackmannan district council.
  Mr. George Robertson: Does the Minister agree that all that verbiage has nothing to do with the real point? The way in which Central region was divided up had everything to do with a vain attempt at keeping Stirling district as a future fiefdom for the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The logical way out of the conundrum in Stirling was to link Clackmannan and Stirling districts together into a functioning local authority. The fact that we now have three unitary authorities in the centre of Scotland has everything to do with an attempt at gerrymandering the map and nothing to do with real local government.
  Mr. Stewart: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Labour-led Clackmannan district council is somehow part of a plot involving Tory gerrymandering. I have read out the position of Clackmannan district council—the wee county. Its position is perfectly acceptable. Of course, we had to consider the decision very carefully—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but I am saying that, given a difficult choice, the Government eventually accepted the case of Labour-led Clackmannan district council.

  753
  I want now to consider the Government amendments in relation to the split between East Lothian and Midlothian. That again, was a matter of judgment as several considerations pointed in both directions. We received very strong representations from East Lothian which, again, is a Labour-led district council. It argued that it should be an independent council. If Opposition Members are saying that the Labour leaders of Eastwood—[HON. MEMBERS: "Eastwood?"]—of East Lothian; that was to make sure that Opposition Members are awake.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I must point out to the Minister that there is a substantial distinction between Eastwood and East Lothian.
  I am grateful for what the Minister is saying and, above all, I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted defeat for their original outrageous proposal which would have split the historic county of East Lothian between Livingston and the eastern borders. However, people in East Lothian very much value the quality services provided for them directly now, not only by East Lothian district council, but also by Lothian regional council. Will the Minister undertake to allow the new, comparatively small single-tier authority of East Lothian to budget to continue to directly deliver that full range of local services that the people value so highly at present?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed these matters. Given the representations that we have received from East Lothian district council in response to the questions that I asked at the meeting that the hon. Gentleman and I attended, we are convinced that East Lothian can deliver the services of a unitary authority to its people effectively in terms of service quality and costs.
  The final Government amendment in the group represents a change in Renfrewshire which will be of particular interest to the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams). The amendment moves the Ralston ward from East Renfrewshire authority to Renfrewshire. Both hon. Members will welcome that proposal.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: From the original proposals for Renfrewshire, all the areas except Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor, have now been taken back into what was West Renfrewshire authority. That also means that the new East Renfrewshire authority; as proposed by the Minister, will comprise exactly his parliamentary constituency boundaries. He knows that boundary well. I raised the matter with him in Committee. On 28 April, I received a reply—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a very long intervention.
  Mr. McMaster: It is short and relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a parliamentary answer on 28 April, the Minister said that the A727, which is a boundary listed in the Bill, is no longer a classified route, and when it was a classified route it ran from Clarkston to Cathcart.
  Mr. Stewart: Those problems will be resolved as a result of the Government amendment. I hope that that will be warmly welcomed by the hon. Members for Paisley, North and for Paisley, South.
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I have responded to a number of points made by Labour Members. I know that a large number of hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Stewart: Not at the moment.
  I shall sum up the Government's amendments by saying that all of them respond to genuine concerns that have been expressed on a non-party political basis. On that basis—
  Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that we must sit here all night listening to the Minister. However, he has not mentioned the fact that a democratic referendum took place in his constituency—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.
  Sir David Steel rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Sir David Steel: The Secretary of State has not dealt with the other amendments on the list of selection, including my amendment No. 5. I am grateful to him for giving way because it saves me from trying to make a speech, which will particularly delight my hon. Friends.
  May I further entice the Secretary of State to accept my simple amendment No. 5? As he will know, the co-ordinating committee which is preparing for the new authority of the borders believes that its title should be the Scottish Borders Council to bring it into line with Scottish Borders Enterprise and the Scottish Borders Tourist Board. I hope that he will agree.
  Mr. Stewart: I am sorry, but I must disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. I do not agree with the amendment—first, because there may need to be a longer period of consultation; and, secondly, because the new council will be able to change its name to the one suggested by the right hon. Gentleman if it wishes to do so. On balance, that is a sensible way to proceed.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly, given the number of hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate. In particular, I shall address my remarks to amendment No. 169 which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who is beside me.
  I underscore what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box. By prior agreement—I am grateful to all those who were involved in that agreement—we now have the first opportunity in the proceedings, given that there was no highland Member serving on the Committee, to discuss what is in many ways the most radical boundary proposal for local government across the whole of Scotland. Under the proposal, all the existing local government structure in the Highland region at present will be dismantled and replaced by a single council which will cover half the land mass of Scotland—it will be bigger than Wales and, indeed, almost as big as Belgium.
  I know that both the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been good enough to meet delegations from both sides of the argument. My other hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is also present and will be hoping to catch your

  755
  eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, given the debate that has taken place.
  I make it clear from the outset—although the Minister and the Secretary of State are aware of this—that my hon. Friend and I speak from a north highland perspective, in particular Caithness and Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty, and we will be recommending a two-council option. My other hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will wish to speak against that and in favour of what is presently proposed by the Scottish Office. In so doing, he will be representing the views of one of the districts in my constituency, Skye and Lochalsh, which shares the view put forward by the Government. That district does not share the view that I am putting forward this evening, although the other two districts in my constituency, Ross and Cromarty and that part of Inverness district which falls within my parliamentary seat, share that view, as do the Caithness and Sutherland district councils.
  I am against the single Highland council that has been proposed, basically, for reasons of gut instinct. It is much too large and, accordingly, it will be much too remote. It as simple as that. It has been argued by some—indeed, some hon. Members in the Labour party have argued the point; the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has argued it elsewhere—that, in the highland context, the opposition to what the Government are proposing is not as it may have been in certain other areas, but it is a defence of the status quo.
  I do not agree with that. I am in favour of single-tier local authorities. Like many others in the highlands, I viewed the introduction of the Bill as a great opportunity to bring local government closer to people and to simplify it. In my constituency experience, it is clear that people do not adequately distinguish, or understand sufficiently well the distinction, between the functions carried out by districts and the functions carried out by the existing Highland regional council. Therefore, I do not accept the status quo as a defence.
  8.15 pm
  In asking the Secretary of State to think again, I shall argue a few points. First, I refer to public opinion. As the Scottish Office knows, the Association of Highland Districts commissioned a public opinion poll which showed that no less than 83 per cent. of 1,000 respondents across the highlands were against the imposition of a single Highland council. In a parliamentary answer to me yesterday, the Secretary of State confirmed that almost exactly the same proportion—83 per cent.—of those who had written to the Scottish Office were against what was being proposed and were in favour of the two-council option. Indeed, with an entire year at its disposal, and with the backing of the Highland region, the Scottish Office has been unable to amass more than 51 respondents in favour of what is proposed.
  Secondly, I refer to the cost. There will be savings, whatever happens. Under the proposal, we are talking about abolishing eight district councils and having only one local authority for the whole area, so there will be savings, whether there is one Highland council or two. The Association of Highland Districts estimates its savings to be some £2 million per annum.
  756
  Thirdly, as we heard in the earlier debate, the proposal is completely inconsistent with what the Scottish Office is bringing forward elsewhere in Scotland. How can we have one local authority with fewer than 50,000 people in one part of Scotland, yet another local authority with more than 200,000 people for the whole of the highlands? It does not make sense.
  Fourthly, I refer to a strategic overview. We speak against the backdrop of the highlands having secured objective 1 funding. We are all pleased about that. That is an example of a single authority being able to provide a strategic overview and argue its case not only at the national level but at the European Union level, too. I must point out that the campaign for objective 1 status involved more than Highland regional council; it involved other local authorities both to the north, the west and the south. If there were two Highland councils, that degree of co-operation would be essential.
  Officially, Highlands and Islands Enterprise has come out in favour of one local authority, but its constituent parts, the local enterprise companies—including Ross and Cromarty Enterprise in my constituency, which favours more than one local authority—are by no means unanimous.
  Fifthly, I refer to the quality of democracy. If the proposal goes ahead, how will the authorities live up to the ideals and aspirations that the Secretary of State set out in the White Paper? There will be a massive democratic deficit. We will be getting rid of scores of local councillors in terms of the total number for the highlands. Even going to the top end of the scale in terms of the number of councillors that there might be, I cannot see how one authority can effectively deliver useful, worthwhile, and genuinely local democracy with a certain number of councillors when set against areas that would be the size of wards, as well as the range of functions that they would have to administer.
  Finally, we tabled the amendment tonight almost in a probing sense to find out whether there had been any movement of minds in the Scottish Office, and also to find out whether the Government might yet be amenable to further consideration, with a view to further changes at a later stage in another place.
  After the local elections, it was made clear that the Scottish Office was into listening and trying to work with the grain of public opinion. Here is a good issue where the Scottish Office can do just that. It is not even a party political issue in the highlands, as all parties have the divisions of opinion which are clear from my party's ranks tonight. I hope that the Secretary of State will think again and will indicate that when he winds up.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 289 and 290, and I start by congratulating Clackmannan and Falkirk district councils on securing what they wanted for their respective areas.
  Clackmannan waged a spirited, imaginative and energetic campaign which built on the high regard in which it is held by the community. Falkirk district, for its part, never swayed from its view that a unitary authority based in the main town in the district would serve the people better than a council administered from Stirling.
  I suppose that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is satisfied with the outcome of his campaign since he has won an authority based on the boundaries of his own constituency, along with the villages of Cowie,

  757
  Fallin and Plean from my constituency. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's cup of ambrosia will be overflowing, and it may become a poisoned chalice. The recent local government results showed that Labour was a clear 13 points ahead of all Tories—both independent and official—compared with only 3.6 per cent. in 1990.
  The amendments deal with four authorities which currently deliver services to my constituency. For the benefit of the House, I should explain that Clackmannan county constituency covers the whole of Clackmannan district, which has 12 wards in it, and which, in turn, has six Central region wards. On top of that, there are another four district wards—two in Stirling and two in Falkirk—which comprise in turn another two wards of Central region.
  When the composition of the new unitary authorities was being considered, one can imagine my surprise when the proposals which appeared first in the White Paper and then in the Bill made such a dog's breakfast of the Central region area. Before the publication of the White Paper, I went to see the Secretary of State to express my concern at the proposed authority, which was rumoured, of Falkirk and Clackmannan districts.
  Mr. Lang indicated assent.
  Mr. O'Neill: The Secretary of State nods his head. I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that the two areas were not linked and that they were separated by the River Forth. He did not know at the time that Kincardine bridge, which is the nearest crossing of the Forth to the two areas, may be in Falkirk in the south, but it lands in Kincardine —hence the name, I suppose—in the north, in Fife.
  I can only imagine that my brief geography lesson had a salutary effect on St. Andrew's house, since that part of Fife was then put into the new authority. While the Secretary of State had an excuse—after all, he was educated at an English public school—the Minister benefited from the excellent education service which was provided by the old Fife county and therefore had no excuse.
  Only after the debacle of the Committee, where the Minister could not guarantee a majority for the defence of the clause, did the Government see reason and return Kincardine to Fife. That, of course, resulted in the collapse of the Falkirk and Clackmannan option.
  I do not want to take up the time of the House with Falkirk, as my two colleagues who represent the bulk of that district may wish to do so. It would be churlish of Clackmannan to say that it was only the Government's desire to create a Stirling authority, or the wrongheadedness of their aim to lump it with Falkirk, which resulted in what we have at present. Although it has resulted in the creation of a unitary authority with a population of about 47,000, it must be said that, since 1980 —since when there has been overall Labour control—a series of outstanding councillors have worked with excellent chief executives to provide a local authority that has been imaginative and cost-effective in delivering services.
  Every council house has both central heating and double glazing, and while Clackmannan may not be the only authority to offer a mortgage rescue scheme, it certainly is the smallest in Britain to do so.
  We have heard about economies of scale. We have not heard about critical mass, but my hon. Friend the Member
  758
  for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) could have applied it in his arguments against Clackmannan. We are told that somehow there is a size below which an authority cannot fall. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central is paying attention to this point because it is central to a reasonable assessment of the chances of the authority taking root and giving services.
  Under virtually every criterion which one could choose to apply to the size of a service-delivering body, Clackmannan seems to be below it. As for its being a district authority and providing the range of services which districts are required to do, size has not been a disadvantage so far. Indeed, it has been able to secure leveraged financing arrangements for a number of projects which, through input from outside agencies in both the public and private sectors, have realised ambitious schemes.
  I shall mention only one which is contained in the excellent publicity material that has been provided for the debate. An investment of £100,000 by Clackmannan district council in the Tillicoultry urban renewal project has attracted support from other agencies to the order of some £5 million.
  The authority has become noted for its pragmatism and its willingness to work with the private and public sectors. There are those who say that such a small authority will not have the resources or expertise to operate a proper education service or to make adequate social work provision. I have to say that the jury is still out on those charges. The problems certainly would have been far greater had it not been for the excellent facilities and staff which it will inherit from Central region.
  It seems that, in the restructuring, Central region will be swept aside. It, too, fought a hard and straight campaign to defend its record. Unfortunately, such was the Government's commitment to creating the Tory island in the central belt around Stirling that Central was sacrificed. But why did the Government think that they could carve up Central and preserve Fife?
  The two authorities are roughly the same size and they are coterminous in a number of areas. I realise that the answer is not simple and certainly there are problems with which Central region has had to deal with over the years. For a start, the name is not particularly attractive and the officers and councillors of Central region, in adopting the heart of Scotland concept as a defence, gave an indication of that.
  There were other problems. Certainly in my area there was a view that insufficient attention had been paid to road development in Clackmannan and that the administration was too remote. It must be said that the news about substantial road improvements, the opening of local offices and the attempts to create local advisory groups was welcome, but I suspect that it will, sadly, be too late to mend the damage that has been caused by bruising disagreements on planning matters.
  In the early stages of its life, Central region had a decade of apparent inertia and indifference. As one who has represented a constituency within Central region for the past 15 years, I must say that, if we had had the purposeful dedication and fight that we have had in the past five years for resources and services by Central region in the preceding 10 years, we might have seen a different authority emerging from the review procedure.
  I am happy, however, that last night the Labour group of Central region for the first time appointed two members

  759
  from Clackmannan to be the leaders of the planning and economic development functions. I recognise that the region has attempted to bridge what has become a gap with some of the areas. That must be put on record as evidence of Central region's good intent and of the fact that it is a shame that the region will not feature in what goes ahead.
  As the debates of previous months have shown and those during the Bill's remaining progress will show, the changes that we are discussing are, frankly, neither wanted nor needed. I am conscious that the people of Cowie and Fallin and Plean, for whom Tory politicians are as relevant as the dodo or the dinosaur, are in danger of being consigned to a right-wing-controlled Stirling district, if the Government's assumptions about the electoral outcome are correct.
  8.30 pm
  I am greatly worried about fragile communities, where one in three of the men is out of work, being sacrificed as some sort of adventure playground, which is what we would have in a Stirling unitary authority. The resolution of that problem is not to be found by splitting that part of Stirling off from Stirling. The resolution of a problem of that character would be the combination of Stirling and Clackmannan in one authority, where there could be a proper mixture of industry, commerce and the like.
  Nothing said in Committee or this evening and nothing that is likely to be said in the days ahead will alleviate the fears and anxieties of my Catholic constituents in Clackmannan district, whose children will have to go to St. Modan's in Stirling—outwith the area where they can exercise any democratic control—to a school to which they will have to travel and for which the provision is unclear in a number of respects. I raised the matter on the day that the White Paper was published, but we have yet to receive the sort of assurances that will satisfy that community in my constituency.
  While I congratulate my colleagues in Clackmannan on their achievements and wish them well, they will now have to prove the doomsters wrong. When Labour—in office —looks at local government, it will direct its attention to authorities like Clackmannan and Falkirk. If the administrative hurdles that lie in the way of change are overcome, the hardest thing about the changes might be that those small and potentially under-resourced authorities will have to make them work. If the Bill is enacted and they have to face that challenge, I can only wish them all the best. Their problems may well be greater, however, than any of us assume at present.
  I would like to be proved wrong, but I fear that the Government's intentions in creating a Tory Stirling will force everything else into second place. That is why I can give only a mixed welcome to the success of my colleagues in Falkirk and Clackmannan in achieving what they wanted. I wish them well and will work with them to achieve the best, but on balance I am a little pessimistic.
  Mr. Salmond: I support amendments Nos. 25 and 26, which I and my colleagues tabled, and I hope to be able to move them at the appropriate time.
  The amendments concern the establishment of Banff and Buchan as a unitary authority within the new set-up, taking it out of the proposed Aberdeenshire option which
  760
  is favoured by the Government. There are a number of arguments behind the amendments and I shall deal with them as quickly as possible.
  First, public opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of the amendments. In a survey of 3,332 residents in Banff and Buchan, 93.6 per cent. were in favour of the Banff and Buchan option. The options presented were either Banff and Buchan or Aberdeenshire, as proposed by the Government. Among the remaining 6.4 per cent., there were more "don't knows" than people who supported the Aberdeenshire option.
  In the regional elections, a week past Thursday, there was a further test of opinion on the options because, in the Cruden, Ugie and Boddam ward in my constituency, a sitting district councillor, who supports the Aberdeenshire option, ran against a sitting SNP regional councillor, who supports the Banff and Buchan option. I do not pretend that that was the only issue in the campaign, but it was none the less an interesting test of opinion. The sitting district councillor came bottom of the poll and was even beaten by the Conservative candidate, which was no mean achievement in my constituency.
  On that test of opinion, there has been a resounding vote in favour of the Banff and Buchan option. The community councils in the constituency are in favour of that option; 17 out of 18 of the sitting district councillors and eight out of nine of the newly elected regional councillors are in favour, as is, of course, the Member of Parliament.
  Therefore, as far as we can ascertain, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of a unitary authority in Banff and Buchan. The Minister had the grace to acknowledge that fact in Committee. In his remarks on the amendments he made it clear that he did not dispute the fact that public opinion favoured the Banff and Buchan option. Two months ago, when a cross-party delegation from the Banff and Buchan campaign met the Minister, he acknowledged the public opinion argument, but wanted to see some detailed financial estimates. As he can confirm, he was presented with a detailed assessment within a week from Richard Blackburn, the chief executive of Banff and Buchan district council.
  That assessment considered the capital and revenue implications of the Banff and Buchan option compared with the Government's Aberdeenshire proposal. It was no macro-aggregate garbage in, garbage out, model, where one plugs in certain numbers and, given the assumptions, gets certain numbers back out. It was a detailed estimate —a detailed look at the proposed committee structure, the cost of amalgamating computer systems and the travel costs of the various options. Each and every aspect of the finances of the two proposals was examined.
  The Blackburn report concluded that there would be an immediate £5 million saving on capital costs with the Banff and Buchan option and a stream of revenue savings, equivalent to a £25 saving in the council tax in the district. Significantly for other hon. Members who might be interested, there would also be savings in the other two component authorities concerned—Kincardine and Deeside and Gordon. As far as I am aware, that was the only detailed financial assessment of the proposals. It was not a global overview, but a detailed blow-by-blow assessment of the proposals' implications and it is a very powerful document.
  What is wrong with the Aberdeenshire authority proposal? It has attracted very little public support. In the original consultation document only five responses were in

  761
  favour of that option, compared with 63 in favour of Banff and Buchan. The Aberdeenshire option therefore has little or no support. However, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) has given it support and caused great offence in my constituency, given that in the Standing Committee he was able to make a case—with cross-party support—on grounds of public opinion for the adjustment of boundaries that immediately concern his constituency.
  There was some annoyance in my constituency about the fact that he professed in The Press and Journal today his opposition to Banff and Buchan as a unitary authority. If the Government maintain their position, which is totally against public opinion in my constituency, fingers will be pointed in the direction of the hon. Gentleman as someone who put a spoke in the wheel of a proposal that has overwhelming public support.
  Aberdeenshire is a doughnut option—not because the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside supports it, but because, like a Polo mint, it will have a hole in the middle. The proposed authority will have no centre, because its natural centre is the city of Aberdeen.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made an excellent point in Committee—to the irritation of some of his colleagues—when he demanded to know of the Minister where he thought the headquarters of the proposed Aberdeenshire authority would be. Any detailed assessment would prove that there are no suitable chambers or headquarters within the proposed Aberdeenshire area equipped to cope with an authority of 46 members, who on a reasonable estimate would require 6,300 sq m of accommodation at their headquarters.
  Currently, in Aberdeenshire there are a number of headquarters and district councils. Viewmont in Stonehaven accommodates 12 members of Kincardine and Deeside district council. Gordon House in Inverurie copes with 16 members of Gordon district council. The biggest of the current headquarters is county hall in Banff in my constituency which, in the old Banffshire authority, coped with 30 members. But none of the current headquarters buildings could remotely cope with the sort of council that is being suggested in the Government's current proposals.
  That means that the first act of the new Aberdeenshire authority, if it comes to fruition, will be a straight choice of either establishing its headquarters in the present regional headquarters of Woodhill house in Aberdeen, outside its own local authority area; or, alternatively, building a purpose-built, high-cost new local authority headquarters somewhere in the new Aberdeenshire. I cannot believe that anybody would seriously argue that the new authority will endear itself to the population either by headquartering outside its own area or by embarking on a high-cost building scheme. It is a nonsense proposal.
  The authority area, as suggested by the Government, encompasses 630,000 hectares. It is only marginally smaller in size than Dumfries and Galloway and, under the current proposals, only Highland is bigger in size than these two. While Highland and Dumfries and Galloway are existing regional councils, the proposal would involve the creation of a new authority of that enormous size.
  As I understand it, the argument in favour of Aberdeenshire put by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside is for a strong buffer authority around the city of Aberdeen. Yet Aberdeenshire without Banff and Buchan would still have a population of 125,520—not just a substantial authority in terms of the Government map, but
  762
  much bigger than the authorities around the city of Edinburgh, for example. That is bigger than West Lothian, Midlothian and East Lothian. Absolutely crucial to the calculation is the fact that both Gordon and Kincardine and Deeside have rapidly growing populations.
  In the comprehensive submissions that have been put forward by the Banff and Buchan campaign committee, a number of examples have been given to demonstrate why Banff and Buchan—although it has some similarities—is quite different in complexion from the two authorities, Gordon and Kincardine and Deeside, with which it is proposed to lump it. One difference is obviously population change.
  From 1981 to 2001, both Gordon and Kincardine and Deeside are projected to be rapidly growing population areas, with growth rates of 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. In contrast, Banff and Buchan has a relatively stable population, with a projected population growth of only 5 per cent.
  Figures in the census for commuting demonstrate the difference between the authorities. In Banff and Buchan only 6 per cent. of the working population commute, presumably, to the city of Aberdeen. In Gordon and in Kincardine and Deeside, the percentages of commuters are 35 per cent. and 32 per cent. The Government are proposing to lump together two fast-growing commuting authorities with an authority which has a more stable, non-commuting population. The tensions implicit in that arrangement, with the natural demands for capital resources of the two authorities which have growing populations and will require increased capital costs, are evident for all to see.
  I suspect that we could approach the local government map in terms of unitary authorities in two ways. According to the proposal that has been put forward, Banff and Buchan would be by no means the smallest unitary authority on the map—certainly not after the new changes have been made. In fact, it would be only the tenth smallest. It would be bigger than Orkney and Shetland, Western Isles, Stirling, Moray, East Renfrew, Clackmannan, East Lothian and Mid-Lothian.
  I do not think that the Government can hold the argument that a population area with gross domestic product per capita of £10,000 which is very high in Scottish terms—and a substantial economically active a nd enterprising population is not capable of sustaining a unitary authority.
  The choice in terms of unitary authorities seems clear. The Government could go for a strategic unit which would allow local authorities to have strategic planning roles. If it did that, the natural authority would not be Aberdeenshire; it would be the Grampian region. Alternatively, it could go with the argument which tries to meet community interests—a unitary authority that commands the loyalty and support of the people who live in that authority. If that is the path which the Minister wants to go down, there can be no gainsaying the fact that the appropriate unit in the north-east corner of Scotland is Banff and Buchan.
  In its 20 years of existence as a district, Banff and Buchan has commanded an enormous degree of loyalty from its population—as has been demonstrated by the number of people who have rallied to the cause of seeing it survive as a unitary authority. I hope very much that the

  763
  Minister will be able to give some indication that the Government will now pay some attention to the force of public opinion in my constituency.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Earlier in the debate, in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), the Minister referred to Dundee and to Government amendment No. 287. I wish to speak about that for a few minutes.
  The Minister said that he had responded to the excellent case presented by the city of Dundee district council, with the support of all the political parties represented on that council—Conservative, Scottish National party and Labour. He also said that he was responding to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who made and expanded on several points in the Standing Committee. In column 215 of the Committee Hansard the Minister said:
  "I expect to bring forward amendments that would reflect the case made by my hon. Member for Dundee, East."
  I was present at the Committee sitting, but I cannot remember any blinding flash of light striking my hon. Friend at that time, although I recall him saying that he was grateful to the Minister for what he had said. In column 216, my hon. Friend went on to say:
  "I recognise, however, that the Minister is being very positive and helpful towards the people of Dundee."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 10 February 1994; c. 215–16]
  If what is contained in the Government's amendments and what the Minister has said today are supposed to be helpful to Dundee, my hon. Friend will wish to intervene and perhaps to have a word with the Minister after the debate to clarify one or two things. The people of Dundee East Conservative Association, of which the Minister's father is a formidable member, will also want clarification. The Minister knows that his father does not agree with what is being said in the Chamber today, which will dramatically affect the possible success of a single-purpose authority in Dundee.
  The Minister attempted to allay our fears by saying that he had responded to the majority of comments made by Dundee district council. He gave us the cemetery and Balgarthno, and we certainly welcome that; it is very necessary for industrial use.
  Mr. McAllion: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister conceded on Birkhill cemetery only because nobody in that cemetery can vote for the Conservative party in elections?
  Mr. Ross: I would not want to disagree with anything that my hon. Friend says. The people of Dundee are grateful that the Minister has given us Balgarthno. We require it if we are to continue the fine work being undertaken in Dundee to help to regenerate the area.
  The Minister knows Dundee very well—as I have said, he has family connections there—and he knows that the people, we are seeking to attract are saying that, to attract industry, we need high-quality housing in the area. The weight of the argument put by local authorities, by all political parties, by my hon. Friend in Committee, and by both him and me when we came to see the Minister, is that
  764
  we needed Belldovan and Balmuir so as to have high-quality housing which would add to the attractiveness of Dundee as a place where industry might locate.
  We need Strathmartine hospital for the same reason, although whether it should be closed is another matter. When that hospital is closed and the building no longer serves the health board, there will be an existing service site which will be of extreme benefit to any local authority seeking to expand its housing. That is another reason why we argued for Strathmartine hospital.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said in an intervention, it is essential that Mylnefield and the crop research institute based there should be retained within the Dundee boundary. The Minister knows of the excellent work being undertaken by Mylnefield and Dundee university, the one complementing the other. If that is outside the boundary, it will be more difficult for the two organisations to co-operate.
  Equally, the Minister knows that much work has been carried out by Dundee district council on the Tay estuary nature reserve. He knows that a plan was put forward, in which Perth district did not wish to participate, and Dundee district council was prepared to continue with the nature reserve. We are close to designating that area a nature reserve, but it cannot be made a nature reserve if we know for a start that Longforgan is going to the new Perth area and that the reserve and the concept of the reserve and the estuary will not be supported by Perth district council.
  The Minister is, in effect, killing the possibility of creating the Tay estuary nature reserve, and people who are interested in wildlife and the countryside will be very disappointed. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East says that the Minister is nodding as though he is agreeing. He has it in his power simply to push his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's case aside, since he is summing up, and to accept the proposals succinctly made and well argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East in Committee.
  There are other reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East made clear in Committee—I am sure that other hon. Members will refer to this today—a little event took place just over a week ago.
  Mr. Foulkes: On 5 May.
  Mr. Ross: On 5 May, as my hon. Friend reminds us. On that occasion there were some interesting results, because two of the local Conservative councillors made great play of supporting the Government's position during those elections. In the case of Longforgan and Sidlaw, former Councillor Angus Brown was the defender. He made it his job to go out and work to ensure that Longforgan and Sidlaw would be outside the new Dundee boundaries and he was rewarded by being sacked by the Scottish National party, which took that seat. It seems that the local population in Longforgan and Sidlaw rejected the Government's arguments as well. They did not want to be associated with what was intended to be a Conservative-controlled district in the future.
  In Monifieth, a long-standing Conservative councillor, Mrs. Dorothy Portillo, made it clear before she stepped down that she did not agree that Monifieth should be taken out of Dundee. She was replaced by Councillor Donald McNaughton, who is currently a district councillor on Dundee district council. He was a candidate, but when he tried to become a regional councillor he had his head

  765
  chopped off by the SNP. It does not seem to have done the Government any good. The gerrymandering has paid off. The Secretary of State has the opportunity now to rectify the nonsense that he has created and to correct the mistakes made by the draftsmen and draftswomen when they tried to ignore the case put forward by Dundee district council.
  There is also the case of the vanishing petition. The Government listened in Committee and made great play of listening to local communities. In the local community of Longforgan, a concerned individual put a petition in the local grocer's shop and left it there so that the people who used that grocer's shop—almost to a person, they were people from the village—could sign to say if they agreed. The petition said:
  "Save our village … Keep the village of Invergowrie within the same authority as Dundee."
  That petition was submitted to the Minister on 6 or 7 April this year, and it seems to have vanished. To this day, the person who sent it to the Minister is still awaiting an acknowledgement. We are not even sure whether the people had signed the petition and whether the Minister took it into account when he reached his conclusions.
  Mr. Stewart indicated assent.
  Mr. Ross: The Minister nods. Did he reflect that when he spoke to the people whom he directed to draw the lines on the new map? Did he tell them about the petition from Longforgan?
  Mr. Stewart indicated assent.
  Mr. Ross: Did he tell his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about the petition? Did he ask him to comment on it? Did he ask his hon. Friend to investigate whether the people of Invergowrie agreed with him and wished to go outwith Dundeed?
  Mr. Stewart indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ross: The Minister shakes his head. He did not ask the hon. Member for Tayside, North. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed. He is not here at the moment and I apologise for mentioning him when he is not here, but I am sure that he would be disappointed to know that his constituents in Longforgan do not wish him to be their Member of Parliament if he happens to be selected in the future and the Bill is passed. They want to stay inside Dundee, as the people of Dundee wish to retain those aspects of the outlying areas that were submitted by Dundee district council.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said in Committee, the gerrymandering will have to be corrected. When a Scottish Parliament comes into being, it will have to make it clear that the place for Monifieth and Longforgan is in a unitary authority within Dundee.
  Mr. Foulkes: I should love to spend some time talking about the astonishing decision in relation to Clackmannan, which makes a mockery of the whole Bill and shows that there is no strategy behind the Government's proposals, but as time is limited I shall concentrate on amendment 42, which I hope the Minister will read. It is on page 1834 and, in addition to being signed by my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who are Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, it is signed by my hon. Friends the Members
  766
  for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey)—and, of course, myself.
  The amendment is in favour of an all-Ayrshire council. Ayrshire is a long-standing historical unit, very similar to Fife, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) knows only too well. The arguments in favour of an all-Ayrshire authority are identical to those in favour of a Fife authority. The Minister argued in favour of Fife in Committee.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and I went to meet the Minister with a non-party delegation from Ayrshire, members of the delegation asked the Minister, "What is the difference?" They wanted to know why the Government were putting forward a strategy for Fife which was different from that for Ayrshire. The Minister was unable to answer them. They could not detect any difference in the arguments for an all-Fife authority from those that they put forward for an all-Ayrshire authority. Nevertheless, the Government propose to split Ayrshire into three, which is artificial, more expensive, much more complicated and unwanted, and the authorities will not be able to organise strategic services.
  It is artificial because Ayrshire is a traditional unit. Kyle and Carrick was carved out to try to satisfy the Conservatives in Kyle and Carrick. Given the results on 5 May, that will not be the case any more, but that was the original strategy. Cunninghame was then carved out to satisfy the councillors—just the councillors—there, leaving Kilmarnock and Loudoun to be thrown into an artificial union with Cumnock and Doon valley.
  9 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and I are the best of friends—councillors in Kilmarnock and Loudoun and in Cumnock and Doon valley also get on well together—but no justification for the measure has been put forward, except that those areas were left over once Cunninghame, north Ayrshire, and Kyle and Carrick, south Ayrshire, were created. If an argument can be put forward for Clackmannan being a single-tier all-purpose authority, it could equally be put forward for Cumnock and Doon valley. If the Cumnock and Doon Valley authority had been selfish enough and concerned only about its own interests, it might have put that argument forward. All credit is due to Cumnock and Doon Valley for thinking beyond the interests of individual councillors to the best provision of services such as education, social services and roads.
  The Government's proposal would also be more expensive. The document that the Minister received from the delegation that my hon. Friend and I took along showed that it would cost council tax payers £2 per week more. I hope that the Minister has read that document. He said that he would pass it on to the Secretary of State and consult him. Why should the people of Ayrshire pay £2 a week extra for a split that they do not want? That paper clearly showed that there is a disparity of office accommodation. The shortfall amounts to 180,000 sq ft because headquarters will have to be created for south Ayrshire, north Ayrshire and east Ayrshire and the offices are in entirely the wrong place.
  The proposal is more complicated because we shall have not a single-tier authority but a multi-tier authority,

  767
  probably with as many as five tiers—water and sewerage, fire and police, various joint boards and the councils. It will be much more complicated and much less efficient.
  The proposal is also unwanted. Community council after community council in the area, from Prestwick to Mauchline and up to Kilmore, have said that they want an all-Ayrshire authority. Many of my hon. Friends will have received an excellent letter from our old friend Bob Beattie, for whom we have great respect, arguing that case. The Ayrshire chamber of commerce, and businessmen in the area, have also argued the case. Bishop Maurice Taylor of the Roman Catholic Church and all the representatives of the Church of Scotland have argued the case for an all-Ayrshire authority. So the three-way split is not wanted by the representatives of the people of Ayrshire.
  On strategic services, the three authorities will be unable to run services such as roads, social services and education. The paper presented to the Minister shows that they would have difficulty even providing a new secondary school in terms of the new capital building programmes. Those small authorities will be hobbled and unable to provide the full facilities required, such as vital special services for the mentally and physically handicapped, through the capital building programmes.
  After my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and I had taken a delegation to see the Minister, David Donaldson said that he had received a courteous hearing from the Minister, as indeed he had. I was about to say that he was non-political, and he is now, although he used to be a Tory candidate. Someone who was a Tory candidate in the 1950s is wise to be non-political now. He said that he hoped for a positive response on Report and added:
  "If the Government proceeds with its planned three way split it will mean the people of Ayrshire are unnecessarily disadvantaged, facing increased costs, reduced services or even both.
  The Minister gave the delegation a very courteous hearing and we are hopeful of a positive response at the Report Stage."
  I hope that the Government's answer will be to accept amendment No. 42 and the wishes of the people of Ayrshire for a continuation of Ayrshire and the services that it can provide. The arguments which are so powerful in relation to Fife are equally powerful in Ayrshire. I hope that the Minister will recognise that today.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) opened the debate by suggesting that there was no consensus for change in respect of single-tier local authorities. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) contradicted that view, and I believe that he was right. At the last general election, all hon. Members in the Chamber said in our manifestos that we aimed for single-tier authorities, and the Government are delivering.
  I wish to speak mainly on amendment No. 42. I shall not repeat the words that I used in Committee on Thursday 10 February. What I said then stands now. I have heard nothing new from Opposition Members today that would change my view on the standing of Ayrshire. I urge Ministers to hold firm with the opinion of the Committee, which accepted without question the intention to create three authorities in Ayrshire. There is all-party support within Cunninghame council for a north Cunningham authority. In Kilmarnock and Loudoun there is majority support for it. In Kyle and Carrick there is majority support among the elected representatives. My hon. Friend the Minister cannot turn his back on those factors.
  768
  While I do not want to repeat my own words in Committee, I should like to quote those of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who, acknowledging that he was acting as the ventriloquist for his hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), said:
  "There is widespread support in Cunninghame for the proposition that if reorganisation is to go ahead, it should be on the basis of three authorities".
  I agreed with the hon. Gentleman then, and I agree with him now. He went on:
  "My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North convened a public meeting in Largs last summer, immediately after publication of the White Paper. He set out his own approach —that if there is to be a single-tier local government structure, the most viable politically attainable option to go for is for Cunninghame."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 10 February 1994; c. 263–64.]
  That is to say, north Ayrshire.
  Mr. McKelvey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gallie: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to stick with the principle of local accountability and local responsibility. The proposals for Ayrshire attain just that.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are the only ones that relate to Lanarkshire. We in the county are used to thinking of it as a whole. This applies to travel to work, to education, to health provision, more recently to the Lanarkshire Development Agency, and to the immense task of replacing Ravenscraig and the steel industry, whose loss has left such a big hole not only in Motherwell but in the whole life of Lanarkshire.
  Even with the present Motherwell district, we have to work with area housing offices to bring services near to the people. That would have been perfectly possible in a Lanarkshire solution for services that need to be close to the people. The county of Lanarkshire would have been a viable, defensible solution. Yes, it would have been a single-tier authority with an electorate larger than that of the city of Glasgow, and no doubt that would have frightened the Government to death. Instead, the Government's proposals have all the disadvantages of widely dispersed authorities in north and south Lanarkshire, and none of the coherence of areas corresponding to local communities.
  North Lanarkshire has never been a regional or sub-regional entity in its own right for the delivery of any local government or national Government services. It is not a city; it is a loose amalgam of small and medium-sized communities. It has no centre and no north-south direct public communication links. It lacks any coherent social, community or journey-to-work links. The proposal totally disregards natural and man-made barriers in terms of transport and land form, which will not be removed or easily overcome by any local government reorganisation.
  Faced with this, the Motherwell district council proposed three new local government areas in Lanarkshire, without the option of the whole and without the option of merely local communities. It proposed the adoption of the natural boundaries marked by the M8 and M74, dividing Lanarkshire into three radial zones whose communication links with Glasgow also offer the advantages of internal communications within each of the areas.
  The district council did its best to secure the support of other districts—in particular, Clydesdale—which would have joined Motherwell in that pattern. I did my best to put

  769
  the case to colleagues and to the Minister, and I think that the Minister tried, rather belatedly, to secure consensus, even among such people as pass as Tories in Lanarkshire, of whom there are not many. He failed, as, I am afraid, did the council and myself, to secure the necessary consensus to produce a logical solution for Lanarkshire.
  The facts remain, however, and the ground will not go away. The proposed boundaries have no logic and I do not see them surviving any proposals that will emerge, either from the Government or from Labour's local government reform, which will be based on different principles.
  The lesson for us in Motherwell is that we have to continue working constructively with our neighbouring communities, as we have done in the immense task of industrial redevelopment, and to build future proposals together with our neighbouring communities so that we can put forward agreed proposals which have mutual confidence and reflect a common strength of view to the mutual benefit of us all. I am sorry that the Government have not given us such a lead in their approach to this round of local government reform, which will in no way last.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I shall always be grateful to the late Willie Ross for giving me the opportunity to serve on the Royal Commission for Local Government in Scotland, which sat between 1966 and 1969. It was from its recommendations that the regional structure, of which Highland is one, emerged.
  The contrast between what Willie did and what the Government have done could not be more marked. Acting against a background of urgent pressure for reform—and there was urgent pressure at that time—he appointed an independent and politically balanced commission. From the House, apart from myself, a Liberal, there was the late Tom Fraser from the Labour party and the late Betty Harvie Anderson from the Conservatives, both of whom I came to regard with great respect and affection.
  It was a consensual exercise, slow and careful, and John Wheatley was an immaculately fair chairman. I am very sad to see that work thrown away, for the motivation for change now is certainly party political. I am quite sure that, had the wayward ways of politics produced, in Strathclyde regional council, for example, a Conservative majority, we would not be debating legislation tonight; we would not be talking about change at all. Particularly in Ayrshire, Stirling and Renfrew, change, not reform, is the right word.
  My experience on the royal commission leads me to oppose amendment No. 169 in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), with whom in most matters I am in happy equilibrium.
  I am well aware of the enthusiasm for all-purpose authorities. The note of dissent signed by Betty and me on the royal commission's report would have achieved it on a regional basis. We opposed the two-tier structure, not simply because of the separation of housing and social work, to which the Seebohm committee was unanimously opposed, but also because we felt that the alternative was regions with the main functions and genuinely strong community councils based on the old burghs, with general competence powers. That would have worked well and would have allowed also for devolution within the regions, which Highland has already operated and looks to improve.
  770
  Before turning briefly and specifically to the amendment, I remind the House of the principles of local government on which we on Wheatley agreed, and give the House a one-sentence quotation from the report. They were power, effectiveness, local democracy and local involvement. What did we say about power?
  "What we have always had in view is a type of structure in which there could be a real shift of power from central to local government."
  Sadly, the opposite has taken place. In Highland, by maintaining one council, I feel we can at least retain some of it.
  9.15 pm
  For a long time I represented the largest constituency in the United Kingdom. It covers 4,900 square miles and is larger than Cyprus. I now represent the second largest constituency—the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye is, by a small margin, the largest constituency—and I am not impressed by arguments on size. Better travel links and technology have overcome the problems. I have no doubt that Highland is a coherent region with common feelings and culture and a need to work together.
  It is worth stressing that the retention of Highland region results in minimal functional change. The only major transfer is housing, which I deplore, but it is in decline as a function. I do not agree that the quality of democratic control will be diminished. To the contrary,I consider that during the past two decades Highland region has demonstrated that it is a sensitive and efficient local authority.
  On the views of the existing district councils, Lochaber, Badenoch and Strathspey, and Inverness in my constituency favour the two-council option of the amendment. Skye and Lochalsh, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, does not, as he said. By agreement with him, I speak for them, as I did in Parliament for nearly 20 years.
  The chief executive of Skye and Lochalsh, David Noble, produced a paper setting out the unanimous views of his council that is admirably succinct but too long to allow me, in the tight time frame available, to read it all out. However, I shall read two paragraphs that encapsulate the argument for one council against two clearly and directly. Mr. Noble says:
  "The administrative centres for the two Councils will almost certainly be sited within a few miles of each other, probably in Inverness and Dingwall. In practical terms, these centres will be no more local to peripheral areas"
  that also applies to Caithness in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland—
  "than a single Council's administrative centre in Inverness.
  Two Councils will need joint working arrangements for a whole range of vital services. These include information technology, specialist education services, European issues (vital in consideration of the Objective 1 arguments) and refuse disposal. There will also be statutory joint committees for Police, Fire and Valuation. The single Council will give clearer accountability and more effective democratic control of these services."
  I agree with him. In the case of Nairn, after what I can only describe as some confusion—I am sure that the Minister will agree—it is clear that it wishes to be part of the Highland region and also supports a single Highland council.
  As hon. Members will understand from my preliminary remarks, I am not happy about the Government's general approach to local government change. What they have

  771
  done over the past decade has weakened local government hugely, and what they propose will weaken it further. However, in the case of the Highland region, they are right, and staying with one council for the highlands makes sense.
  Mr. Lang: I am conscious that in intervening at this stage of the debate, I am doing so before the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who has been here throughout it, has had the chance to contribute. However, as time is moving on, I hope that he will understand that it is appropriate for me to respond to the points made so far. The highlands were not discussed in Committee and there was general agreement that it would be appropriate to discuss the issues involving the highlands on Report.
  Before addressing the proposals specifically, I shall respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) about the Wheatley commission. I have great respect for what it did; had it not done the work that it did, it would have been impossible for us to contemplate embarking on the reform of local government without some sort of commission. It was the codification and work done by Wheatley that gave us the foundation on which we could build. The vast majority of boundaries are either regional or district boundaries as set out in Wheatley.
  The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Wheatley commission's proposals were amended substantially and by the House from 48 to 65 in major ways that I could cover, but which have been covered in earlier discussions.
  I deal now with the question of the highland region and amendment No. 169. I agree with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). It is a difficult issue; it is one of the most difficult issues of all the boundaries. In taking the view that I and the Government do, we have given close thought to the conflicting pressures of, on the one hand, local loyalties, the pressure to respond to local issues and keep local government as local as possible, and, on the other, the need for efficiency founded on a strong resource base.
  As we have heard, there are genuinely conflicting views on what the new structure for the highlands should be. In response to our public consultation, support has divided between a single Highland authority and a number of smaller units based on a range of possibilities, such as districts, groups of districts or counties. Proposals have since emerged for a two-way split, advanced by the Association of Highland District Councils and reflected in the amendments before the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Under-Secretary of State, met the hon. Members for Caithness and Sunderland and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, with representatives of the association, to hear at first hand the case for a two-way split. I have had separate meetings with the association and Highland regional council. I pay tribute to the positive and constructive way in which the case has been presented by both sides.
  I acknowledge that the north-south split is a genuine compromise—proposed by the association—for those who have concerns over a single Highland authority proposal. I acknowledge also a number of letters in recent weeks in support of the two-way split from various businesses operating in the highlands area: community councils, individuals and so on. But that support—also indicated by
  772
  a survey, to which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber referred—must, of course, be balanced against the views of those in favour of a single Highland authority. Strong support for that option has come from the business community, the voluntary sector, community councils and individuals. Supporters of a Highland council include Highlands and Islands Enterprise; the highland branch of the CBI; the Highland health board; the Scottish Landowners Federation; and a number of community councils.
  Skye and Lochalsh district council also favours the single Highland authority and has entered into preliminary discussions with the regional council on how service delivery and decision making can best be decentralised. The Government attach great importance to the issue of decentralisation in those large rural authorities. Moreover, Nairn district council has moved recently from its position of favouring a link with Moray to one of fully supporting a single Highland council.
  Of course, there is no easy reconciliation of the conflicting arguments, and no solution will please everyone, but there is little doubt about the integrity of the highlands in terms of history, geography, culture and recreation. People identify strongly with the highlands. A survey commissioned by Ross and Cromarty district council revealed that 82 per cent. of respondents strongly identified with the highlands. Beneath the Highland level, I believe that the identity is at county rather than community level. In an area such as the highlands, whether there are one or two councils, the focus must be on effective decentralisation to ensure a genuinely local input to the service delivery and decision taking.
  Much of the highlands—around 60 per cent.—is focused on Inverness and the Moray Firth area. The validity of drawing a line through that area, as proposed by the north-south split, and by amendment No. 169, must be questioned. Indeed, Skye and Lochalsh district council has pointed out that it does not fit readily into either north or south, and that there is no north highlands or south highlands identity. That view was reinforced by several responses to our consultation. It has also been pointed out that dividing the western highlands between two local authority areas could fragment efforts to develop important local policies relating to the Gaelic language, crofting, tourism and fishing.
  Overall, I share the view of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber. I believe that there are compelling arguments in favour of the single authority, in terms of identity, service delivery, and economic planning and development. While it is not necessarily an overriding factor, there are also clear financial advantages. It is worth pointing out that some 85 per cent. of resources in terms of major local authority services are already delivered at regional level.
  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte touched on the question of cost, which was raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, and has, I understand, suggested that one council would cost £4.4 million less than the status quo, whereas two would cost £6.2 million more than the status quo.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Secretary of State, in answering the representations that have been made from those who favour two highlands councils, has made the perfectly fair point that it was a matter that could best be deliberated on in the forum of the

  773
  House. Although we have heard two powerful speeches presenting each side of the argument, they have been brief, and many arguments have not been deployed by either of the protagonists.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would not be sensible to conclude the argument here tonight, and that it should be continued in the upper House? He could then listen to some of the arguments about the quality, as well as the quantity, of democracy—arguments such as that advanced by two former Conservative parliamentary candidates in my constituency, who point out that only a third of the seats in the region have been contested since the local government reorganisation. There is indeed a sense in which the north highlands are quite different from the more developed conurbations of Inverness and Fort William.
  Mr. Lang: Given the hon. Gentleman's knowledge and experience of his constituency and the highlands in general, I accept that he deserves the recognition of such distinctions. I also accept his complete right to argue the case, and to continue to argue it beyond the completion of the Bill's stages in this House. The debates in another place are a matter for their lordships; if the hon. Gentleman seeks to interest them, they may well be interested in pursuing the issue further.
  I think that I owe it to the House to give a firm steer in regard to the Government's view as a result of the extensive consultations that have taken place, and the careful consideration that we have given to all the points that have been made. As I said earlier, they were presented very well and comprehensively by both the Association of Highland District Councils and the region.
  At the end of the day, it is the Government's considered view that the best way forward for the highlands area is to establish a single Highland authority, with effective decentralisation involving area committees. I think that that would combine the many benefits of one council, and reflect the local loyalties that shone through very clearly in response to the public consultation no less effectively than a two-way split. Against that background, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw amendment No. 169.
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am aware of the time constraints, but I should not like the debate to pass without some reference to the record of Strathclyde regional council. It is a first-class council,, one of the best in the history of the country. Unfortunately, if the Bill goes through, Strathclyde will be fully appreciated only when it no longer exists and people no longer have access to the services that it provides.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) referred to the Wheatley commission. I am afraid that we in Cambuslang and Rutherglen do not have such fond memories of that commission: it took away our independence and made us part of Glasgow district council. The alliance has not been a happy one, and certainly does not reflect the wish of people in Cambuslang and Rutherglen to have their own community identity. It is not a question of any resentment of Glasgow people; we in Cambuslang and Rutherglen are used to a much smaller unit, and we simply feel that Glasgow is too big.
  Community campaigns have been mentioned. I do not know why the Government do not take account of the 15,000–signature petition presented to Parliament by Cambuslang and Rutherglen, the aggregate attendance of
  774
  more than 3,000 people at public meetings and the fact that 3,000 people have sent written communications to the Scottish Office. That local community campaign raised more than £3,000—money that was raised for the community and the aims that it supported.
  The Government have laid themselves open to charges of gerrymandering by creating councils in different areas of the country with a smaller population than Cambuslang and Rutherglen. I am not necessarily opposed to that; there is a genuine difference between me and some of my hon. Friends in that regard. I believe that the case for or against smaller councils is still to be proved. I recognise that what is happening to Clackmannan is the wish of local people, and time alone will tell whether it can work.
  I congratulate Clackmannan council on getting what it fought for—but it must be pointed out that larger populations, in Cambuslang and Rutherglen and elsewhere, have been denied the opportunity of a community focus by the Government's plans.
  The proposal for Cambuslang and Rutherglen is the establishment of a South Lanarkshire authority. Although the Government may be able to say that the people in the area concerned voted for South Lanarkshire in Glasgow district council's referendum, it must be said that my colleagues in the district council badly mismanaged that referendum. They allowed the Government to say that my constituents favour South Lanarkshire. If Cambuslang and Rutherglen end up in South Lanarkshire council, the blame will fairly be laid at the door of Glasgow district council.
  In common with some of my hon. Friends, I have not moved amendments because the consensus on the Opposition side of the House is that the Government are determined to have their way. I spoke at length with Ministers, to try to persuade them otherwise. In common with my hon. Friends, I am not into gesture politics and moving an empty amendment, when I know full well that the Government will not accept it. Many of my hon. Friends are in the same position.
  I warn and advise the Government that the Cambuslang and Rutherglen cause and case has not ended yet and will be pursued in the other place. I am totally opposed to the Bill and shall vote against it—even if it includes a Cambuslang and Rutherglen council. The motivation behind it is the negation of local democracy and taking power away from local authorities. It is clearly anti-democratic.
  If the Bill is passed, we shall delay it as long as possible, until we are nearer to a Labour Government. Even if it eventually ends up on the statute book, a Labour Government will destroy the legislation, make sure that it is not implemented and, through a Scottish Parliament, have a proper independent review of Scottish local government.
  9.30 pm
  Mrs. Irene Adams: I shall speak to amendment No. 297, and I am delighted that Ralston, West Dykebar, Paisley, North and Paisley, South will return to Renfrew district. That is undoubtedly due to endless representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) on behalf of that area.
  I was denied a place on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, having to pull out to allow the Secretary of State to skulk away and leave the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to present the Bill's

  775
  gerrymandering proposals. There will be none more delighted than the people of Ralston, who voted overwhelmingly in a referendum against being included in Eastwood district council. I am sure that was in no small way due to the fact that Paisley grammar school refused to opt out of Strathclyde education authority, with 80 per cent. of parents voting to remain within it.
  If I ever doubted that gerrymandering was going on, I have no doubt now. In returning Ralston and West Dykebar to Renfrew district, the hon. Member for Eastwood has left the Tory safe haven that is his parliamentary constituency a council area.
  What of the people of Barrhead, who have no connection with an Eastwood council? Barrhead has been a borough for 100 years. Newton kirk, which has been part of the Paisley presbytery since the Reformation, will now be contained in a different local authority. Only 2 per cent. of the people living in Barrhead work in Eastwood.
  Can the Minister give any historical, geographical or other reason—other than political gerrymandering—for taking Barrhead into Eastwood district council? There is none. Apart from anything else, how can the Minister justify the cost of taking Barrhead out of Renfrew district council, which will otherwise remain intact, and putting it into Eastwood? There is no logical, historic or geographical reason for that action.
  I have no doubt that the result of the Ralston by-election persuaded the Minister to put that area back into Renfrew district. When the numbers were added up, he was not sure that bringing Ralston in would leave him with a safe enough Tory majority in the council—so Ralston went back to Renfrew district.
  I plead with the Minister at this late stage to show some decency and put Barrhead back where it belongs in Renfrew district council.
  Mr. Dalyell: Having heard the Minister give encouragement to Queensferry community council, may I ask what his attitude is to starred amendments Nos. 302 and 303 on the question of Queensferry coming out of Edinburgh and moving into West Lothian?
  I have two questions on costs. The COSLA report identifies the fact that, due to the changes in the number of authorities carrying out the various functions, there will be significant variations in the numbers of employees with the individual skills and status required by the new authorities compared to the old authorities.
  That inevitable mismatch will mean that large numbers of staff will qualify for redundancy or early retirement because they will not be able to find a suitable post in the new authorities. At the same time, a large number of new staff will require to be employed to fill the additional specialist posts, which will be created in other services such as education and social work. The key point is that those new staff will not be replacing the staff being made redundant, but will be filling new posts requiring different skills.
  Does the Minister accept that that mis-match will occur, irrespective of the net change in total staff numbers that may eventually result from the reorganisation? If so, how has that factor been taken into account in the Government's estimate of transitional costs? May I add that some of us have doubts about whether the Minister was legally correct in his suggestions that an authority could pay
  776
  compensation and reappoint people to similar or not very different posts? There is some doubt about the legal interpretation of the Minister's implications that somehow or another pots of gold were to go to certain employees, unless the Government acted otherwise. That is not legally possible as I understand it.
  My second point is that there will also be a mis-match in the availability of property for the new authorities—a matter which was discussed at some length in Committee and to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred. In some of the new authority areas, there will be a surplus of property, but, in many instances, it will be virtually impossible to sell or lease it because of its location or character, while in other authorities, there will be a shortage of suitable property to accommodate all the staff required.
  There will be an added problem with the need to adapt certain premises for specialised purposes such as information technology and communications systems. In Committee, we were never given any assurances about that matter, other than that the costs of the IT aspects would amount to £40 million or more. Those questions were never answered in Committee.
  How have those factors been taken into account in the Government's estimate of transitional costs? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the necessary capital consents will be made available for the new authorities as required to permit them to locate all staff in suitable accommodation in the areas of their authorities? I should like answers to those questions.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I rise to support the amendments in respect of my constituency, in a last-ditch effort to retrieve the position in my area. I have never done this before, but I am speaking on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) who would have contributed to our proceedings, if only they had been better managed. That is not a criticism of the Opposition Whip, who has done a good job tonight, but I know that he has been bullied by the Front-Bench spokesmen.
  It is quite the most ill-considered Bill of which I have had experience in the 15 years that I have served in the House. I cannot remember such a badly drafted piece of legislation. It has everything to do with trying to retrieve a situation for a political party which has all but vanished from the political scene in Scotland. This is now a Government without authority, but certainly a Government who govern in a wholly authoritarian way.
  My constituency, which is to be the subject of this gerrymandering, was never part of Lanarkshire. It was always part of Dunbartonshire. Traditionally, the services came from Dunbartonshire; traditionally, there was a county council which provided the major services. They continued through Strathclyde regional council when it took over from the county council. Only the health service and social work are located in the Monklands district into which it is proposed that we be placed. Many patients are referred to Glasgow hospitals and not always to Monklands general hospital. Lanarkshire has never provided services for my constituency.
  We do not even go shopping in north Lanarkshire. I am a director of a bus company which offers bus services throughout Lanarkshire. However, there are no bus communications with the area to which it is proposed that we should move. The Tories will be pleased to hear that the

  777
  bus company is driven by market forces. However, there is no market for bus services in Airdrie. No service provision has been made, simply because there is no demand for it.
  Cumbernauld is its own community, and it has developed in that direction. Kilsyth is its own community, but it is heavily dependent on the economic provision that Cumbernauld makes in the shape of jobs and services. The Government are proposing a totally artificial authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) pointed out all the problems associated with the creation of a North Lanarkshire authority. He was right to do that and I will not rehearse the arguments that he advanced.
  There is no doubt that the correct authority for my area is East Dunbartonshire. It would more properly be termed Lennox. If the Government were doing the right thing by local government and determining the right structure of local government for the purpose of providing services, that is the authority that would be created, because it would return to a situation that developed over a very long period. That was the right structure for local government.
  The Government are gerrymandering for a purpose that now escapes us. They cannot return councillors, no matter what the situation might be. It is clear that the Government cannot, and will not be able to, return Members of Parliament. As I said at the outset, the Government are an authoritarian Government who have lost authority in Scotland. They have no right to be doing what they are doing.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) ended up by saying that the charge against the Government that we were gerrymandering was wholly inaccurate. However, I may have misinterpreted him.
  I thought that the arguments of the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) were a little misplaced. She accused me of gerrymandering in the new East Renfrewshire authority. She argued that the Government should take the five wards of Barrhead and Nielston out of East Renfrewshire authority. Of those five wards, two are currently Conservative marginals and three are Labour. How they can involve a charge of gerrymandering beggars belief.
  Mr. Graham: Why is the Minister such a big feartie that he does not want to talk about the referendum which was held in his own constituency and showed overwhelmingly that the people of Barrhead and Nielston want to stay in Renfrew district?
  Mr. Stewart: I replied to that point in Committee. I find it astonishing that it is the Labour party's official position that the East Renfrewshire authority should be smaller than that proposed by the Government.
  A number of serious points have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House during these debates. The slightly barbed congratulations from the hon. Member for Paisley, North were reflected by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).
  9.45 pm
  A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), raised perhaps one of the key questions: why is there a difference between our conclusions with regard to Ayrshire
  778
  and the Central region on the one hand and Fife on the other hand. The hon. Gentleman made a strong case for an Ayrshire authority, as he did in Committee.
  I shall summarise the arguments by saying that with regard to Fife, there is a combination of the historic identity and an existing authority which clearly has support. There is no clear alternative to a single-tier Fife authority which commands general support. Of course, there are alternatives. That is perhaps the key difference between our treatment of Fife and our treatment of Central and Ayrshire. But, in saying that, I must emphasise—
  Mr. McAllion rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I shall finish this point and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  That is no criticism of Central region; nor is it a criticism of the case that has been put forward for a single-tier Ayrshire. That case has been put forward by perfectly reasonable people on a non-partisan basis. But on balance, we concluded—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) suggested—that there is substantial support for the three-authority option for Ayrshire.
  Mr. McAllion: The Secretary of State said that there was popular support for the retention of Fife regional council as it exists. If he looks at the situation in Tayside, he will see that there is popular support for the retention of Tayside regional council as it exists. Four out of five voters who voted in the Tayside regional council elections voted for parties that are committed to retaining the regional councils as they exist.
  Mr. Stewart: I am not saying that there is some sort of perfect answer to the questions. There is no perfect answer; there is the best possible answer. There is substantial support for the City of Dundee authority.
  Mr. O'Neill: Can the Secretary of State tell us what rationale he applied to the problem with regard to the resource base? There is some anxiety that the Clackmannan authority will have a resource base that is too narrow. Can he make it clear why he thinks that the resource base will be broad enough to carry out the functions that a pragmatic authority—by his own definition —such as Clackmannan will be able to do?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Give us an answer.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will get an answer. We had to consider that point carefully with regard to the alternative, essentially, of the single-tier Central council option. We were convinced by the case put by the Clackmannan district council and the discussions that we had about how it would run a single-tier authority. The district council emphasised—the hon. Member for Clackmannan will know the document perhaps better than I do—the enabling authority role which it defined as partnership with other authorities and the voluntary and private sectors. Eventually, we decided that that was a convincing case.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Minister has been consistently courteous and kind in saying that the arguments put forward have been powerful. I must say, with due respect, that I do not find his arguments very powerful in relation to Central, Fife and Ayrshire. May I offer one alternative: that in Ayrshire and Central, there are two existing

  779
  authorities—Kyle and Carrick and Stirling—which are Tory-controlled, and there are two Tory Members who have been leaning on him? In Fife, thank goodness, there are no Tory authorities; nor are there any Tory Members. The Minister has just merely satisfied the hon. Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and their acolytes in Stirling and in Kyle and Carrick.
  Mr. Stewart: I do not accept that. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have been leaning on me in relation to local government boundaries, and quite right, too.
  May I turn, however, to the case put forward by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? As he knows, I met a delegation from Banff and Buchan and there is substantial local support for a Banff and Buchan council. I accept that the case that the hon. Member put forward is tenable, and it is perfectly possible and conceivable that Banff and Buchan could be a single-tier council.
  However, we reached a balanced judgment to continue with the Aberdeenshire option, with a new authority which would be strong, effective and efficient, which would be able to deliver the full range of local authority services and which would not be overshadowed by its city neighbour. However, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will no doubt wish to continue to pursue his case in another place.
  While we have decided to go ahead with the Aberdeenshire option, I would not wish it to be perceived that the Banff and Buchan option was not fully and carefully considered by the Government.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister has set out his conclusions, but I will not be able to pursue the matter personally in another place unless something dramatic happens. [Laughter.] I think that I have burned my boats in that direction.
  In Committee, the Minister was generous enough to recognise the force of the public opinion arguments in favour of Banff and Buchan. Will he acknowledge the strength of the financial case that was put to him after the meeting which he has described?
  Mr. Stewart: A carefully considered financial case was put to the Government. However, on balance, we concluded that the case for a large Aberdeenshire authority, with a population of about 220,000—a strong, effective and efficient authority—was preferred as our option for the future.
  I turn briefly to the speeches that have been made in relation to Lanarkshire by the hon. Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy). The last is a doughty campaigner for his area, while, as he said, he does not accept the basis of the reform proposals. Those hon. Members will know that other hon. Members from Lanarkshire constituencies have also been to see me, and they have suggested that there is considerable support for the south Lanarkshire option.
  I accept that hon. Members have highlighted problems in relation to north Lanarkshire. With some reluctance, I must agree with the hon. Member for Motherwell, South that a consensus has simply not emerged on the alternative proposals for the area. We conclude, therefore, that it would be sensible for the proposals to continue as Government policy and we recommend them to the House.
  780
  Hon. Members generally criticised the Bill's effect on local democracy. I hope that the House will accept that in Committee and on Report the Government have been extremely flexible. Again and again, we have responded to all-party campaigns that have advocated change to the original boundaries. That has been right and proper. The boundaries proposed in the Bill have been improved substantially by consideration in this House and I commend them, but I must recommend that the House votes against new clauses 2 and
  3.
  Question put and negatived.

New clause 3

  COST OF RE-ORGANISATION
  '.—(1) The Treasury shall undertake a review and publish a report on the costs likely to be incurred as a result of the provisions of this Act; and the report shall be laid before Parliament no later than 6th April 1995.'.—[Mr. McLeish]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 282.

  Division No. 241]

  [9.55 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Cox, Tom

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cummings, John

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Darling, Alistair

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

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

  Bell, Stuart

  Dixon, Don

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dobson, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Benton, Joe

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Berry, Roger

  Eastham, Ken

  Blair, Tony

  Etherington, Bill

  Blunkett, David

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Boyes, Roland

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Flynn, Paul

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

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Byers, Stephen

  Fraser, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Garrett, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  George, Bruce

  Cann, Jamie

  Gerrard, Neil

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clapham, Michael

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Coffey, Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Gunnell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hall, Mike

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hanson, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Harvey, Nick

  781

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Hara, Edward

  Heppell, John

  Olner, William

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Parry, Robert

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Patchett, Terry

  Home Robertson, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pope, Greg

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hutton, John

  Radice, Giles

  Ingram, Adam

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Redmond, Martin

  Janner, Greville

  Reid, Dr John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rogers, Allan

  Keen, Alan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Salmond, Alex

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lewis, Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Livingstone, Ken

  Short, Clare

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Simpson, Alan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Snape, Peter

  McFall, John

  Soley, Clive

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McMaster, Gordon

  Stevenson, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  MacShane, Denis

  Straw, Jack

  McWilliam, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Madden, Max

  Turner, Dennis

  Mandelson, Peter

  Tyler, Paul

  Marek, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Martlew, Eric

  Wallace, James

  Maxton, John

  Walley, Joan

  Meacher, Michael

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michael, Alun

  Wareing, Robert N

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Watson, Mike

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Milburn, Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Miller, Andrew

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wilson, Brian

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Winnick, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Wise, Audrey

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Worthington, Tony

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Mr. Alan Meale.

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Amess, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Ancram, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Arbuthnot, James

  782

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evennett, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Faber, David

  Ashby, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baldry, Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forth, Eric

  Bates, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  French, Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gallie, Phil

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Body, Sir Richard

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  Booth, Hartley

  Gill, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bowis, John

  Gorst, John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burns, Simon

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butterfill, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Hendry, Charles

  Clappison, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Knox, Sir David

  Dunn, Bob

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Eggar, Tim

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Elletson, Harold

  Legg, Barry

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lightbown, David

  783

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Luff, Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maclean, David

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Steen, Anthony

  Mans, Keith

  Stephen, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sumberg, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mates, Michael

  Sykes, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thomason, Roy

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

  Norris, Steve

  Tracey, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Tredinnick, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trend, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Page, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patnick, Irvine

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Walden, George

  Pickles, Eric

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Waller, Gary

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Ward, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Watts, John

  Richards, Rod

  Whitney, Ray

  Riddick, Graham

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wilkinson, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Willetts, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wilshire, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sackville, Tom

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Mr. Bowen Wells.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I witnessed an incident—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse):Order. I am trying to deal with a point of order. I cannot do so unless I can hear it. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly, please, and will those beyond the bar stop their discussions?
  Mr. Wilson: I witnessed an incident in the Division Lobby after you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had called for the doors to be closed. A doorkeeper was wrongly treated by an hon. Member, resulting in a slight injury to his hand. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is not the numbers that I am worried about, but it is disgraceful that a servant of this House should be treated with such arrogance by a Member of the House. Will you make inquiries and report on it tomorrow?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall have the incident investigated.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask for guidance on a matter of procedure? Starred amendments Nos. 302 and 303 appeared on the amendment paper, relating to the royal borough of South Queensferry. Technically, what happens to starred amendments? Do they come back in another place, or are they covered by the procedures that we have just gone through?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Speaker will consider that matter tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) at the sitting on Thursday 19th May, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—

  (a) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Heseltine relating to the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been made;

  (b) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Sir John Cope relating to the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been made; and

  (c) put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary MacGregor relating to the draft Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994 and the draft Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994 not later than Ten o'clock;

  (2) at the sitting on Monday 23rd May, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Third Reading of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  10.12 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: It is unusual for me raise a constituency case on the Floor of the House. Such matters are best sorted out in correspondence or by negotiations between the parties. It is only when other methods have apparently been exhausted that I take the step of carrying the matter forward in an Adjournment debate. This is such a case. Initially, it was taken up by the National Farmers Union in a number of approaches to local officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When that brought no results, not surprisingly, my constituent approached me to see whether I could assist him.
  The case put to me and the refusal of MAFF to do anything to rectify a matter arising from the error incensed me because I thought that an injustice had been suffered by my constituent. Having corresponded with the Ministry, which, after further officials had been to see my constituent, culminated in two letters from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am left with no course other than to bring the matter before the House.
  Mr. E. J. Purchase farms at Woodhead farm, Branscombe. Anyone who knows this part of Devon will understand how difficult it is to work the land, with the combes and the valleys of a very hilly countryside. Thus, to begin with, Mr. Purchase's efforts are worthy of all support. He and his father before him have had a suckler herd of more than 50 cows on his farm since 1953.
  Over the past few years Mr. Purchase has submitted his claim for the suckler cow premium. He has done so himself on the form provided by the Ministry. He understands the working of the system. From 1988 until 1992 the application had to be submitted by 31 January of the next year. To Mr. Purchase nothing seemed amiss. He received his form SCP 1 1991/92 at the end of September or the beginning of October. I have sent a copy to the Ministry. The form states clearly that the closing date for the receipt of the application is 31 January 1993. There is no doubt about it: it is in print.
  Mr. Purchase did not know of a change that was known to MAFF before the form was sent out. MAFF had moved the goal posts. It had changed the date without altering the rule book or the form and, to make matters worse, without amending the explanatory notes. This is not in dispute, and I hope that the Minister will not attempt to dispute it. It is admitted by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a letter dated 10 February. The Ministry attached a corrigendum—a notice of alteration of date—not to the form SCP 1 but to the explanatory notes.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State, for whom I have great respect, to accept that Mr. Purchase is as honest as the day is long. He tells me that he has never seen the corrigendum, nor does he recall having received the notes for guidance. However, being the sort of man that he is, he will not swear that they were not in the envelope. All he can say is that he has not seen them, and he thinks it very possible that he received none of them. He holds that he had no knowledge of the change of date.
  I want to put a simple question to the Minister. This man has normally submitted a request for premium payment. He did not have to look at the notes at this occasion as he had done the same thing for years and years. The money is
  786
  important to him. The previous year the figure was more than £2,500, and, at a rate of more than £59 per suckling cow, the amount in question would have been about £2,900. If Mr. Purchase had known about the altered date, would not he have ensured that his form was submitted in time? As the money is important, of course he would. Would a sensible farmer knowingly flout the due date? Of course not. This is even more obvious from the fact that, without the suckler cow premium payment, Mr. Purchase would not receive the suckler cow premium quota allocation that is essential if he is to receive any premium payments in the future. This makes it even more important that he meet the Ministry's requirements.
  It has been suggested to me in letters from the Ministry that my constituent might apply under the suckler cow premium quota scheme for the allocation of quota. But this is no answer; nor would it provide any assurance that he would obtain the level of quota to which he would have been entitled if he had submitted the forms and they had been accepted.
  Lastly, I must point out to my hon. Friend that I am not suggesting that we should set an entirely new precedent. It is no use him saying that the EC regulations do not really allow us to alter the dates, because he has done so, and so has the Ministry.
  In Wessex and the North-East region, late applications from farmers were honoured because the Minister accepted that the corrigendum "was not clearly visible": that is an exact quotation from a letter from her on 10 February. It was not visible to Mr. Purchase; he did not see it, he did not know it and, what is more, MAFF cannot swear either that the explanatory notes were sent to Mr. Purchase in the envelope—they might well have been left out—or, if they were, it cannot say absolutely that the corrigendum might not accidentally have been knocked off before the rules were dispatched.
  In those circumstances, only two facts are absolute, and they are quite clear. Mr. Purchase submitted the claim form meeting absolutely the date for receipt of that form on the form itself. In a court of law there would be no doubt that he would have won from there onwards.
  I believe—and I must ask the House to believe—that Mr. Purchase has never seen the corrigendum. That the alteration was mentioned in the farming press is surely no defence for the Government. I read the farming press fairly regularly, and I did not realise that the dates for submission of claims had been altered, and, if I did not, I do not see why my constituent necessarily should have done.
  The conclusion is that Mr. Purchase is suffering an injustice. The Government cannot be in the right and therefore, whether by an ad hoc payment or by whatever means the Government wish to make or take, Mr. Purchase must have his position restored. He must be paid his premium; he must have his suckler cow quota granted as of right rather than by the premium quota scheme unless the Minister will guarantee that the premium quota allocation for which Mr. Purchase has applied, as he is a sensible man, is at the level for which he should have qualified.
  I cannot believe that my Government and the Minister can do other than correct the matter.It would be indeed scandalous not to do so.I have confidence in the fairness of my hon.Friend and that he will ensure that this quite obvious injustice is rectified.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: With the consent of the right hon.Member for Honiton (Sir P.Emery), I intervene briefly to support his case, not just on behalf of his constituent, but, as I understand it, on behalf of a number of similar cases.They may not be precisely identical, and perhaps the Minister will tell us whether there are a number of cases that precisely equate to the case that the right hon. Gentleman has brought before the House.
  There is an important point of principle here. There have been far too many cases in recent months and years of comparatively small administrative changes or inaccuracies by the Ministry which have resulted in major financial disadvantage to the farming community because there were changes of dates, changes of circumstances, changes in criteria or changes in the rules.
  It seems that nobody in the Ministry is prepared or permitted to use their discretion or their common sense. That would appear to be the case even at the top of the Department with the Minister herself. Nobody seems to be in a position to take the benefit of the doubt and apply it to the constituent, the individual farmer. That seems to be a wholly regrettable situation that does no credit to the administration of complex procedures. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to explain whether that is because of some internal Ministry regulation, rule of conduct or decision, or whether it is because of some regulation imposed from Brussels by the European Union.
  There seems to be a strong case for some form of tribunal, some appeal procedure, or some arrangement by which the Minister can act as arbiter when it is a question of giving the benefit of the doubt. If that system is not in place already—I hope that there is some such system—I am convinced that it will be necessary in the next few weeks if, as seems only too likely, the discrepancies, mistakes and alterations made by the Ministry on its integrated administration and control system documentation cause a great many other forms to arrive late and major financial disadvantage to farmers as a result.
  I warmly support the initiative of the right hon. Member for Honiton. I believe that, not just in the south-west of Britain, but in other parts of the country, there will be similar concerns. I hope that the Minister will be able to meet them this evening.
  10.24 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. I wish to place on record my sincere appreciation his great kindness in giving me notice of the subjects that he wanted to cover. It has enabled me to target my investigations precisely on the matter that he has rightly drawn to the attention of the House this evening.
  At the beginning of the debate I was pleased to seethe hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in his place as I thought that he was at least showing an interest in west country farming matters. I was less pleased when I heard what he had to say. It would do him no harm to look at some of the reasons why Community-based schemes are tightly drawn. They are fashioned in that mode to avoid fraud. I am sure that, as someone who supports and takes a keen interest in European matters, he will understand that
  788
  under such circumstances the element of discretion in schemes inevitably has to be limited. If it were not, we, the Community, and everyone else could rightly be criticised for being unable to account for what are, in sum, large amounts of money.
  The hon. Gentleman was less than charitable in some of his comments about the way in which the schemes are administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its regional offices. The majority of forms are filled in correctly by farmers and processed correctly, as we shall see in relation to the integrated administration and control system.
  I wish to turn to the substance of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. He has drawn our attention to the great importance that his constituent, Mr. Purchase, attaches to the matter. Suckler cow premium payments are important and I take careful note of my right hon. Friend's points on finance and Mr. Purchase's future entitlement to quota. I shall return to that issue at the conclusion of my remarks.
  My right hon. Friend has already described the background to the case. At the heart of it was the question whether his constituent, Mr. Purchase, was notified of the change in the closing date of the 1992 suckler cow premium scheme. One of the many changes to the suckler cow scheme resulting from common agricultural policy reform was that the closing date of the scheme had to be in the calendar year when applications were made, so we brought forward the closing date of the 1992 scheme from 31 January 1993 to 15 December 1992.
  In order to leave farmers in no doubt about that change, we prepared a corrigendum slip to be attached to and sent out with the Ministry's claim forms and explanatory notes for the 1992 scheme. We used a corrigendum to avoid any delays to the opening of the scheme in 1992. There would have been delays if the forms had been reprinted. The corrigendum alerted potential claimants to the fact that the closing date was now 15 December 1992, not 31 January 1993. In the south-west region, the corrigendum was stapled to the front of the explanatory notes dispatched by my Department. It was a brightly coloured, A4-sized piece of paper that looked something like the document that I have in my hand.
  The explanatory notes, with corrigendum and claim form, were dispatched to all producers with an interest. The mailing list for the notes and forms was based on our computer records. I have verified with our regional director, who was in my office this afternoon, that that list would have included those farmers who, like Mr. Purchase, had previously claimed suckler cow premium. The literature was dispatched in June or at the latest early July —not September, as my right hon. Friend mentioned.
  As well as issuing the corrigendum, the Ministry put out press notices during 1992 giving the new closing date. They were issued at both national and regional level. The new closing date was reported in the farming press. It was also—I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to this—reported in the "NFU Journal" for its members in Devon and Cornwall, of which Mr. Purchase is one.
  I should make it clear that we understand how important it is for farmers to be aware of closing dates. We also endeavour to send claim forms and explanatory leaflets to those who claimed under a particular scheme the year

  789
  before. But at the end of the day it is up to farmers to decide whether they qualify for subsidies, and to send us correctly completed claim forms before the closing date.
  In their remarks, my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned flexibility. I am afraid that the rules on closing dates form part of the European Community legislation on the suckler cow scheme and others. It means that we have little discretion to accept claims that are late. There are some cases from 1992, however, on which, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, we have been able to exercise that discretion, after the agreement of the European Commission. Those cases were in two of MAFF's nine regions, Wessex and the north-east, and in Northern Ireland.
  There, in contrast to the position in the south-west region and to the case of my right hon. Friend's constituent, the corrigendum was put inside the literature rather than stapled to the front. Some farmers in those areas appear to have put the document aside on the basis that there was no indication on the front of the literature that the date had changed. But I reiterate that the farmers in those regions were in quite a different position from those in the south-west, such as Mr. Purchase.
  As my right hon. Friend said, Mr. Purchase handed in his 1992 claim form at the Ministry's Exeter regional service centre in early January 1993. Although that was before the original closing date of 31 January 1993, it was well after the revised closing date of 15 December 1992. It was also after the final date of 31 December 1992, beyond which claims could not be accepted at all, even for payment at a reduced rate. My right hon. Friend wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister about Mr. Purchase's case in January 1994.
  In that letter, to which my right hon. Friend adverted, my right hon. Friend the Minister summarised the course of events, which have been described to us this evening. My right hon. Friend described how Mr. Purchase's claim was rejected. My right hon. Friend also recorded that Mr. Purchase had said that he had never had any indication that the closing date had been altered. That was obviously a serious matter into which we needed to look carefully. My right hon. Friend the Minister asked the Ministry's regional director in the south-west to get in touch with Mr. Purchase urgently and to report back to her.
  The regional director, Mr. Highman, and Mr. Purchase met on 15 February 1994. Mr. Highman reported back on the same day. It is not my normal practice to publish internal Ministry minutes, but because I think that it would be helpful to the House, I shall read relevant sections of Mr. Highman's minute of his meeting with Mr. Purchase.
  Much of the conversation centred on establishing whether Mr. Purchase was able to produce his explanatory notes, which, had they not had the corrigendum attached, would have been without staple holes. After the debate, I will send my right hon. Friend a full copy of the document so that in no way can he think that I am quoting selectively. It says:
  "Mr. Purchase told me that when his 1992 suckler cow literature arrived he simply looked at the claim form, registered that, as in previous years, a 31 January deadline applied and then put the claim form away for future action during the second half of January. Subsequently, he visited his cousins who farm in north Devon and was told that the deadline had been changed. He promptly got in touch with my RSC and submitted his late claim on 11 January 1993. Later in the year he read about the concession that had been granted to those who had submitted late claims in the Bristol and Northallerton areas and so naturally
  790
  assumed that the same concession would apply in his case. He was therefore dismayed when our rejection letter of 12 July arrived.
  I pressed Mr. Purchase to produce his copy of the 1992 explanatory notes or to explain what had happened to it. He could not produce the form and freely admitted that he could not recall seeing it. He told me that the suckler cow premium literature would have arrived at a time when he was having his house re-roofed. Accordingly, all his papers were boxed and put away during this period. Apart from firmly registering the suckler cow premium deadline and placing the claim form in his diary at an appropriate point for future action, he could not recall seeing any other documentation. Accordingly, when he was subsequently told of the change in date he was unable to find the explanatory notes and cannot therefore prove his case one way or the other."
  Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend cannot prove that the notes were delivered. My constituent cannot prove that he did not throw them away with the envelope, but I do not think that the Government can prove that they were necessarily in the envelope. That is the difference: if they were not in the envelope, the date applies.
  Mr. Jack: I shall try to deal with that point as I continue my speech, but I have checked with our regional director the precise process that had been involved in producing the batch of forms, together with the corrigendum. I am assured by the regional director that that was done in a batch operation, and that—as far as can be said—all forms went out with the corrigendum attached to them. That is why I attach particular importance to the location of the explanatory notes: clearly, if they were found without holes in them there would be a case. I shall come to that in a moment.
  The minute concludes:
  "In the end I told Mr. Purchase that in the absence of the explanatory notes and given his honest admission that he may or may not have seen them, it would be difficult for the Minister to exercise discretion in his favour. We talked for a little longer and he clearly indicated that, given that over the years he had always conscientiously claimed for 50 or so suckler cows and was not therefore a 'Johnny-come-lately', he could not help but think that it would be harsh if MAFF could not be lenient in his favour. In a similar vein he argued that since so many others had been given the benefit of the doubt when they had said that they had not seen the corrigendum, he too should be believed when he said he had not seen it.
  It seems to me that we will never be able to prove one way or the other whether or not Mr. Purchase ever received the explanatory notes with or without our corrigendum slip attached. To be fair he has not tried to suggest that we were at fault in this respect and accepts that whilst it is possible that we failed to send the notes or forgot to add the corrigendum slip, it is equally just as possible that, to use his own words, 'I might not have bothered to look further than the claim form which showed the date of 31 January which I expected to see. I suppose it could be a case of familiarity breeds contempt.'"
  I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that that quotation paints a picture of an honest man appealing to our better nature, but acknowledging that that there could have been error on both sides, including his. As I have said, I spoke to the regional director today; I am content that his report gives an accurate version of the interview.
  The problem is that we have insufficient evidence to show that Mr. Purchase did not receive the corrigendum. We have actively sought such evidence from him: if, for example, he were able to produce a copy of his explanatory notes and there were no staple holes indicating that a corrigendum had been attached—as I told my right hon. Friend a moment ago—we would pay him. But, in his interview with the regional director, Mr. Purchase suggested that he might have received the corrigendum and

  791
  not taken any notice of it. In the light of that information, my right hon. Friend the Minister felt unable to reverse the earlier decision not to pay Mr. Purchase.
  I appreciate that this may not be the answer that my right hon. Friend would prefer, but I should make it clear that if he or his constituent has any new evidence to offer my Department will be delighted to look at it. I should add that, after my right hon. Friend and his constituent have had an opportunity to reflect on what I have said tonight, I should like to invite him to a meeting with me—and with senior MAFF officials—to discuss the matter further. That is an open invitation.
  I want to end on an optimistic note. My right hon. Friend himself mentioned that 1992 was also the reference year for suckler cow premium quotas. Because Mr. Purchase did not submit a valid 1992 claim, he did not receive an allocation when quotas were made last autumn. However, Mr. Purchase has applied to the national reserve for quota. Allocations from the reserve have not yet been finalised, but I am glad to say both that Mr. Purchase appears to be eligible and that there appears to be enough quota in the reserve for the category under which he applied. That means that, although my right hon. Friend's constituent will not have received the suckler cow premium for 1992, he should be able to receive it for 1993 and future years, up to the limit of his quota allocation.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the case and to the hon. Members for North Cornwall and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) for joining us in the Chamber tonight. It is always important that individual cases be examined in detail. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider kindly my remarks and will accept the invitation that I extended to him.
  Mr. Tyler: Can the Minister say in how many cases over the whole of England suckler cow premium has, with the Minister's discretion, been allocated when the applications were not originally eligible?
  Mr. Jack: If I am wrong, I will correct the Official Report, but to the best of my memory, in the two MAFF areas that I mentioned some 16,000 cases were amended, where a clear error on our part was observed and we sought to put it right straight away. In the south-west, there may have been five or six other cases where there was doubt. My remarks this evening focused entirely on a particular case.
  When one considers the total number of applications, by far the greatest proportion are handled without any problems. In this case, many thousands of farmers were able to complete the form perfectly adequately and without any difficulty.
  By that magic process of osmosis that occasionally affects Ministers at the Dispatch Box, I can say that the number of cases in which there was a problem was not as large as I said. In fact, there were some 500 cases. If there is any doubt, I shall write to the hon. Member for North Cornwall to clarify precisely the numbers involved.
  Sir Peter Emery: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Of course I accept his invitation. I thank him for meeting at least half my claim, but I shall return to say that the Government owe my constituent £2,900, and I shall fight like blazes to make certain that he gets that money.
  Mr. Jack: I look forward to my right hon. Friend's continuing tenacity in the proper pursuit of his constituent's interest. I thank him again for raising the matter tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Deportees
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will describe the head restraint used on deportees; and if he will make a statement as to the use of this type of restraint.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The use of mouth restraints was suspended in August 1993. Following a joint review of removal procedures by the Home Office and the police; it was decided in January this year that their use should not be resumed.

  Temazepam
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answers of 1 December 1993,Official Report, column 625, 17 February 1994, Official Report, column 903, and 20 April 1994, Official Report, column 512, what conclusions his Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs reached regarding the misuse of Temazepam; what aspects of those conclusions have caused the delay in his reaching a decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in relation to Temazepam have implications for a number of Government Departments.

  I am considering the council's recommendations in consultation with ministerial colleagues. I am afraid that this has taken longer than I would have wished. I hope to be able to announce a decision before too long.

  Exhaust Fumes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a)roadside checks of vehicles in respect of motor vehicle exhaust fumes and (b) prosecutions following such checks took place in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures obtained from the vehicle inspectorate—an executive agency of the Department of Transport—show that 48,857 roadside exhaust smoke/ emission checks were carried out in Great Britain in the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994. A total of 587 prohibitions were issued as a result of these checks.

  Information on prosecutions following such tests is not available centrally.

  Trans-sexuals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend British marriage law to recognise trans-sexuals in their reassigned roles; and if he will make a statement.
  380
  Mr.Charles Wardle
  None.

  Probation Hostels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grant was made in respect of probation hostels in the west midlands in 1993–94; what grant is being made in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Total revenue grant for west midlands' approved hostels for 1993–94 was £1,908,804; for 1994–95 the preliminary figure is £1,513,000. I cannot add anything further as this matter is currently sub judice.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the part played by probation hostels in contributing to community safety and tackling the attitudes of criminals and underlying causes of criminal behaviour.

  Mr. Maclean
  Chapter 7 of "National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community" deals with the purpose and role of approved hostels. A copy of "National Standards" has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from judges and magistrates in the west midlands about the funding of probation hostels in the west midlands.

  Mr. Maclean
  A number of representations have been received from judges and magistrates in the west midlands arguing for the retention of all the approved hostels now in use there.

  Prison Cells
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were placed in cells built for fewer prisoners than were being housed there in the last year for which figures are available.

  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 Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 17th May 1994.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about cell sharing.
  The following table shows the numbers of prisoners who shared cells certified as normal accommodation for one person for the period April 1993 to March 1994.

  Date

  Two to a cell

  Three to a cell

  30 April 1993

  7,236

  114

  28 May 1993

  7,412

  126

  25 June 1993

  7,490

  132

  30 July 1993

  7,520

  123

  27 August 1993

  7,484

  114

  24 September 1993

  7,964

  93

  29 October 1993

  7,950

  42

  26 November 1993

  7,972

  84

  31 December 1993

  7,262

  57

  381

  Date

  Two to a cell

  Three to a cell

  28 January 1994

  8,256

  39

  25 February 1994

  8,212

  54

  31 March 1994

  18,488

  —

  1 Figure as at 25 March 1994.

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average distance from home a prisoner was placed in the last year for which figures are available; what was the average in 1985; and what was the average in 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 Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 17 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average distance from home a prisoner was placed in the last year for which figures are available.
  No information is held centrally on the distance prisoners are placed from home. However, the National Prison Survey, conducted in January and February 1991, asked prisoners who had received a visit in the three months prior to interview how far their most important visitor had to travel to visit them. The average distance, for all most important visitors, was 62 miles. No information is available for the years 1985 or 1979.
  The National Prison Survey had a total sample of almost 4,000 offenders. The findings of the survey, including the information given above, have been published as "The National Prison Survey 1991: main findings", Home Office Research Study No. 128.

  Private Security Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 71, what plans he has to ensure that a record is kept of the private security firms employed by his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  I am arranging for information to be collated on the extent of the use of private security firms employed by my Department.

  Prison Ombudsman
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 72, what Coopers and Lybrand was asked to do during the recruitment of the prison ombudsman.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Coopers and Lybrand Executive Resourcing was asked to undertake a search to identify candidates in addition to those identified through advertisement, to attend sifts, interview search candidates and provide reports on all short-listed candidates.

  Car Thefts
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cars have been stolen in each region in England since the passage of the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information available relates to theft of all motor vehicles and is contained in the following table.

  Offences of theft of motor vehicles, April 1992 to December 1993, by region

  Region

  1Number of thefts of vehicles

  North West

  170,425

  North East

  217,875

  Midlands

  112,905

  Eastern

  107,749

  South East

  294,835

  South West

  78,677

  1 Offences of aggravated vehicle taking and theft of a vehicle recorded by the police.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been made under the charge of aggravated vehicle taking in each region of England; how many have been successful; what has been the average sentence in successful prosecutions in each region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1992 is given in the tables. 1993 data will not be available until the autumn. We are monitoring carefully both prosecutions and penalties under this new provision. It is still too early to draw many conclusions but early indications are that this measure is providing a useful weapon in our armoury against car crime.

  Table A
  Number of defendants prosecuted, convicted and average custodial sentence length given at magistrates' courts for aggravated vehicle taking offences by region 1992 England

  Offence/region

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Average custodial sentence length (months)

  Indictable (triable either way)

  Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking

  North West

  8

  5

  —

  North East

  1

  1

  —

  Midlands

  1

  —

  —

  Eastern

  6

  1

  —

  South East

  11

  4

  6

  South West

  —

  —

  —

  ENGLAND

  27

  11

  6

  Aggravated vehicle taking—

  injury to person, damage to property or car

  North West

  232

  123

  4

  North East

  448

  259

  4

  Midlands

  145

  57

  4

  Eastern

  251

  131

  4

  South East

  323

  149

  4

  South West

  56

  24

  4

  ENGLAND

  1,455

  743

  4

  383

  Offence/region

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Average custodial sentence length (months)

  Summary

  Aggravated vehicle taking—

  criminal damage of £2,000 or under

  North West

  2

  2

  —

  North East

  7

  4

  —

  Midlands

  48

  32

  3

  Eastern

  67

  42

  5

  South East

  15

  8

  —

  South West

  49

  33

  5

  ENGLAND

  188

  121

  4

  Table B Number of offenders convicted and average custodial sentence length given at the Crown Court for aggravated vehicle taking offences by region 1992 England

  Offence/Region

  Convictions

  Average custodial sentence length (months)

  Indictable (triable either way)

  Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking

  North West

  2

  17

  North East

  5

  18

  Midlands

  —

  —

  Eastern

  1

  5

  South East

  —

  —

  South West

  —

  —

  ENGLAND

  8

  15

  Aggravated vehicle taking—

  injury to person, damage to property or car

  North West

  57

  11

  North East

  93

  11

  Midlands

  37

  12

  Eastern

  55

  10

  South East

  52

  10

  South West

  30

  10

  ENGLAND

  324

  11

  SUMMARY

  Aggravated vehicle taking—

  criminal damage of £2,000 or under

  North West

  —

  16

  North East

  —

  —

  Midlands

  —

  —

  Eastern

  1

  —

  South East

  1

  —

  South West

  —

  —

  ENGLAND

  2

  6

  1 Relates to one offender who was convicted at the magistrates' court but committed for sentence to the Crown Court.

DEFENCE

  Oxford Research Group Seminar
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who represented his Department at the seminar on "Britain and the Non-Proliferation Regime: 1995 and Beyond", held in Oxford on 19 April, organised by the Oxford research group; and what benefits accrued to his Department from its representation.
  384
  Mr. Hanley
  My Department was represented by the Director of Defence Policy. I understand that the seminar provided a useful forum for discussion on the approach to the 1995 conference of the parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) of 21 April 1994,Official Report, column 623, the reason the information requested regarding low-flying sorties is not available.

  Mr. Hanley
  The mean height and velocity of aircraft during low-flying sorties are not recorded.

  Army Welfare Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current and future resources for Army welfare services and dedicated social services support for Army and ex-Army personnel.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department continues to provide the appropriate level of welfare support which takes into account the needs of service personnel and their families. It does this through the unit command structure, and through MOD-funded organisations such as the Soldiers' Sailors' Airmen's Families Association—SSAFA.

  In the United Kingdom, social services for service personnel, their dependants and all former service personnel are primarily a matter for local authorities. Overseas, these services are replicated by my Department and are available to all service personnel, Ministry of Defence UK-based civilian staff and dependants.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many courts martial have been undertaken, annually, in each of the services, in the last five years in which figures are available.

  Mr. Hanley
  The following table shows the annual number of courts martial undertaken by each of the three services in the last five years:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Royal Navy

  57

  32

  42

  61

  92

  Army

  676

  837

  703

  706

  636

  Royal Air Force

  157

  148

  147

  138

  133

  Total

  890

  1,017

  892

  905

  861

  DDT
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies he has commissioned to assess health conditions resulting from the use of DDT in the armed forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  As there is no authoritative scientific evidence of any harmful effect of DDT on humans, there has been no reason for my Department to commission any such studies.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  New Businesses, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many new businesses have started in north Yorkshire in each year since 1978.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The numbers asked for are not available. The best guide to trends in the number of business starts at county level come from VAT data. Figures are available for the years 1980 to 1992 and are published in "VAT Registrations and Deregistrations, County and District Analysis", 1980 to 1991, and 1992 editions. Both these documents are available in the Library of the House or on-line via NOMIS. For further information, contact the NOMIS team at NOMIS, Unit 3P, Mountjoy research centre, University of Durham DH1 3SW.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact on small businesses of the EC Commission proposal Com (94) 5813 to amend directive 77/388/EEC.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  All EC proposals for measures that are likely to impose a burden on United Kingdom business are subject to a compliance cost assessment including a small business litmus test. In light of the concerns recently expressed by United Kingdom business, in particular small business, a compliance cost assessment will be undertaken in consultation with those likely to be affected by the provisions in the proposal relating to the exemption of retail export goods. The line that the United Kingdom is taking in Brussels already takes account of the concerns expressed by United Kingdom small businesses. The assessments of the burdens that the proposal would impose should provide hard evidence in support of our negotiating line.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy that no changes in gas pricing will be allowed which provide for significant variations between regions.

  Mr. Eggar
  The plans for a new pricing structure for gas transportation, in the light of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's findings, were set out in a consultation document published by the Office of Gas Supply in December 1993. The matter is further considered in the joint consultative document, "Competition and Choice in the Gas Market", issued on 9 May 1994 by myself and the Director General of Gas Supply, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, and I look forward to receiving the comments of all interested parties.

  The Office of Gas Supply expects that the most likely outcome of charging realistic long distance pipeline costs will be for overall prices to move by plus or minus about 2.5 per cent.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had on regionalised gas pricing for domestic consumers.
  386
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: I have received a number of representations.

  The plans for a new pricing structure for gas transportation, in the light of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's findings, were set out in a consultation document published by Ofgas in December 1993. The matter is further considered in the joint consultative document "Competition and Choice in the Gas Market" issued on 9 May 1994 by myself and the Director General of Gas Supply, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. I look forward to receiving the comments of all interested parties.

  The Office of Gas Supply expects that the most likely outcome of charging realistic long distance pipeline costs will be for overall prices to move by plus or minus about 2.5 per cent.

  Water and Sewerage Industry
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had about the appointment and dismissals undertaken by the Director General of Ofwat.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Under Section 28 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the Director General of Water Services is required to consult the Secretary of State about the appointment of chairmen of the customer service committees. In this connection, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, has received a number of representations concerning the expiry of the appointment of the chairman of the Yorkshire committee in February 1994.

  Post Offices, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post offices and sub-post offices there currently are in south Yorkshire; and what were the figures for(a) 10 years and (b) 20 years ago.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that currently there are four crown post offices and 387 sub-post offices, including franchise and agency offices, in south Yorkshire. Corresponding figures for 10 years and 20 years ago are not available because of changes in Post Office Counters Ltd's regional organisation and in the local government structure in south Yorkshire since 1974.

  Nuclear Export Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what decisions taken at the recent nuclear suppliers group meeting in Madrid will affect United Kingdom nuclear export policy.

  Mr. Needham
  The group adopted changes to the "Guidelines for Nuclear Transfers"—DOC INFCIRC 254 Part 1 Rev. 1 Mod 1—at the Madrid meeting. The effect of these changes is to strengthen the retransfer provisions in the guidelines and incorporate a new provision in the guidelines underlying the importance of members satisfying themselves that their exports would not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Both changes are consistent with existing British policy.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 18 April,Official Report, column 357, if he will make it his policy to compile records of exports of biological agents in future.

  Mr. Needham
  Exports to certain destinations of biological agents specified in export control legislation, and for which an export licence has been granted, are now recorded.

  Compliance Costs
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish details of the annual on-going compliance costs for new regulations affecting business for which his Department has completed compliance cost assessments.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Department of Trade and Industry completed 13 compliance cost assessments last year on draft legislation brought before Parliament. 'These were routinely published and copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Post Office
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he is likely to complete his review of the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will announce the outcome to the review when decisions have been taken. We will not set an artificial date.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for how many more years the B205 plant at Sellafield is expected to reprocess spent fuel from magnox reactors.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc as operators of the plant.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much business was attained by British firms in the clean-up of Kuwait after the Gulf war.

  Mr. Needham
  In the first 12 months of Al Awda—the Return—reconstruction phase, the United Kingdom won contracts and orders worth more than £500 million. The official United Kingdom exports to Kuwait for 1991, 1992 and 1993 were £178 million, £262 million and £312 million respectively. This does not accurately reflect the true level of exports to the market as many of the orders placed during reconstruction were routed through Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

  Fire Safety Report
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date the interdepartmental lire safety scrutiny is expected to report its findings to Ministers; and on what date that report will be(a) made available to the House and to the public and (b) published.
  388
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The report of the interdepartmental fire safety scrutiny is due to be completed on 25 May and will then be submitted by the scrutiny team to my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade, the Home Secretary and the Secretaries of State for Employment and for the Environment.

  No decisions will be taken about publication until ministerial colleagues have had an opportunity to consider the report.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Industry
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of workers in the offshore oil and gas industry are not British.

  Mr. Eggar
  The percentage of workers in the offshore oil and gas industry in 1993 who are not British is estimated to be some 8 per cent. Details are published by my Department in the "Energy Report" volume 2, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to withdraw from the 16th licensing round any blocks recommended for withdrawal by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  Mr. Eggar
  I will consult the Joint Nature Conservation Committee both before and after nominations are received for the 16th round and will take into account its comments when deciding on the blocks to be offered in the round.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which specific conditions attached to licenses for offshore oil exploration may be made available to the public under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 in line with paragraph 6 of the Edinburgh Gazette announcement of 26 April.

  Mr. Eggar
  As was the case in the 14th round, I shall judge each application for such information on its merits having due regard to the provisions of the environmental information regulations. It is my intention to make available those conditions attached to licences for the purposes of protecting the environment.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) which non-governmental organisations he intends to consult prior to deciding which blocks to license in the 15th and 16th offshore licensing round;

  (2) what specific plans he has to consult nongovernmental organisations before deciding which blocks to license in the 15th and 16th rounds of offshore licensing.

  Mr. Eggar
  My officials consulted the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and a number of fishing organisations prior to deciding which blocks to offer in the 15th round.

  We have already informed over 100 organisations, including the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, environmental groups, relevant local authorities and various fishing organisations, of our plans for the 16th round. Once the nominations for the 16th round are received at the end of July, these bodies will be offered the opportunity to comment on which blocks can be offered for licence.

  Construction Task Force
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the construction task force was established; when it is expected to report; what are its terms of reference; what areas it is investigating; what is its membership; who employs each member; and in what capacity.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on 30 March 1994,Official Report, column 766.

  London First Centre
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance is to be given to the new London First centre for its overseas inward investment activities.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am pleased to announce that in addition to the grants for the six regional development organisations announced on 17 March, I have today offered £500,000 of grant-in-aid to the new London First centre for its overseas inward investment activities, covering the whole of London. The grant-in-aid is linked to the performance of specific inward investment promotion activities on behalf of the Invest in Britain Bureau.

  The London First centre is an initiative by London First to establish for the first time an inward investment agency for London. The centre is being set up initially with support from local authorities, the private sector and my Department. Its aims are to promote London as a location for national and international business and industrial activity, for wealth and job creation in London.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many employees have worked on a full or part-time basis with the Scott inquiry liaison unit set up within his Department; when the unit was established; and when its work will be completed.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: The Scott inquiry liaison unit was set up on 23 November 1992. Seven people have worked in the unit on a full-time basis, though not all at the same time. Manning has usually been kept to four people, though currently it stands at three. The attendant registry has employed six people, two on a part-time basis. After the initial demands of setting up the registry, manning has generally stood at three people. The timing for the completion of the work of the unit and the registry depends upon the length of the inquiry.

  Atlantic Computers Ltd.
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his inspectors have completed their inquiry into Atlantic Computers Ltd.; and when he expects to publish their report.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 May 1994]: The inspectors completed their report on 22 April. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering whether the report should be published in line with usual practice. However the report is unlikely to be published in the immediate future in view of possible prejudice to current criminal proceedings.

  Chemical Imports
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to prohibit the importation, for recycling, of certain chemicals from other EC countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  The new control regime under the EC Waste Shipments Regulation and the United Kingdom's associated Transfrontier Shipment Of Waste Regulations 1994 came into force on 6 May. This legislation enables the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under the Basel convention, to which the United Kingdom became a party on 8 May. The Government are considering the use of their powers under the new legislation and will announce its proposals in due course.

  As regards exports of waste for recovery, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reported on the decision taken at the second conference of the parties to the Basel convention in his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 30 March 1994 Official Report, columns 866–67. Article 16(3)(b) of the Waste Shipments Regulation prohibits exports of waste for recovery where the competent authority of dispatch has reason to believe that the waste will not be managed in accordance with environmentally sound methods in the country of destination.

  The decision recognized that transboundary movements of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD states have a high risk of not constituting an environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes. It is the Government's understanding, therefore, that, save in exeptional circumstances, exports of hazardous wastes for recovery from the United Kingdom to non-OECD countries are prohibited by virtue of article 16(3)(b)—
  (a) unless and until those countries wishing to receive such wastes satisfy the requirements set out in paragraph 3 of the decision, regarding notification to the Basel secretariat about the categories, quantities and management of acceptable waste imports; and
  (b) the competent authority of dispatch is satisfied in any particular case that the wastes will be managed in an environmentally sound manner in the country of destination.

ENVIRONMENT

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how he is planning to implement the policy for industrialised countries to be self sufficient in waste by restricting or banning the importation of toxic waste into the United Kingdom when the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994 come into force on 6 May;

  (2) when he plans to publish the waste management plan referred to in the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994 which will contain the Government's policies in relation to the import and export of waste for recovery or disposal into and out of the United Kingdom, in accordance with EC directive 75/442/EEC(a).

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have given today to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) to the President of the Board of Trade.

  Assembly of European Regions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received from the Assembly of European Regions meeting in Shrewsbury on 14 April on the role of regional participation in environmental policy.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Climate Change Programme
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the
  Environment what is his assessment of the current relative radiative forcing effects of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, halocarbons and water vapour with respect to pre-industrial levels; how he expects this to change in the future; and what implications this has for the United Kingdom climate change programme.

  Mr. Atkins
  The intergovernmental panel on climate change published estimates of current forcings, and possible future forcings under a range of scenarios, in its 1992 report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The panel will publish a new report on the radiative forcing of climate, containing revised estimates, later this year.

  The United Kingdom's climate change programme, published earlier this year, contains a package of measures aimed at meeting our commitments under the United Nations framework convention on climate change. The programme makes clear that the United Kingdom will work within forthcoming reviews of the convention, which will take account of the latest scientific evidence from the IPCC, towards ensuring that the ultimate objective of the convention is met. The United Kingdom's national programme will be reviewed and developed in the context of that process.

  Europe's Environmental Challenge
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what request for assistance his Department received from The Economist intelligence unit in assistance in the preparation of its report on management of Europe's environmental challenge.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am not aware of any request.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which standards authorities are recognised for certifying product specification in the water and sewerage industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  Water companies are private sector entities and may use certifying bodies of their choosing.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are made to consult public or environmental health organisations on new product specifications used in the water and sewerage industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  Subject to the requirements of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989, water companies are free to use new product specifications without further consultation.
  392
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what recognised standards of thickness, strength, life expectancy and composition, pipework used to carry sewage is expected to conform.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is for the water companies to determine the factors affecting the performance of products which they use. They have the benefit of British standards where they exist and must ensure that they meet statutory and common law obligations relating to pollution.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Marley Quantum plastic pipework was approved for use as sewer pipework to a European standard.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand there is no European standard applicable to this type of pipework system.

  Water Industry Certification Scheme
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which products have been approved since privatisation by the Water Industry Certification Scheme.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Water Industry Certification Scheme is a private company. I understand that it publishes details of its product approvals.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent the Water Industry Certification Scheme is financially independent from the privatised water companies.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Water Industry Certification Scheme is financed by the water companies, the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the charges which it levies for its services.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest assessment of the contribution to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development target of reduced carbon dioxide emissions from road transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to her on 25 April 1994,Official Report, column 36.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much(a) carbon dioxide, (b) sulphur dioxide, (c) nitrogen oxides and (d) ash is emitted into the environment each year as a consequence of the generation of electricity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1992, 51 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, 2.4 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 0.69 million tonnes of nitrogen oxides were emitted into the environment as a consequence of electricity generation. The trend in emissions for all these pollutants from this source is downwards. The figure for total particulate matter as authorised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution was 16,390 tonnes.

  "Index of Local Conditions"
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish the "Index of Local Conditions."

  Sir George Young
  The "Index of Local Conditions", giving information based upon data from the 1991 census and other data, is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and sent to local authority associations and key voluntary organisations.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to consult on amending the building regulations to make provision for access by disabled people to dwellings.

  Mr. Gummer
  At my request, the Building Regulations Advisory Committee has been examining the desirability and practicability of extending access provisions for disabled people to dwellings in England and Wales. The present provisions for disabled people in the building regulations apply only to non-domestic buildings.

  I have now received advice from the committee. As announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 6 May, we aim to consult on detailed proposals to apply to new dwellings. When issued for consultation, the proposals will be accompanied by a compliance cost assessment.

  The committee is also examining whether the existing provisions for disabled people applying to non-domestic buildings should be improved. Any proposals here will also be subject to consultation in the normal way.

  Director General of Water Services
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will succeed Mr. Byatt as Director General of Water Services when his appointment ends on 31 July.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Secretary of State for Wales and I have decided to reappoint Mr. Byatt until 30 June 1996, to enable him to complete the implementation of the outcome of his periodic review of water charge limits to apply from 1 April 1995.

  Water Boreholes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to make water utilities liable for damage caused to property as a result of the sinking of water boreholes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: Water utilities already have the same liabilities as any other owner or occupier of land for any damage caused by them to neighbours in sinking boreholes on their land or on land to which the owner or occupiers allow them access. In addition, where they sink boreholes under powers conferred under the Water Industry Act 1991, they are liable to pay compensation for damage under schedule 11 —compulsory works powers—or schedule 6—powers to search for water--of that Act.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the methods 394
  whereby assessment is made of the risk of damage to local property resulting from the sinking of new water boreholes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: The National Rivers Authority must consider the implications of any new borehole which needs its licence or consent, or which is notified to it, in respect of water resources, the aquatic environment and other protected rights to water. Where planning permission is needed, the local planning authority will have to consider all material factors. Other aspects must be assessed by the person proposing to make the borehole, particularly in respect of his potential liabilities to compensate others for any damage that may be done.

  Enterprise Zone, Tyneside
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, when he expects to announce the siting of the new enterprise zone on Tyneside as a result of substantial job losses at Swan Hunter; and if European Commission agreement for such an enterprise zone has been sought.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: No acceptable proposals for the siting of the proposed Tyneside enterprise zone have yet been made. The approval of the European Commission has not been sought.

  EC Habitats Directive
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the impact of the special protection areas for wildlife contained in the draft regulations implementing the EC habitats directive.

  Mr. Atkins
  In October 1993 this Department issued a public consultation paper on proposals to implement the EC habitats directive. Over 140 responses were received and copies have been placed in the House Libraries. The responses have been taken into account in drafting implementation regulations which will be laid before the House shortly. The Government have not yet published their proposals for special areas of conservation to be designated under the terms of the directive.

TREASURY

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimated level of uncollected corporation tax, in figures and as a percentage, for each year since 1979, including 1993.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amounts of corporation tax uncollected and consequently remitted or written off as irrecoverable since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  Amount £thousands

  As a percentage of total corporation tax collected

  1979

  15,182

  0.50

  1980

  16,214

  0.49

  1981

  20,688

  0.70

  395

  Year

  Amount £thousands

  As a percentage of total corporation tax collected

  1982

  34,396

  0.89

  1983

  40,912

  0.11

  1984

  58,051

  1.23

  1985

  75,342

  1.27

  1986

  91,365

  1.11

  1987

  92,830

  0.93

  1988

  225,597

  1.92

  1989

  151,368

  1.05

  1990

  184,725

  1.17

  1991

  320,929

  2.09

  1992

  1about 440,000

  3.77

  1993

  n/a

  n/a

  1 From 1992 there has been a once and for all change in Revenue accounting practice. Under the new system the figures are

  PAYE

  National insurance contributions

  Year

  Amount in £thousands

  As a percentage of total collected

  Classes 1 and 1A - amount in £thousands

  As a percentage of total classes 1 and 1A collected

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  9,914

  0.05

  1,056

  0.01

  1981

  11,432

  0.08

  1,158

  0.01

  1982

  15,281

  0.06

  1,261

  0.01

  1983

  22,622

  0.08

  1,555

  0.01

  1984

  33,312

  0.11

  1,971

  0.01

  1985

  46,695

  0.14

  2,213

  0.01

  1986

  60,915

  0.17

  4,377

  0.02

  1987

  92,560

  0.25

  8,514

  0.03

  1988

  130,724

  0.33

  15,894

  0.06

  1989

  122,890

  0.28

  15,127

  0.05

  1990

  107,091

  0.22

  17,239

  0.05

  1991

  135,258

  0.26

  21,644

  0.06

  11992

  2130,000

  0.24

  32,570

  0.09

  31993

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 From 1992 there has been a once and for all change in Revenue accounting practice. Under the new system the figures are £381,172,000 and 0.71 per cent.

  2Approximate.

  3The figures for 1993 are not sufficiently complete to allow the necessary comparison to be made and consequently the information is not available in the form requested.

  Schedule D
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimated level of uncollected schedule D tax, in figures and as a percentage, for each year since 1979, including 1993.

  Mr.Dorrell
  The amounts of schedule D tax uncollected and consequently remitted or written off as irrecoverable since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  Amount in £thousands

  As a percentage of total Schedule D collected

  1979

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1980

  33,081

  0.79

  1981

  41,552

  0.75

  1982

  52,763

  0.84

  1983

  68,536

  1.04

  1984

  91,229

  1.32

  1985

  90,196

  1.18

  1986

  124,297

  1.29

  1987

  133,878

  1.88

  1988

  252,424

  3.06

  1989

  242,024

  2.53

  1990

  254,989

  2.35

  1991

  383,566

  3.17

  396
  £542,233,000 and 4.64 cent.

  Note: The figures for 1993 are not sufficiently complete to allow the necessary comparison to be made and consequently the information is not available in the form requested.

  PAYE and National Insurance
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the latest estimated level of uncollected PAYE and national insurance contributions deducted but not paid over to the Revenue, in figures and as a percentage, for each year since 1979, including 1993;

  (2) if he will list the amounts of PAYE and national insurance written off, in figures and as a percentage, for each year since 1979, including 1993.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amounts of PAYE and national insurance contributions uncollected and consequently remitted or written off as uncollected are as follows:

  Year

  Amount in £thousands

  As a percentage of total Schedule D collected

  1992

  703,422

  5.16

  1993

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1993 are not sufficiently complete to allow the necessary comparison to be made and consequently the information is not available in the form requested.

  2. Separate figures for Schedule D are not available for 1979.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimated level of uncollected capital gains tax, in figures and as a percentage, for each year since 1979, including 1993.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amounts of capital gains tax uncollected and consequently remitted or written off as irrecoverable since 1979 are as follows:
  397

  Year

  Amount in £thousands

  As a percentage of total capital gains tax collected

  1979

  15,182

  0.51

  1980

  3,591

  0.71

  1981

  2,734

  0.61

  1982

  4,868

  0.78

  1983

  6,496

  1.01

  1984

  5,998

  0.84

  1985

  7,562

  0.93

  1986

  10,064

  0.99

  1987

  8,822

  0.79

  1988

  12,680

  0.80

  1989

  10,864

  0.47

  1990

  12,002

  0.64

  1991

  29,721

  1.58

  1992

  57,836

  4.69

  1993

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Note:

  The figures for 1993 are not sufficiently complete to allow the necessary comparison to be made and consequently the information is not available in the form requested.

  PAYE Write-offs
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases PAYE was written off in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of cases where PAYE was written off in each year since 1980 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases written off

  1980

  44,464

  1981

  7,019

  1982

  74,077

  1983

  36,871

  1984

  45,958

  1985

  48,361

  1986

  58,782

  1987

  69,079

  1988

  76,348

  1989

  76,853

  1990

  68,456

  1991

  93,341

  1992

  104,522

  Figures for 1993 are not sufficiently complete to allow the necessary comparison to be made and consequently the information is not available in the form requested.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Departmnent has undertaken to ascertain the practicality of replacing self-employment certificates with national identity cards.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No studies have been undertaken by the Inland Revenue for this purpose.

  Late Payment
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce the result of his consultation on the problems of late payment.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government expect to announce their proposals shortly.

  Building Industry (Fraud)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's estimate of the loss to the Exchequer from fraud in the building industry.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No reliable estimate can be made. But the construction industry deduction scheme provides a significant deterrent in controlling the extent of fraud in the building industry.

  Local Government
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total contribution from the Exchequer towards the cost of local government services; and how much of that amount goes to(a) London boroughs, (b) other English local authorities and (c) Welsh local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  Exchequer contributions towards the cost of local government services take three forms: grants—including redistributed non—domestic rates—within aggregate external finance—AEF—which go to support services wholly or mainly financed out of local authorities' general resources—including the council tax; current grants outside AEF, which generally relate to services wholly or mainly financed by such grants; and capital grants.

  It is estimated that some 16.7 per cent. of grants within AEF to English local authorities are paid to London boroughs. Current grants outside AEF and capital grants are distributed by a number of different Government Departments. Information on the division of these grants between London boroughs and other English local authorities is not available centrally—the total England figures are therefore given.

  The figures are as follows:

  (£ million,1993–94)

  Grants within AEF

  Other current grants

  Capital grants

  Total England

  33,231

  11,468

  1,401

  Welsh local authorities

  2,339

  572

  224

  TOTAL1

  40,776

  13,007

  1,793

  Notes:

  1 Includes authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Tax (Local Authorities)
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportional cost to the Exchequer of collecting that proportion of the tax take which is then given towards local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  Exchequer grants to local authorities are derived from general Government funds. They are not hypothecated from particular taxes. It is therefore not possible to hypothecate to them the costs of tax collection.

  Non-domestic rates are collected by local authorities and redistributed to them through a central Exchequer pool. Authorities can offset amounts for the cost of collection against their contribution to the pool. For 1994–95, the allowance is £69.5 million—less than 0.7 per cent. of the expected rates yield for the year.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he excludes the files of individual tax-payers from his market testing of the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There is no basis for excluding the files of individual taxpayers. If activities involving the processing, handling or holding of tax information were to be transferred to a private sector organisation, the Inland Revenue would remain responsible for continuing to ensure proper standards of privacy and confidentiality for all citizens. In addition to contractual safeguards, the contracting organisation and its employees would be subject, in the same way as Inland Revenue employees, to the criminal sanctions—a fine or imprisonment or both —provided by section 182 of the Finance Act 1989 for unauthorised disclosure of taxpayer personal information.

  Confidentiality is not a bar to market testing; a lot of highly sensitive Government work is done by the private sector. But the Inland Revenue would need to be sure that an outside contractor could replicate existing security procedures and conditions.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his departments have been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: The Treasury is the only one of the Chancellor's Departments to incur cost in employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes since 1980.

  With regard to the Treasury, I regret that information going back beyond 1991 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The estimated cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes since 1991 is as follows:

  £

  1991–92

  8,890,632

  1992–93

  1,428,793

  1993–94

  5,019,584

  All the figures are exclusive of VAT.

PRIME MINISTER

  E-mail
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make arrangements for each Government Department and ministerial office to receive mail from hon. Members taking up matters on behalf of their constituents through E-mail.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no present plans to do so, but the Government are keeping the matter under review.

  Public Relations and Advertising
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of the current level of Government expenditure, and for each of the previous five years, on public relations and advertising, covering all Departments of state; and if he will also show the sums spent through external agencies, both in public relations and advertising.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally for all Government Departments.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the President of Cyprus; and what issues were discussed.

  The Prime Minister
  I last met President Clerides during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus in October 1993. We discussed United Nations efforts to resolve the Cyprus problem.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with other members of the United Nations Security Council about the statement by Edwin Bollier and Ulrich Lumpert, Swiss manufacturers of timing devices, about the circumstances of the Pan Am 103 disaster over Lockerbie and the policy of sanctions against Libya.

  The Prime Minister
  The exchange of information with the authorities of other Governments involved in the Lockerbie investigation is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. He has made it clear that he cannot comment on the details of the available evidence while criminal proceedings are pending.

  We have regular discussions with the other members of the Security Council about Libya. They are clearly of the view that Libya has not complied with Security Council resolutions 731, 748 and 883.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

  Malaysia
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister for how long his predecessor visited Malaysia on 6 August 1988; who she met during her visit and by whom she was accompanied 402
  during her meetings; what subjects were discussed during the meetings; and on what date it was decided that she should visit Malaysia on 6 August 1988.

  The Prime Minister
  My predecessor decided in June 1988 to visit Malaysia in August on her return from Australia. During a two hour stop-over in Kuala Lumpur on 6 August, she met the Malaysian Prime Minister, who was accompanied by his Foreign Minister, the Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry and two other officials. The British high commissioner and the Prime Minister's foreign affairs private secretary were also present. A wide range of subjects was discussed, including aid, air services, Cambodia, defence sales, and arrangements for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malaysia in 1989.

SCOTLAND

  Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by Her Majesty's prison and remand home/centre for the latest date he has figures available, the number of inmates whose place of residence is South Yorkshire; and what were the figures(a) 12 months and (b) 24 months ago.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its 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. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of inmates in Scottish penal establishments whose place of residence is South Yorkshire for the latest date available and the figures for 12 months and 24 months ago.
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.

  Hospital Contracts
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) for which hospital contracts in Scotland Scottish Office advice has been given that they lie outside the scope of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations; and for which contracts advice has been given that they fall within the scope of TUPE;

  (2) what advice was given by the national health service management executive about the applicability of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to contracts for domestic and portering services at Glasgow Royal infirmary, the Royal maternity hospital and Yorkhill hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 16 May,Official Report, column 365.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many parliamentary questions, in the period November 1992 to March 1993, were answered with the response that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate
  403
  cost; how many were referred on to an agency chief executive; and, in each case, what percentage of the total number of questions asked this constituted.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Percentage

  Total number of Parliamentary Questions answered in the period November 1992 to March 1993.

  11,321

  —

  Number (and percentage of Parliamentary Questions which received responses that information requested is not held centrally and/or could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  143

  3.26

  Number (and percentage of Parliamentary Questions referred to Agency Chief Executives for reply.

  10

  0.76

  1 Source Polis

  Average number of days lost per officer for reasons of sickness

  Figures for Male/Female not available before 1991

  1993

  1992

  1991

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  1986

  1985

  1984

  Central

  Male

  9

  9

  12

  11

  11

  7

  10

  13

  11

  10

  Female

  13

  12

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Male

  10

  10

  13

  11

  11

  11

  11

  9

  9

  9

  Female

  11

  5

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  Male

  8

  9

  11

  11

  12

  8

  11

  10

  12

  11

  Female

  12

  11

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  Male

  5

  6

  112

  10

  9

  7

  8

  8

  10

  8

  Female

  9

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian and Borders

  Male

  10

  11

  18

  12

  13

  10

  11

  9

  13

  10

  Female

  13

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northern

  Male

  9

  9

  14

  12

  10

  11

  8

  8

  11

  11

  Female

  8

  12

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  Male

  15

  15

  116

  19

  14

  11

  14

  15

  14

  15

  Female

  17

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  Male

  12

  10

  4

  8

  8

  7

  9

  11

  9

  10

  Female

  11

  10

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1Figures for Male/Female not available

  College Boards
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members of all further education college boards in Scotland and their relevant qualifications for this position.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have placed in the Library of the House the information held by my Department on the membership of boards of management of further education colleges in Scotland. Members of the boards of incorporated colleges are appointed in accordance with criteria set out in schedule 2 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992. Schedule 6 of the Act provided that, with the exception of the staff and student representatives, the initial appointments o the boards were made by the Secretary of State. Subsequent appointments are for the boards themselves.

  Police Sick Leave
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by sex, and by year for the last 10 years, the average number of police officer days lost for reasons of sickness in each police authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines the Government give to hospital trusts about openness and accountability.

  Mr. Stewart
  My noble and learned friend the Minister of State last month issued codes of conduct and accountability covering issues such as openness and accountability to all members of health boards and NHS trusts. Each board has been asked to adopt these codes at its next formal meeting. For new members, acceptance of the codes will be a condition of appointment. Arrangements have been made for copies of the codes to be available in the Library of the House.

  Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the advantages for the Scottish ambulance service of becoming a trust and the disadvantages of remaining as it is at present.
  405
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: In signifying an interest in trust status the Scottish ambulance service has indicated that this will allow it to make much faster progress towards the achievement of its four main objectives which are:

  (a) improving the quality of service to its patients;

  (b) improving relationships with health boards and NHS trusts as purchasers of ambulance services;

  (c) improving the motivation and ability of its staff to deliver better services;

  (d) achieving better value for money.

  These advantages will be explained in more detail in the Scottish ambulance service trust application which is to be issued for public consultation on 18 May and a copy will be sent to the hon. Member.

  Prison Visiting Committees
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes are proposed to the composition of prison visiting committees; which individuals and organisations were consulted before such changes were proposed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 May 1994]: Under The Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952, as amended, appointments to prison visiting committees are made by every local authority in whose area prisoners might have their homes. As a result some committees are extremely large—the Barlinnie visiting committee for example has 35 members —and members have to travel long distances. As currently drafted, under the new Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules only those local authorities within which the prisons lie would appoint members to visiting committees. The position would then be as set out in table 1.

  In the new draft rules it is also proposed that half the membership of visiting committees should come from outwith the elected membership of the appointing authorities. It would therefore be open to the latter to appoint whoever they considered appropriate. These proposals were the subject of consultation last September, when views were sought from the organisations and individuals listed in table 2.

  No firm view has yet been taken on the final shape of the new rules. We are considering carefully the representations made during the formal consultation process. Thereafter the new rules will be laid before this House.

  Name of prison and Names of appointing authorities

  Numbers of members to be appointed

  Aberdeen

  Grampian Regional Council

  3

  City of Aberdeen District Council

  5

  8

  Barlinnie, Glasgow

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  10

  City of Glasgow District Council

  15

  25

  Cornton Vale, Stirling

  Central Regional Council

  4

  Stirling District Council

  5

  9

  406

  Name of prison and Names of appointing authorities

  Numbers of members to be appointed

  Dumfries

  Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council

  3

  Nithsdale District Council

  5

  8

  Dungavel

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  3

  East Kilbride District Council

  5

  8

  Edinburgh

  Lothian Regional Council

  5

  City of Edinburgh District Council

  12

  17

  Friarton

  Tayside Regional Council

  3

  Perth and Kinross District Council

  5

  8

  Glenochil

  Central Regional Council

  4

  Clackmannan District Council

  10

  14

  Greenock

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  3

  Inverclyde District Council

  5

  8

  Inverness

  Highland Regional Council

  3

  Inverness District Council

  5

  8

  Longriggend

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  5

  Monklands District Council

  3

  8

  Low Moss

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  4

  Strathkelvin District Council

  6

  10

  Noranside

  Tayside Regional Council

  3

  Angus District Council

  5

  8

  Penninghame

  Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council

  3

  Wigtown District Council

  5

  8

  Perth

  Tayside Regional Council

  3

  Perth and Kinross District Council

  5

  8

  Peterhead

  Grampian Regional Council

  3

  Banff and Buchan District Council

  5

  8

  407

  Name of prison and Names of appointing authorities

  Numbers of members to be appointed

  Shotts

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  5

  Motherwell District Council

  12

  17

  List of Consultees

  Advisory Committee on Prisoners' Management

  Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland

  Association of Directors of Social Work

  The Association of Visiting Committees for Scottish Penal Establishments

  Church and Nation Committee, Church of Scotland

  Citizens Advice, Scotland

  Consultative Committee on Clinical Psychology in Penal Establishments in Scotland

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Crown Agents

  Faculty of Advocates

  The Gateway Exchange

  The Institute of Professionals, Manager and Specialists

  HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

  Home Office

  The Howard League for Penal Reform

  The Howard League (Scotland)

  The Joint Prison Chaplaincies Board

  The Law Society for Scotland

  Local Review Committees

  National Union of Civil and Public Servants: Governors' Committee Northern Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

  Parole Board for Scotland

  The Principal Clerk of Sessions and Justiciary

  Prison Reform Trust

  Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  Scottish Association for the Study of Delinquency

  Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals

  Scottish Council for Civil Liberties

  Scottish Legal Action Group

  Scottish Parliamentary All Party Penal Affairs Group

  Scottish Prison Officers' Association

  Scottish Prison Service Trade Union Side

  The Scottish Prison Social Workers

  Sheriffs Association

  Sheriffs Principal

  University of Dundee Department of Law

  University of Edinburgh Department of Criminology

  University of Edinburgh Department of Social Policy

  Visiting Committee Chairmen

  Women's National Commission

  Manpower Services Commission
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department has taken to constitute a voluntary early retirement scheme applicable to former Manpower Services Commission staff seconded to the local enterprise companies or previously seconded; and what undertakings have been sought in relation to applicants from among such secondees that they were taking early retirement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: On the establishment of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise former Department of Employment staff in Scotland were seconded to those bodies—rather than to the local enterprise companies—and were entitled to
  408
  exercise a right to take up an offer of employment from the body in question until the termination of their secondment on 31 March 1994.

  Former Department of Employment staff who accepted an offer of employment from Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise became subject to the terms and conditions of service of these bodies, which are subject to approval by my right hon. Friend. A number of former Department of Employment secondees subse-quently accepted voluntary severance or early retirement under those terms and conditions as part of a general programme of staff reduction within Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Detailed arrange-ments relating to voluntary severance and early retirement are an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise but the terms of these arrangements did not include any conditions applicable solely to former Department of Employment secondees.

  Department of Employment secondees remained eligible, until they took up an offer of employment, for any applicable early retirement schemes offered by that Department; the detailed arrangements are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Fishing
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the practice of his officials to prohibit the use of nets between 70 and 90mm in the United Kingdom nephrops fishery where the square mesh panel is fitted forward of any flapper as an alternative to placing it three flapper lengths to the rear of the flapper.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: Article 4(1) and (2) of the Sea Fish (Specified Sea Areas) (Regulation of Nets and Other Fishing Gear)(Variation) Order 1991, as amended, sets out the requirements for the use of square mesh panels in nets of between 70–90mm mesh size used for nephrops fishing in ICES area IV (north Sea).

  Guidance to Fishery Officers was issued in December 1993 to confirm that square mesh panels should be sited either in the cod-end or in any extension piece, or immediately in front of any cod-end or any extension piece, as required by article 4(1)(c). Article 4(1)(f) sets out additional requirements in relation to any flappers that may be used, and allows the panel to be placed forward of any flapper.

  Office Space, Edinburgh
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made as to the availability of quality, modern, open-plan office space in the Edinburgh area; and what plans he has to address any shortfall.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: My right hon. Friend has made no such assessment. Data may be available, of course, from private sector interests and publications and other sources. Local enterprise companies generally have a responsibility to work with the market to ensure that business development is not constrained by a lack of suitable accommodation. I understand that Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise Limited conducted a major audit of the Lothian property market last winter.
  409
  The hon. Member may therefore wish to approach the chairman of Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise Limited to seek further information about the audit and about its present activities in this area.

  Strathclyde Regional Council
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the value of central(a) administrative, (b) financial, (c) legal, (d) personnel and (e) information technology services provided to each of the (i) police, (ii) fire, (iii) water and (iv) sewerage departments by Strathclyde regional council in the latest available financial year.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: The information requested is not held centrally.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the unweighted average of official development assistance of(a) EC countries and (b) Development Assistance Committee countries, as a proportion of gross national product in (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993; how much the United Kingdom spent by the same measure; and by how much the United Kingdom would have needed to increase its assistance in cash terms in those years to have reached (1) EC and (2) DAC average expenditure.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Figures for official development assistance are not yet available for 1993. In 1992, the unweighted average official development assistance as a proportion of gross national product for EC countries and DAC countries was 0.45 per cent. and 0.48 per cent. respectively—the weighted averages are 0.44 per cent. and 0.33 per cent. respectively.

  The United Kingdom official development assistance as a proportion of gross national product in 1992 was 0.31 per cent. In cash terms, the United Kingdom would have needed to increase its assistance by £844 million and £1,012 million to have reached the unweighted average expenditure levels for EC countries and DAC countries respectively.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of British aid was spent on(a) primary health care, (b) nutrition, (c) basic education, (d) family planning and (e) safe water and sanitation in (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993; and how much in cash terms would need to have been spent in each year in order to increase the amount spent on those basic needs to 20 per cent. of official development assistance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Figures for official development assistance are not yet available for 1993. In 1992, the specified sectors as a proportion of the United Kingdom's bilateral official development assistance that can be allocated to a sector was:

  Per cent.

  Primary health care

  4.7

  Nutrition

  0.06

  Education

  20.4

  Family planning

  0.4

  410

  Per cent.

  Safe water/sanitation

  2.9

  Total

  28.0

  Our bilateral aid programme also includes a large amount of assistance which cannot be allocated by sector, such as debt relief, economic reform programmes and humanitarian assistance, but which also helps the poorest.

  Least Developed Countries (Aid)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much British aid was spent in the least developed countries in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993; how much this was as a proportion of gross national product; and by how much British official development assistance to the least developed countries would have needed to increase in cash terms in those years in order to meet the level recommended by the 1990 United Nations programme of action for the least developed countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Figures for official development assistance for 1993 are not yet available. In 1992, the United Kingdom gave £610.7 million to the least developed countries. This amounted to 0.10 per cent. of gross national product. To meet the 1990 United Nations programme of action for the least developed countries target, an increase of £278 million would have been needed. It should be noted however that the United Nations' category of least developed countries excludes states such as India and Pakistan, which are as poor as many least developed countries and are major recipients of United Kingdom aid.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of its official development assistance the United Kingdom spent in sub-Saharan Africa in 1992 and 1993; and what was the change in percentage terms between those years, giving the figures for(a) bilateral aid, (b) multilateral aid and (c) in total.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Figures for official development assistance are not yet available for 1993. In 1992, the United Kingdom gave 55.5 per cent. of its total official development assistance to sub-Saharan Africa. This represented a 4.8 per cent. increase over the 1991 figure, with bilateral assistance decreasing by 6 per cent. and multilateral assistance increasing by 13 per cent.

  Human Needs
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the recommendations of the United Nations Development Programme on the proportion of developing countries' budgets which should be devoted directly to meeting the priority human needs of their people and the proportion of which international aid for development should directly support those needs.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We recognise the importance of addressing priority human needs, but do not consider it
  411
  appropriate to prescribe proportional targets for expenditure on a global basis. The imposition of such targets on to the budgets of developing countries can restrict their capacity to prioritise expenditure to cope with their particular circumstances.

  The proportion of the British aid budget allocable by sector to priority human needs is already significant. In the financial year 1992–93, about 31 per cent.—£180 million —of allocable bilateral aid went to the health, education, and water sectors.

  Grameen Bank, Bangladesh
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will encourage third-world Governments and institutions in the establishment of banks similar to the Grameen bank in Bangladesh;

  (2) if he will consider giving financial assistance to the Grameen bank in Bangladesh; and what assessment he has made of the work of the Grameen bank.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration endorses the objectives of the Grameen bank in its work with the poor in Bangladesh. We have not been asked for financial support. If requested, help to establish similar credit institutions in other countries would be candidates for consideration from our bilateral aid programme on a case-by-case basis.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made for the proportion of overseas aid which actually goes to the poor of the countries that it is intended to help.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1992–93, 80 per cent. of the British bilateral aid allocatable by income group went to the poorest countries in the world. All of our aid effort is intended, either directly or indirectly, to help poor people in the recipient countries.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representa-tions he has received on the extent to which aid is spent by Governments on projects and bureaucracy rather than on people in need.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The overall purpose of the aid programme is to promote sustainable economic and social development in other countries and the welfare of their people. The Government finance a range of projects and programmes in support of this. Some are carried out through non-governmental organisations and the private sector. Many are carried out through Governments. In all cases, we assess the likely effectiveness of the institutions concerned in advance of the project and monitor this during the project's execution.

EDUCATION

  School Tests
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the respective duties and responsibilities of(a) teachers, (b) heads,
  412
  (c) governors and (d) local education authorities to ensure testing of the national curriculum at key stage 3 in the current year; and what are the penalties in each case for failure to comply.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is the duty of local education authorities and governing bodies to exercise their functions with a view to securing, and the duty of the head teacher to secure, the implementation of all aspects of the national curriculum including the key stage 3 tests. Under their contracts of employment, classroom teachers are required to carry out duties under the direction of the head teacher. Head teachers are also under a contractual duty to carry out their statutory obligations.

  If a teacher or head teacher is in breach of contract of employment it falls to his or her employer to consider what action to take. The employer would decide what, if any, disciplinary action is called for, except in an LEA-maintained school with a delegated budget, where it would be the responsibility of the governing body. If an LEA or governing body acts unreasonably or fails to carry out one of its duties then the Secretary of State has the power to issue a direction to that governing body or LEA.

  Teacher Training Agency
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what arrangements he has made for setting up the new teacher training agency.

  Mr. Patten
  The Government intend, subject to the passage of the Education Bill currently before Parliament, to establish a new funding agency in England to administer all central funds for initial teacher training. Parliamentary approval for expenditure associated with this new service in 1994–95 will be sought in a revised estimate for the higher and further education vote (class X, vote 2). Pending that approval, urgent and essential preparatory expenditure estimated at £74,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will announce the post graduate bursary and studentship rates payable by his Department for the academic year 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  The main maintenance rates under the Department's own postgraduate awards scheme for certain professional and vocational courses in the academic year 1994–95 will be as follows, with 1993–94 rates shown in brackets:

  1994–95 £

  1993–94 £

  Bursaries

  London

  3,295

  (3,170)

  Elsewhere

  2,600

  (2,500)

  Parental home

  1,965

  (1,890)

  Studentships

  London

  5,555

  (5,340)

  Elsewhere

  4,415

  (4,245)

  Parental home

  3,255

  (3,130)

  These represent increases of 4 per cent. on the current year's rates. The relevant supplementary allowances will be increased broadly in line.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  English Heritage
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations have been received from the London boroughs by(a) English Heritage and (b) his Department in respect of English Heritage's proposal to transfer responsibility for negotiation with owners and developers of listed buildings to them.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department has no record of direct representations on this issue since I agreed last year to English Heritage's negotiating directly with individual boroughs, with a view to devolving to them the responsibility for determining applications for listed building consent for minor alterations and extensions to grade II listed buildings under "flexible authorisation". I refer to the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir John Wheeler) on 23 April 1993 at columns 228–29.

  Since then, English Heritage has signed agreements with three of the boroughs where such applications are most frequent—Bexley, Kensington and Chelsea, and Wandsworth. Agreements with the City of London, the City of Westminster and Kingston-upon-Thames are imminent. Discussions are in progress with a number of other boroughs and it is expected that further agreements will be signed over the next year. In addition to devolution of this casework the agreements provide, where appropriate, a measure of financial support for conserva tion staff posts and training. All the remaining boroughs have indicated a willingness to discuss with English Heritage the handling of conservation work and the support that English Heritage could give them.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the ratio of professional and technical staff to managers and administrators at English Heritage in(a) 1983, (b) 1990 and (c) the latest available date.

  Mr. Brooke
  English Heritage was established in 1984. The ratios of professional and technical staff to managers and administrators are as follows:

  Professional/Technical

  Managers/Administration

  1984

  45

  55

  1990

  48

  52

  1994

  47

  53

  These ratios exclude custodial and industrial staff.

  Millennium Commission
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 5 May,Official Report, column 608, if he will give a breakdown of the estimated £670,000 administration costs of the Millennium Commission which remains after subtracting the elements for salary and staff costs, and for publicity.

  Mr. Brooke
  The estimated £670,000 administration costs of the Millennium Commission which is expected to remain after subtracting the elements for salary and staff costs and for publicity, is expected to break down as follows:414

  £

  Contracted-out services

  159,000

  Consultants, including project appraisal

  240,000

  Accommodation and fitting out costs

  244,000

  Utilities

  14,000

  Office services

  13,000

  Radio Reception, Llanbrynmair
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to improve FM radio reception in Llanbrynmair; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is for the broadcasters to determine the engineering priorities aimed at extending or improving reception of programmes to specific areas.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if the results of the survey on child care in the Parliamentary Estate will be made public.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Committee has now reported its conclusions in respect of the provision of child care to the House of Commons Commission. That part of the Committee's proceedings which contain the principal deliberations on this issue have now been published in HC 374–i to ix. The Committee has decided not to publish the results of the survey.

HEALTH

  Children (Accidents and Deaths)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many notifications of(a) child deaths and (b) incidents of serious harm to children have been received by the Department of Health under the terms of part 8 of "Working Together" each year since the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department does not hold central information in the form requested. The table shows the number of child deaths reported to the Department since 1 April 1991.

  Year ending 31 March

  1Number reported

  1992

  2115

  1993

  116

  1994

  112

  1 Not all deaths are due to abuse and subject to Review under part 8 of Working Together. Figures cover all deaths of children looked after by a local authority or accommodated at a childrens home (eg: this would include children whose deaths were due to natural causes).

  2 Figure includes 58 deaths recorded in the period up to 13 October 1991 prior to the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 541, regarding trusts which fail to meet their capital return

  415
  targets, what action her Department has at its disposal when trusts so fail; and how often action has been taken to date.

  Mr. Sackville
  The regional offices of the national health service executive monitor the financial performance of trusts on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Where a trust fails to meet one or more of its financial duties by a material amount it will be required to produce a recovery plan which will then be monitored closely by the regional office. Any trust which exceeds its authorised external financing limit has its limit for the following year reduced by the amount of the excess.

  In some circumstances failure to meet financial duties on a recurrent basis may indicate a trust is no longer financially viable. In those circumstances the NHS executive will investigate whether the trust should be merged with another, or exceptionally dissolved, if there is no longer any demand for its services.

  Appropriate action as above has been taken in each case of material failure to meet a financial duty.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 541, how many trusts that (a) failed to meet and (b) succeeded in meeting their financial targets (i) borrowed finance and (ii) had loans guaranteed by her Department; and what sums of money were involved.

  Mr. Sackville
  All the borrowing detailed as follows was within agreed limits whether or not the trust met its financial duties. Trusts negotiate overdraft facilities with their bankers and the Department issues guarantees in support of these arrangements. Information is not available centrally about the extent to which these facilities were taken up during the year. Information for 1993–94 will not be available until the annual accounts of trusts are audited.

  1991–92 (57 trusts established)
  Six of the trusts which failed to achieve one or more of their financial targets in 1991–92 received loans from the Department. The amount involved was £17,336,000 of which £3,100,000 was short-term borrowing repaid in year.
  Thirteen of the trusts meeting their financial targets in 1991–92 received loans from the Department. The amount involved was £80,567,000 of which £30,150,000 was short-term borrowing repaid in year.
  Seven of the trusts which failed to meet one or more of their financial targets in 1991–92 were issued with overdraft guarantees by the Department. The amount involved was £3,125,000.
  Seven of the trusts meeting their financial duties in 1991–92 were issued with overdraft guarantees by the Department. The amount involved was £2,550,000.

  1992–93 (156 trusts established)
  Thirty-eight trusts which failed to meet one or more of their financial targets in 1992–93 received loans from the Department. The amount involved was £257,875,972 of which £66,663,731 was short-term borrowing repaid in year.
  Thirty-three trusts which met their financial targets in 1992–93 took loans from the Department. The amount involved was £186,310,425 of which £64,751,000 was short-term borrowing repaid in year.
  Twenty-one trusts which failed to meet one or more of their financial targets in 1992–93 were issued with overdraft guarantees by the Department. The amount involved was £7,135,000.
  Twenty-four trusts which met their financial targets in 1992–93 were issued with overdraft guarantees by the Department. The amount involved was £11,425,000.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those English NHS trusts which in 1992–93 failed to achieve a 6 per cent. return on capital in(a) percentage terms and (b) cash terms.
  416
  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply 15 March 1994 columns 560–61]: I regret that there were errors in my previous reply.

  The amounts of return on capital employed for Broadgreen hospital and St. Helen's and Knowsley national health service trusts should read—£2,145,000 and £4,268,000 respectively. The percentages were however correct.

  Staff Contracts
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is now the number of personnel working within the national health service who are(a) on short-term contracts and (b) on temporary contracts; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available centrally.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department has, or intends to develop, a preventive strategy which concentrates on eliminating the range of factors and circumstances which can give rise to abuse or neglect of children; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government attach a high priority to this problem and seeks to tackle it through guidance, measures designed to promote training in this field and through the Children Act 1989.

  In October 1991, to coincide with the implementation of the Children Act, the Home Department, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and the Welsh Office published a revised edition of "Working Together under the Children Act 1989—a guide to arrangements for inter-agency co-operation for the protection of children from abuse". The guide incorporates lessons learned in individual cases which have caused public and professional concern in recent years. Copies of the guide are available in the Library.

  Local authorities have a duty to provide services to prevent children in their area suffering ill treatment or neglect, which forms part of a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to regulate private cosmetic surgery clinics.

  Mr. Sackville
  Private cosmetic surgery clinics are covered by the Registered Homes Act 1984. There are no plans to extend regulation.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is required by those who wish to practise as cosmetic surgeons.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no separate speciality of comsetic surgery. Surgeons in plastic surgery in the national health service are required to undergo basic and higher specialist training in posts, and to standards, approved by the Joint Committee on Higher Surgical Training of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons. The required training for those who wish to practise plastic surgery in the independent sector is a matter for the employer and the health insurers.

  Christopher Clunis
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the performance management system for the mental health services works; and to what extent the deficiencies in the care and treatment of Christopher Clunis, described in the Ritchie report, have been remedied.

  Mr. Bowis
  The ten-point plan, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last August, outlined a programme of work to improve the care of mentally ill people in the community. The plan includes the introduction of supervision registers, the issuing of new guidance on discharge and new legislation to introduce a supervised discharge for a small number of patients.

  The National Health Service Executive is taking action to strengthen its monitoring of community care for severely mentally ill people in line with one of the key recommendations of the Ritchie report. The aim is to ensure that health authorities systematically deliver the care programme approach and other policy commitments in their contracts with service providers and that they work effectively with local authorities and other agencies. A local audit tool for the care programme approach is being produced to provide a clear basis against which health authorities can review local arrangements with their providers and other agencies involved and identify areas for improvement. The NHS executive will follow this up with a national sample audit to ensure that the arrangements are working satisfactorily.

  The mental health task force is working with health authorities and other agencies in London to review the arrangements for the management of severely mentally ill people in the community and is helping authorities to develop action plans to address problems which are identified.

  Dental Services and Sight Tests (NHS Staff)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will publish a list of those regional health authorities, district health authorities, family health services authorities, or other NHS bodies, which operate schemes for reimbursing charges incurred by their employees for NHS dental examinations or sight tests;

  (2) what guidance has been issued by her Department or the NHS executive to NHS authorities regarding the operation of schemes for reimbursing charges incurred by their employees for NHS dental examinations or sight tests; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on national health service bodies who offer such reimbursement schemes is not available centrally. No guidance has been issued to national health service employers about these schemes.

  The decision on whether to introduce a scheme is a matter for each national health service employer.

  Counselling
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 84, what studies she has instituted to ascertain the cost and benefits to the NHS of introducing payments for counselling.
  418
  Mr. Bowis
  Research evidence on the cost effectiveness of counselling and psychotherapy services is being examined as part of a current departmental review of strategic policy on psychotherapy services.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what way the National Health Service Executive takes account of the views of the carers of those for whom mental health services are provided.

  Mr. Bowis
  The National Health Service Executive is committed to involving both users and carers. It is involved in the NHS executive's mental health task force London project. The mental health task force has also commissioned the National Schizophrenia Fellowship to undertake a survey on the experiences and needs of people caring for someone with mental illness.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide further information about the tool kit of measures relating to performance management of mental health services reported in evidence to the House of Commons Health Committee in December 1993, by the director of the mental health task force.

  Mr. Bowis
  The mental health task force has initiated an annual survey, now in its second year, of progress on reprovision of old-style long-stay services. This information is now being combined with other information on the full range of mental health services provided by health and social services to enable comparisons to be made at health authority level across England. This analysis will be available to support performance management in the national health service executive regional offices and in purchasing authorities.

  Guidance to purchasers on specifying a service for severely mentally ill people is also in preparation. A range of other materials highlighting best practice have been or are about to be published, including a series of videos on innovative service provision and publications on releasing fixed costs and on approaches to reproviding services across three regions.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will now establish a permanent inter departmental advisory group on mental health; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are considering the Health Select Committee's recommendation on this and will respond to the Committee shortly.

  Health Services, Sunderland
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of patients out of the total annual patient population were discharged from each of the Sunderland hospitals in each year since 1990 to(a) residential homes and (b) residential nursing homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for the Sunderland district health authority, to whom I refer the hon. Member.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each year since 1987, how much the NHS has paid to district valuation officers for valuation work on NHS land and property assets which are earmarked for disposal.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities contract individually with the district valuation office for required services. The total of amounts paid are not available centrally.

  The valuation office has recently centralised its own records enabling it to set out the total paid by the national health service for services—in England—and has provided the following figures. They include for all services, not just for work in respect of disposals. Information for prior years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  £

  1991–92

  1,131,432

  1992–93

  831,625

  1993–94

  1,696,692

  Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals or community health centres have established units for the treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder.

  Mr. Bowis
  Treatment of those suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder is provided within general mental health services which are available in every district.

  Hearing Apparatus (Charges)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce charges for people with hearing difficulties in respect of hearing apparatus, aids, repairs and batteries; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Diethylstilbestrol
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the firms which are or have been involved in the manufacture of diethylstilbestrol for distribution in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  Firms that currently hold marketing authorisations for the drug diethylstilbestrol are Approved Prescription Services, A. Nelson and Co. Ltd. and Norgine Ltd.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the percentage uptake of regular diethylstilbestrol examinations by those women whose mothers received it during pregnancy in each local health authority in England and Wales;

  (2) what guidelines her Department has issued regarding the frequency of diethylstilbestrol examinations for women whose mothers were prescribed it during pregnancy.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has issued no guidelines on regular diothylstilbestrol examinations for women whose mothers were prescribed it during pregnancy.
  420
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under which names diethylstilbestrol is or has been marketed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  Diethylstilbestrol has been marketed under the following brand names: Stilboestrol, Stilboestrol BP, Tampovagan Stilboestrol and Lactic Acid Pessary, Menopax, Sedestran, Merven and Pabestrol.

  Hormonal Transplacental Carcinogenesis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has undertaken or commissioned on hormonal transplacental carcinogenesis in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Nutritional Therapy
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received concerning the inclusion of nutritional therapy in the national health service; what was the nature of these representations; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Representations have been received from an organisation called the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy.

  The availability of nutritional therapy within the national health service will depend—as with orthodox medicine—on the clinical judgment of the responsible clinician in respect of individual patients and on decisions taken locally by district health authorities, general practitioner fundholders and family health services authorities on how they should best use their funds to meet the health needs of the local population.

  Transgenic Pigs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her Department's position on the use of transgenic pigs for human transplant operations.

  Mr. Sackville
  The modification of animal organs for transplantation into human beings has not yet been developed. Procedures of this kind would not be practised in the United Kingdom without the approval of the medical profession and with consideration of the ethical issues involved. Any clinical or medical research involving national health service patients would have to be referred to the appropriate local research ethics committee.

  Disablement Grants
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of the operation of the provisions of the Children Act 1989 limiting disablement facilities grants to people aged 18 years or over; what is the reason for these provisions; and what representations she has received for(a) Coventry and (b) elsewhere on the subject;

  (2) what assessment she has made of trends in the number of people in Coventry who are eligible to receive disablement grants; and how many people in Coventry are excluded for eligibility for the grant by the changes made in the Children Act 1989.
  421
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 May at columns 323–24. The number of people in Coventry eligible for disablement facilities grants is not available centrally.

  Tobacco-related Deaths
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the total number of tobacco-related deaths in each year since 1983–84.

  Mr. Sackville
  The only statistics available are for 1988, published in the Health Education Authority's report "The Smoking Epidemic", copies of which are available in the Library. It was then estimated that smoking-related diseases account for some 110,000 deaths a year in the United Kingdom.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service sight tests paid for by the family health service authorities took place in 1993–94 in each regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The figures for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, by region, the allocation for general practitioner fundholding for prescribing in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92, (c) 1992–93 and (d) 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fundholding commenced in April 1991; prescribing allocations for the years since then are shown in the table. Fundholding practices may vire between the prescribing elements of their budgets and those for staff costs and hospital and community health services.

  Fundholding prescribing allocations

  Cash

  Region

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern

  15,934,291

  26,141,569

  47,885,444

  Yorkshire

  20,493,035

  40,091,223

  72,853,258

  Trent

  14,728,729

  33,489,726

  84,915,707

  East Anglia

  5,378,891

  9,201,810

  31,167,885

  North West Thames

  9,791,918

  21,828,519

  47,730,650

  North East Thames

  5,449,000

  10,991,000

  24,835,826

  South East Thames

  7,353,300

  15,792,100

  47,178,307

  South West Thames

  8,764,415

  20,177,992

  38,200,663

  Wessex

  8,732,605

  21,727,541

  37,730,212

  Oxford

  13,020,177

  26,606,056

  43,867,848

  South western

  9,912,110

  22,241,703

  40,893,887

  West Midlands

  14,183,746

  34,587,254

  79,716,686

  Mersey

  11,626,278

  26,484,731

  53,510,834

  North western

  9,476,185

  19,293,355

  43,645,118

  TOTAL

  154,844,679

  328,654,579

  694,132,325

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of general practitioner non-fundholding practices in each region; what percentage of regional total of general practitioner practices this represents; and what percentage of the regional population they serve.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The table gives the requested information as at 1 October 1993 when 75 per cent. of the 422
  population was served by non-fundholding general practitioners. On 1 April 1994 this was reduced to 65 per cent. as a further 805 practices joined the fundholding scheme.

  Region

  Number of non-fundholding practices1

  Percentage of all practices1

  Percentage of population served1

  Northern

  451

  86

  76

  Yorkshire

  553

  82

  67

  Trent

  693

  81

  69

  East Anglia

  248

  83

  75

  North West Thames

  723

  88

  73

  North East Thames

  853

  94

  86

  South East Thames

  688

  89

  79

  South West Thames

  449

  87

  76

  Wessex

  385

  87

  78

  Oxford

  306

  80

  66

  South Western

  496

  87

  80

  West Midlands

  925

  87

  74

  Mersey

  341

  77

  65

  North western

  796

  91

  83

  1 The figures are based on numbers of practices at 1 October 1993.

  Waiting List Initiative
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring she has undertaken regarding schemes financed by the additional funds for the waiting list initiative announced on 17 February; and if she will place the data obtained in the Library.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 19 April 1994]: When the additional funding was allocated regional health authorities were asked to record the resulting activity. Initial returns show that at least 38,000 patients have benefited from earlier treatment as a result of the Government's initiative.

  Health Visitors and Nurses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) health visitors, (b) district nurses, (c) community psychiatric nurses and (d) school nurses were employed in the NHS for each of the last five years, broken down by regional health authority and expressed as whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: The information available will be placed in the Library. The information shows an overall increase of 3.7 per cent. between 1988 to 1992. The number of practice nurses has increased by 162.1 per cent. from 3,480 in 1988 to 9,120 in 1992. This gives an overall increase of 22.7 per cent. for community nursing staff.

WALES Dyslexia

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his current policies to assist(a) adults and (b) children of school age who suffer dyslexia; and what new measures he plans.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Further Education Funding Council for Wales has responsibility for ensuring that adequate arrangements are in place to meet the needs of adult students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities.
  423
  Since 1 April 1993 the funding council may fund courses which teach independent living and communication skills to adults who have learning difficulties so as to prepare them for vocational or academic courses; courses which prepare them for entry to higher education courses; courses for basic literacy in English; or courses for proficiency or literacy in Welsh. The council supported over 2,100 students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities in 1993–94, including those with dyslexia.

  It is the responsibility of local education authonties and schools to make appropriate provision for children with special educational needs, including dyslexia. The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs, which has been approved by Parliament, and which comes into effect in September 1994, gives guidance to help LEAs and schools in those responsibilities. From that date also school governing bodies have the duty of preparing and publishing their policies for children with special educational needs, including those with dyslexia.

  Under the grants for education support and training programme for 1994–95, the Welsh Office has made grant available to LEAs specifically for training of teachers of children with dyslexia in addition to more general training in special educational needs. The 1995–96 programme is currently under consideration.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of the guide on the implementation of integrated pollution control, prepared

  In favour of including Llangollen in Wrexham

  Against

  No Clear indication of views

  Total

  Individuals (including MPs)

  11

  3

  —

  14

  Organisations

  3

  1

  1

  5

  14

  4

  1

  19

  The dates of those representations received in favour of the inclusion of Llangollen in the proposed Wrexham unitary authority are as follows:

  31 March 1993

  10 May 1993

  28 June 1993

  June 1993

  1 July 1993

  22 April 1994

  29 April 1994

  30 April 1994

  3 May 1994

  4 May 1994

  5 May 1994

  7 May 1994

  8 May 1994

  9 May 1994

  Buckley Link Road
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will grant extra funds to Clwyd county council to enable it to build the Buckley town link road.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. Under arrangements agreed with local authorities, road schemes costing less than £5 million are financed from unhypothecated resources.
  424
  with the Department of the Environment, have been distributed in Wales; to whom it has been made available; and at what cost.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The guide is a priced document at £5 a copy, available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, its accredited agents and through certain booksellers. Around 2,700 copies have been sold to date, but no separate record exists as to the number of purchasers in Wales or their identity.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many prescriptions are dispensed in any one year in Wales; and what is the number receiving exemptions from charges.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 10 May, c.103.

  Llangollen
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has had from individuals and organisations relating to the inclusion of Llangollen in a new unitary authority of Wrexham; how many were in favour of this development; and what dates they were received in his office.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have received 19 representations about the implications of local government reorganisation for the community of Llangollen. The details are as follows:

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that the valuation of homes blighted by the proposed Buckley-Clwyd link road is satisfactory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The scheme is the responsibility of Clwyd county council, which is obliged to pay the open market value of the homes required. Where the value is disputed home owners can refer the issue to the Lands Tribunal, an independent expert body appointed to deal with such disputes.

  Homes (Road Schemes)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines are used by those who value homes due to be demolished or which are blighted as a consequence of road schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office employs the district valuer to negotiate the appropriate level of compensation which includes the open market value of the property being acquired under blight or compulsory purchase. In establishing the market value the district

  Local authority dwelling stock1

  21988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  31994

  Percentage change 1988–89 to 1994–95

  Aberconwy

  2,936

  2,814

  2,577

  2,503

  2,461

  2,446

  2,414

  -17.8

  Alyn and Deeside

  5,317

  5,215

  4,981

  4,875

  4,861

  4,840

  4,797

  -9.8

  Arfon

  5,118

  5,033

  4,875

  4,820

  4,799

  4,764

  4,726

  -7.7

  Blaenau Gwent

  10,583

  10,425

  9,938

  9,757

  9,628

  9,536

  9,448

  -10.7

  Brecknock

  2,875

  2,791

  2,672

  2,609

  2,559

  2,532

  2,486

  -13.5

  Cardiff

  20,301

  19,773

  18,680

  18,345

  18,163

  18,013

  17,961

  -11.5

  Carmarthen

  3,600

  3,544

  3,441

  3,355

  3,274

  3,212

  3,133

  -13.0

  Ceredigion

  3,580

  3,521

  3,315

  3,207

  3,163

  3,075

  2,975

  -16.9

  Colwyn

  2,686

  2,623

  2,511

  2,459

  2,433

  2,401

  2,373

  -11.7

  Cynon Valley

  5,403

  5,355

  5,157

  4,916

  4,755

  4,697

  4,653

  -13.9

  Delyn

  4,807

  4,754

  4,603

  4,509

  4,454

  4,398

  —

  —

  Dinefwr

  2,654

  2,591

  2,481

  2,418

  2,383

  2,360

  2,350

  -11.5

  Dwyfor

  1,479

  1,469

  1,438

  1,402

  1,399

  1,389

  1,379

  -6.8

  Glyndwr

  3,057

  2,978

  2,793

  2,745

  2,726

  2,706

  2,682

  -12.3

  Islwyn

  6,296

  6,125

  5,879

  5,831

  5,732

  5,658

  5,548

  -11.9

  Llanelli

  7,107

  6,894

  6,677

  6,514

  6,490

  6,376

  6,286

  -11.6

  Lliw Valley

  5,268

  5,195

  4,948

  4,843

  4,764

  4,706

  4,647

  -11.8

  Meirionnyd

  2,091

  2,064

  1,967

  1,934

  1,900

  1,879

  1,849

  -11.6

  Merthyr Tydfil

  7,003

  6,860

  6,568

  6,446

  6,378

  6,312

  6,240

  -10.9

  Monmouth

  5,116

  4,996

  4,765

  4,730

  4,637

  4,569

  4,467

  -12.7

  Montgomeryshire

  3,072

  2,995

  2,884

  2,832

  2,614

  2,581

  —

  —

  Neath

  5,771

  5,618

  5,309

  5,270

  5,188

  5,126

  5,065

  -12.2

  Newport

  13,609

  13,449

  13,027

  12,889

  12,799

  12,720

  12,740

  -6.4

  Ogwr

  10,003

  9,744

  9,258

  9,041

  8,831

  8,736

  8,634

  -13.7

  Port Talbot

  6,318

  6,104

  5,649

  5,451

  5,285

  5,132

  5,033

  -20.3

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  5,873

  5,726

  5,366

  5,231

  5,162

  5,060

  4,970

  -15.4

  Radnorshire

  1,184

  1,161

  1,116

  1,123

  1,106

  1,110

  1,100

  -7.1

  Rhondda

  4,889

  4,833

  4,706

  4,539

  4,505

  4,366

  4,302

  -12.0

  Rhuddlan

  2,779

  2,706

  2,650

  2,610

  2,604

  2,597

  2,579

  -7.2

  Rhymney Valley

  10,310

  10,132

  9,770

  9,503

  9,350

  9,210

  9,090

  -11.8

  South Pembrokeshire

  2,934

  2,878

  2,747

  2,677

  2,633

  2,608

  2,587

  -11.8

  Swansea

  17,711

  17,325

  16,493

  16,166

  15,697

  15,433

  15,121

  -14.6

  Taff Ely

  7,769

  7,513

  6,965

  6,726

  6,580

  6,465

  5,964

  -23.2

  Torfaen

  13,691

  13,502

  12,893

  12,604

  12,432

  12,229

  11,979

  -12.5

  Vale of Glamorgan

  6,423

  6,212

  5,866

  5,776

  5,702

  5,649

  5,560

  -13.4

  Wrexham Maelor

  16,290

  16,078

  15,152

  14,866

  14,717

  14,549

  14,373

  -11.8

  Ynys Mon

  5,842

  5,717

  5,395

  5,264

  5,206

  5,167

  5,125

  -12.3

  Wales

  241,745

  236,713

  225,512

  220,786

  217,370

  214,607

  —

  —

  Source: Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Claim Forms.

  1 At 1 April.

  2 Average number of dwellings 1988–89.

  3 First Advance Claim Forms for 1994–95 not received from Delyn or Montgomeryshire.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes were provided by housing associations(a) for rent, (b) for sale and (c) in total in each year since 1989–90 for (i) each district council and (ii) Wales.

  Provision of social housing by housing associations1

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Aberconwy

  71

  84

  84

  75

  Alyn and Deeside

  26

  8

  77

  136

  Arfon

  50

  145

  56

  89

  426
  valuer will take into account comparable transactions in the locality and disregard any depreciating effect of the road proposals.

  Housing
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses there were in each district council area and in Wales as a whole in each year since 1988–89, indicating the percentage change in each case between 1988–89 and the latest available year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The numbers of local authority dwellings in each district council area in each year since 1989–90 are given in the following table.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The following tables show the number of homes provided by housing associations and the number of these homes which were intended for rent and for sale in each year since 1989–90.
  427

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Blaenau Gwent

  47

  89

  236

  184

  Brecknock

  74

  52

  78

  51

  Cardiff

  172

  643

  360

  960

  Carmarthen

  73

  14

  68

  83

  Ceredigion

  10

  33

  105

  105

  Colwyn

  52

  44

  17

  107

  Cynon Valley

  95

  65

  52

  128

  Delyn

  17

  56

  101

  129

  Dinefwr

  23

  28

  14

  90

  Dwyfor

  4

  24

  37

  52

  Glyndwr

  26

  61

  63

  80

  Islwyn

  88

  49

  188

  37

  Llanelli

  44

  39

  33

  127

  Lliw Valley

  25

  66

  158

  85

  Meirionnydd

  10

  38

  36

  32

  Merthyr Tydfil

  59

  103

  116

  75

  Monmouth

  6

  68

  19

  226

  Montgomeryshire

  26

  25

  62

  138

  Neath

  52

  80

  88

  87

  Newport

  236

  93

  95

  277

  Ogwr

  121

  248

  86

  259

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  31

  73

  95

  55

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  45

  18

  71

  117

  Radnorshire

  4

  4

  49

  62

  Rhondda

  168

  166

  144

  69

  Rhuddlan

  41

  37

  40

  104

  Rhymney Valley

  216

  54

  52

  186

  South Pembrokeshire

  11

  13

  15

  63

  Swansea

  267

  184

  292

  299

  Taff-Ely

  48

  105

  96

  168

  Torfaen

  67

  59

  146

  127

  Vale of Glamorgan

  76

  132

  49

  139

  Wrexham Maelor

  48

  39

  126

  234

  Ynys Mon

  13

  21

  144

  39

  WALES

  2,442

  3,060

  3,548

  5,274

  1 Includes newbuild, acquisitions and rehabilitation of self contained units and special needs and other shared housing bedspaces.

  Provision of social housing by housing association1

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  For rent

  For sale

  For rent

  For sale

  For rent

  For sale

  For rent2

  For sale

  Aberconwy

  71

  0

  77

  7

  60

  24

  53

  22

  Alyn and Deeside

  26

  0

  8

  0

  77

  0

  126

  10

  Arfon

  50

  0

  145

  0

  56

  0

  82

  7

  Blaenau Gwent

  47

  0

  89

  0

  236

  0

  184

  0

  Brecknock

  74

  0

  52

  0

  43

  35

  51

  0

  Cardiff

  172

  0

  643

  0

  330

  30

  890

  70

  Carmarthen

  73

  0

  14

  0

  62

  6

  75

  8

  Ceredigion

  10

  0

  33

  0

  85

  20

  105

  0

  Colwyn

  52

  0

  42

  2

  15

  2

  96

  11

  Cynon Valley

  95

  0

  65

  0

  52

  0

  128

  0

  Delyn

  17

  0

  39

  17

  97

  4

  88

  41

  Dinefwr

  23

  0

  28

  0

  14

  0

  86

  4

  Dwyfor

  4

  0

  24

  0

  37

  0

  47

  5

  Glyndwr

  26

  0

  51

  10

  58

  5

  70

  10

  Islwyn

  88

  0

  49

  0

  188

  0

  37

  0

  Llanelli

  44

  0

  39

  0

  33

  0

  127

  0

  Lliw Valley

  25

  0

  66

  0

  158

  0

  85

  0

  Meirionnydd

  10

  0

  38

  0

  36

  0

  30

  2

  Merthyr Tydfil

  59

  0

  103

  0

  116

  0

  75

  0

  Monmouth

  6

  0

  49

  19

  19

  0

  209

  17

  Montgomery

  26

  0

  25

  0

  56

  6

  138

  0

  Neath

  52

  0

  80

  0

  88

  0

  53

  34

  Newport

  236

  0

  66

  27

  78

  17

  277

  0

  Ogwr

  121

  0

  217

  31

  76

  10

  250

  9

  Port Talbot

  31

  0

  73

  0

  81

  14

  54

  1

  Preseli

  45

  0

  18

  0

  64

  7

  109

  8

  Radnor

  4

  0

  4

  0

  49

  0

  62

  0

  Rhondda

  168

  0

  166

  0

  144

  0

  69

  0

  Rhuddlan

  41

  0

  37

  0

  40

  0

  80

  24

  Rhymney valley

  216

  0

  42

  12

  52

  0

  156

  30

  South Pembrokeshire

  11

  0

  13

  0

  15

  0

  63

  0

  Swansea

  267

  0

  177

  7

  285

  7

  290

  9

  Taff Ely

  48

  0

  105

  0

  95

  1

  168

  0

  Torfaen

  67

  0

  59

  0

  135

  11

  127

  0

  428 429

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  For rent

  For sale

  For rent

  For sale

  For rent

  For sale

  For rent2

  For sale

  Vale of Glamorgan

  76

  0

  112

  20

  49

  0

  139

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  48

  0

  39

  0

  118

  8

  232

  2

  Ynys Mon

  13

  0

  21

  0

  144

  0

  39

  0

  Wales

  2,442

  0

  2,908

  152

  3,341

  207

  4,950

  324

  1 Includes newbuild, acquisitions and rehabilitation of self contained units and special needs and other shared housing bedspaces.

  2 Includes 1,198 dwellings acquired through the Acquisition Initiative.

  Sheep Farming
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the French Government's authorisation of an aid package to French sheep farmers, with regard to this action's effect on sheep farmers in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The announcement of the French support for its sheepmeat industry was made comparatively recently and we do not, therefore, have sufficient details to be able to assess its impact on Welsh sheep farmers. However, under articles 92 and 93 of the treaty of Rome, national aid schemes are strictly controlled in order to prevent unfair competition. Member states must obtain the prior approval of the Commission for any new state aids or modification to existing aids. The Commission has the authority to require the abolition or amendment of any scheme including the repayment of any aid paid illegally.

  We are making inquiries of the Commission to determine the status of this particular aid scheme.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about sheep scab; and what plans he has to make sheep scab a fully notifiable disease.

  Mr. Redwood
  Sheep scab is a disease which can be controlled readily by individual farmers, who are well aware of the preventive measures and procedures needed to deal with it. A recent official surveillance programme at markets and sales has indicated that the number of affected sheep has increased from the levels recorded before deregulation. Sheep scab can lead to serious welfare problems and has commercial implications for farmers and the leather industry. The Government therefore propose to carry out a publicity campaign to encourage farmers to treat their sheep. To ensure that farmers take their welfare responsibilities seriously, sheep suffering from scab will be required to be removed from markets for treatment and the vendor may be prosecuted.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 April,Official Report, column 48, how many representations of the 13 he received in favour of the inclusion of Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny in the proposed Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority were made by members of the public.

  Mr. Redwood
  Of the 13 representations I received since the publication of the White Paper in favour of the inclusion of Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny in the proposed Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority, six were from members of the public.
  430
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the representations he has received(a) in favour of and (b) in opposition to the inclusion of Llanelly in the proposed new unitary authority of Powys since publication of his White Paper, "Local Government in Wales: A Charter for the Future";

  (2) if he will list the representations he received prior to his White Paper, "Local Government in Wales: a Charter for the Future", and the dates he received them, which were opposed to the inclusion of Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny in the proposed unitary authority of the Vale of Glamorgan.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many parliamentary questions, in the period November 1992 to March 1993, were answered with the response that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; how many were referred to an agency chief executive; and, in each case, what percentage of the total number of questions asked this constituted.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Seven parliamentary questions were answered during the period concerned using the answer in question. This represents 0.5 per cent. of the total questions answered. None was referred to an agency chief executive.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current position on discussions regarding terms to be offered to expatriate civil servants currently based in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We consulted the Association of Members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service in Hong Kong in March on a proposed package of benefits. The association suggested a number of changes to the package. These suggestions will be carefully considered before the package is finalised.

  Iraq
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Kuwaitis are being kept in Iraqi prisons as a consequence of the Gulf war; and what representations he, or international bodies, have been making about these prisoners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Kuwaiti Government estimate that 592 Kuwaitis are unaccounted for after the Gulf war.
  431
  We raise the plight of Kuwaiti and other detainees with the Iraqi Government at every suitable opportunity, for example at the next Security Council review of sanctions on 17 May. We also fully support the International Red Cross in its efforts to persuade Iraq to respond to requests for information about the detainees.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates exist of the number of foreign nationals being kept in Iraqi prisons; how many of these are British; and what representations are being made about access to them and about their release.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no record of any British citizens being held in Iraqi prisons at the moment. Records are not kept of detained foreign nationals.

  Bulgaria
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's current relations with Bulgaria; and when a senior Government Minister last visited that country.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We enjoy friendly relations with Bulgaria and strongly support Bulgaria's political and economic reforms. President Zhelev called on the Prime Minister in March. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Bulgaria in June last year. He and I look forward to receiving Foreign Minister Daskalov on 19 May.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government are supporting the proposal of the Belgian Government that the European Union accede to the European convention on human rights as a collective entity.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We see no need for the Community, as a collective entity, to accede to the convention when its principles are already applied and observed at all levels within the Community. All the member states are parties to the convention, and the European Court of Justice applies the principles and case law of the convention, as necessary, to cases before it. We do not see that accession by the Community would bring any extra benefit to the individual citizen, and are thus not in favour of a proposal which would have only symbolic value.

  European Union
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the commitments made by chancellor Kohl to the European Parliament at the time it was voting on enlargement; and in what way each of those commitments bind(a) the EU institution or (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Chancellor Kohl said that he would"endeavour to have a working group set up, composed of governments as well as European Members of Parliament, and which would work in association with the Commission."
  Chancellor Kohl's commitment is not binding, since the precise terms of reference for the working group will be decided by member states at the Corfu European Council.

  South Africa
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when trade sanctions against the Republic of South Africa will be lifted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The only sanctions remaining in force against South Africa are the UN arms embargo and related European Union and Commonwealth restrictions. The European Union has agreed that it will work for the earliest possible lifting of remaining UN sanctions and concurrently to withdraw related EU measures.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the embargo on the sale of arms to the Republic of South Africa will be lifted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is for the United Nations Security Council to decide when to lift the arms embargo. The European Union has agreed that it will work for the earliest possible lifting of remaining UN sanctions and concurrently to withdraw related EU measures. The President of the Security Council has promised President Mandela that, on receipt of a request from the new South African Government, the Council will urgently debate lifting the arms embargo.

TRANSPORT

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from local authorities with designated assisted area status which are trying to progress necessary infrastructure schemes on the effect of the removal of automatic supplementary credit approval for road schemes under the Industrial Development Act 1982; and what plans he has to review this policy.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has received representations from three local authorities and a local authority association about recently revised arrangements for grants under section 13 of the Industrial Development Act—IDA. Under the new arrangements grants are calculated on the total costs of schemes and deductions are no longer made for contributions from European regional development fund grants and from the private sector. The changes are intended to ensure that as many worthwhile schemes as possible can be supported and to provide incentives to maximise private sector involvement. Supplementary credit approvals—SCAs—have never been automatically available, but local authorities can continue to include bids for SCAs in their transport policies and programmes.

  Contracts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the companies with which his Department has had contracts since 1 September 1990 which have resulted in either financial or administrative problems and have consequently been either renegotiated or terminated.

  Mr. Norris
  The firms which have been identified are shown in the table. It does not include companies whose
  433
  contracts have been subject to normal variations or those where novation is a purely technical matter resulting from a change of ownership and the contract is transferred to the new company.

  As a matter of policy the Department does not seek to renegotiate the terms of existing road scheme contracts in the event of a company getting into financial difficulties.

  Name of Company

  Description of problems encountered

  BCW Communications-1 Contract

  The company went into receivership.

  The contract was novated to another company.

  A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd—9 Contracts1

  The company went into receivership.

  The contract was novated to another company.

  Cooper MacDonald plc—3 Contracts1

  The company went into receivership.

  The contract was novated to another company.

  Eden Construction Ltd—2 Contracts1

  The company went into receivership.

  The contract was novated to another company.

  A. E. Farr Ltd—1 Contract1

  The company went into receivership.

  The contract was novated to another company.

  Lilley Construction Ltd—1 Contract1

  The company went into receivership.

  The contract was novated to another company.

  Colin Buchanan & Partners

  The quality of the company's work was not satisfactory.

  The contract was terminated.

  Peter Davidson Consultancy

  The company found it could not undertake the requirement as they had proposed in their tender.

  The contract was renegotiated.

  Ferranti International plc—3 Contracts

  Ferranti Road Traffic Systems Ltd were sold to Peek Traffic Ltd, necessitating novations of the contracts.

  G. & W. Energieanlagen

  The company had supplier and other problems.

  The contract was extended.

  Kingswinford Fuel Injection Services Ltd

  The company failed to meet the requirement.

  The contract was terminated.

  Precision Profiles

  The company failed to deliver on time.

  The contract was terminated.

  1Road schemes.

  Northern Relief Road, Birmingham
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest assesment of the implications of the proposed Birmingham northern relief road on(a) traffic forecasts, (b) carbon dioxide emissions and (c) asthma; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Key
  The question relates to matters which are the responsibility of the Highways Agency; the chief executive will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 17 May 1994.
  You asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest assessment of the implications of the proposed Birmingham Northern Relief Road on (a) traffic forecasts, (b) carbon dioxide emissions and (c) asthma.
  A Technical Update package was published by Midland Expressway Ltd., the Department's Concessionaire, and the Department at the beginning of February this year. This package includes an update of the traffic information as well as an update on air quality information. A set of the documents which comprise the package is being sent to the House of Commons Library so that you may study them if you wish. They are:
  434
  However, since September 1990 one consultant and four contractors have gone into receivership and their contracts have been novated to other firms. Some road construction contracts have also been terminated because of poor performance but information on these is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road

  Technical Update and Summary

  Noise Update Report

  Air Quality Updat

  Local Model Validation Report

  Model Development Forecasting Report

  I expect you know that a public inquiry into this scheme opens in Walsall on 21 June. Proofs of the detailed evidence to be presented to that inquiry on traffic and air quality are being made available in advance of the inquiry opening. These will add detail to the information in the February Update and explain fully how it has been arrived at. The air quality evidence is available now; the evidence on traffic is expected to be available at the end of this month. Copies of these two proofs can be sent to you if you require them.It is not possible to say what effect the Birmingham Northern Relief Road itself might have on asthma. The Highways Agency is aware that a large number of studies have been undertaken to investigate the medical effects of air pollution from many sources, including vehicle emissions. There is no evidence that vehicle emissions cause asthma but it is possible that existing asthmatics may have their symptons made worse.

  Rail Chiefs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current rates of pay to(a) the chairman of British Rail and (b) the chairman of Railtrack; and what are the figures as a percentage of the 1993–94 salary rate.
  435
  Mr. Freeman
  The current rates of pay, which are at 1993–94 salary rates, are £131,663 to the chairman of British Rail and £121,800 to the chairman of Railtrack.

  However, the chairman of the British Railways Board's salary as from 1 April 1994 is 60 per cent. of his previous salary, reflecting his move to a three-day week from his previous full-time appointment.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list details and costs of the services or benefits made available in addition to salary to(a) the chairman of British Rail, (b) the chairman of Railtrack, (c) the rail regulator and (d) the franchise director.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information in the case of the chairman of British Rail was given in note 5(c) to the "British Railways Board Annual Report and Accounts 1992–93". Disclosure will be made also in subsequent annual reports and accounts of the British Railways Board, and is to be expected for the chairman of Railtrack in the annual report and accounts of Railtrack plc.

  The rail regulator and the franchise director each have a pension arrangement broadly by analogy with the principal civil service pension scheme, with no special enhancements, on salary up to the level of the pension schemes earning cap—£76,800 from 6 April 1994, normally increased annually in line with retail prices.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the criteria, other than inflation, used to determine the percentage increase on 1993–94 salary rates for(a) the rail regulator and (b) the franchise director; and what were the percentage increases in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  Increases in the remuneration of the rail regulator and the franchise director are determined by my right hon. Friend in the light of the Government's decision on recommendations made by the Senior Salaries Review Body and the subsequent Treasury guidance on the consequential arrangements for chairmen and members of non-commercial public boards and holders of broadly similar appointments. The decision on the body's 1994 report was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 3 February 1994,Official Report, column 848–50. As regards the percentage increases awarded to the rail regulator and the franchise director from 1 April 1994, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to her on 9 May, Official Report, column 56.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the criteria, other than inflation, that he is using to determine the 1994–95 salary increases for(a) the chairman of British Rail and (b) the chairman of Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  Salary increases will be determined in the light of the Government's policy to pay no more than is necessary to retain and motivate suitably qualified board members and will take account of any 1994–95 pay increases which may be agreed for the staff.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secrtary of State for Transport when the salaries for 1994–95 for(a) the chairman of British Rail and (b) the chairman of Railtrack will be detemined; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Salaries for 1994–95, which will require approval by Treasury, will be determined in due course.
  436
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost in each case of the company cars available to(a) the chairman of British Rail, (b) the chairman of Railtrack, (c) the rail regulator and (d) the franchise director.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provision of company cars and the consequent cost for the chairman of British Rail and the chairman of Railtrack is a matter between them and the industry concerned.

  The rail regulator and the franchise director head non-ministerial Government departments and are entitled, under their terms of appointment, to have the use of a car for official business, the costs of which are charged to their departments.

  Night Flying
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those airports in England and Wales at which flights are allowed after(a) 12.30 am and (b) 1 am on a consistent basis.

  Mr. Norris
  Of the 28 airports in England and Wales subject to economic regulation—that is, those with an annual turnover in excess of £1 million—night operations are not prohibited at the following, although various restrictions apply :

  Birmingham

  Blackpool

  Bournemouth

  Bristol (Lulsgate)

  Cambridge

  Cardiff

  Coventry

  East Midlands

  Exeter

  Gatwick

  Gloucestershire

  Heathrow

  Humberside

  Leeds-Bradford

  Liverpool

  Luton

  Manchester

  Newcastle

  Norwich

  Southampton

  Southend

  Stansted

  Teesside

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many weekly take-offs and landings there were at airports in England and Wales between midnight and 5 am.

  Mr. Norris
  The precise information requested is not available, and an approximation could be derived only at disproportionate cost.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost of setting up Railtrack Headquarters in London; and what arrangements have been made for the provision of information and answering of queries concerning services now that the changeover has been made.

  Mr. Freeman
  Staff costs, legal fees and accommodation costs including refurbishment of Railtrack headquarters amounted to some £7 million in 1993–94.
  437
  Information about train services is the responsibility of train operating companies. Railtrack is responsible for the production of a national train timetable and can provide information about that.

  School Transport
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many schoolchildren have been(a) injured and (b) killed while travelling to school on a school coach or minibus in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Key
  It is not possible to identify school coaches or minibuses in the road injury accident data collection system. However, it is possible to identify school pupil casualties in coaches and minibuses during journeys to and from school. Estimates of the information requested are shown in the following table.

  School pupil1 casualties: killed or injured in a journey to or from school: Great Britain 1988–92

  Casualties

  Minibus/motor caravan

  Bus or coach

  1988

  Fatal

  3

  0

  Serious

  6

  23

  Slight

  92

  411

  Total

  101

  434

  1989

  Fatal

  0

  1

  Serious

  5

  46

  Slight

  74

  503

  Total

  79

  550

  1990

  Fatal

  0

  0

  Serious

  9

  37

  Slight

  85

  545

  Total

  94

  582

  1991

  Fatal

  1

  0

  Serious

  4

  26

  Slight

  95

  403

  Total

  100

  429

  1992

  Fatal

  0

  1

  Serious

  3

  23

  Slight

  105

  498

  Total

  108

  522

  Note: Children are aged as 0 to 15 years of age, and most school pupils within this category will be aged 4 to 15 years of age.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington can expect a response to his letter of complaint about the Child Support Agency's treatment of his constituent, Mr. N. A. Leach, of Leamington Spa, about which he wrote to the Under-Secretary of State on 23 February.
  438
  Mr. Burt
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals have been made to child support appeal tribunals to-date; in how many of these cases the Child Support Agency has forwarded submissions and how many of these met the target of responding to the independent tribunal service within 18 days; how many of these appeals have been heard to date; and in how many of those the child support officer's decision has been overturned.

  Mr. Burt
  I am informed that the number of child support appeals received by the independent tribunal service to the end of April is 2,070. On these appeals, the Child Support Agency has forwarded a total of 521 submissions; 184 within the 18 day target. By 30 April, 250 appeals had been heard, of which 221 have been finally decided. In 91 of the decided cases the child support officer's decision was overturned.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the purpose of the Child Support Agency event at Abberley in Worcestershire from 9 May to 11 May; which hotel was used; how many people attended the event; what was the estimated cost; and from how many hotels quotations were sought.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Terry Davis, dated 16 May 1994.
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's event at Abberley.
  The event in question was a management training course for staff at the Child Support Agency Centre in Dudley. It was held at the Elms Hotel, Abberley and was attended by nine members of the Agency's staff. The total cost incurred was £l,515,40. Quotations were sought from nine hotels before making the reservation.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Health Insurance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of invalidity benefit recipients are in receipt of payments from permanent health insurance schemes; and what is the average amount paid per week.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the most recent date before 6 May on which he met the Minister of State for Disabled People to discuss the progress of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

  Mr. Lilley
  I discussed a number of matters, including the Government's proposals on civil rights for disabled people, with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, on 4 May.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce identity cards for pensioners and other claimants.

  Mr. Hague
  We are currently looking at improved ways of confirming the identity of the recipients of benefit payments cashed at post offices.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 17 March concerning a constituent ref. 6/3644/76.

  Mr. Burt
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his Departrnent's funding for research into Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Medical Research Council, which receives its funding from the Office of Science and Technology, spent £1.5 million on research directly related to Alzheimer's disease in 1992–93, and a further £3.4 million on research of relevance to the condition.

  The MRC is always willing to consider soundly based scientific proposals in competition with other applications for research funding.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 134, what was the total cost of the use of executive search agencies in 1992–93.

  Mr. David Davis
  No figures are held centrally for the costs of using search consultants in 1992–93; these costs are paid direct by the departments and agencies which use them.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidance is given by his Department to Government Departments and agencies regarding the use of executive search agencies and particularly regarding their cost to public funds.

  Mr. David Davis
  Advice on the use of executive search consultants is given in the "Guide on Public Appointments Procedures", produced in September 1992, by the Public Appointments Unit, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  More detailed information about the executive search process and what it involves is given in "Executive Searchlight", of which the third edition was issued by the unit in February 1994. This includes guidance on how and when to use executive search, and the need to ensure that this form of recruitment meets the requirements of the Department and provides value for money. I am arranging for a copy of this publication to be placed in the Library of the House.
  440
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 134, if he will name the six executive search agencies referred to as being used by the Civil Service Commission.

  Mr. David Davis
  The six search consultants used by Departments for 11 appointments approved by the commissioners at grade 5 level and above in 1992–93 were:

  Kom Ferry International Ltd.

  NB Selection Ltd.

  Price Waterhouse Executive Selection

  Russell Reynolds Associates

  St. James's Management Recruitment

  Saxton Bampfylde International PLC

  Charterline
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total cost to public funds of the Charterline; and how many calls it received.

  Mr. David Davis
  Total costs, including set-up and operational costs to date were £2,463,190. The final figures will be published when final bills are received.

  Charterline received 5,882 calls between 19 May 1993 and 6 May 1994.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will provide a table showing the contracts currently being worked on for his Department by Coopers and Lybrand, Ernst and Young, Price Waterhouse, KPMG Peat Marwick, Grant Thornton, Robson Rhodes, Levy Gee, BDO Binder Hamlyn, Hacker Young, Pannell Kerr Forster and Stoy Hayward.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply 31 March 1994, Official Report, column 953–54]: In addition to the contracts listed in my earlier answer, Price Waterhouse was on 31 March 1994 working on a contract for the Serious Fraud Office in relation to the case of Arrows plc.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishery Protection
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will increase the level of surveillance by the Royal Navy to fishery protection duties in the English channel off the coast of Devon; and if she will make a statement as to the level of activity that the Royal Navy is currently providing in this area.

  Mr. Jack
  Deployment of the Royal Navy's fishery protection vessels within British fishery limits takes account of the nature and level of fishing activity, as well as sightings information provided by fisheries surveillance aircraft on contract to the Ministry and local intelligence collected by the sea fisheries inspectorate. Deployment is flexible and is adjusted as and when necessary to take account of changing circumstances and the needs in particular areas. In the first four months of 1994 vessels on task to MAFF were present in ICES area VIIe, which includes the waters off south Devon, for 129 patrol days.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will set out all(a) British and (b) EC legislation governing the welfare of animals during transit.

  Mr. Soames
  British legislation governing the welfare of animals during transport is as listed.

  Section 1(b) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911

  Section 1(b) of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912

  Sections 40 to 42 and 44 to 47 of the Animals Health Act 1981

  The Transit of Animals Order of 1927, S.R.& O.1927/289

  The Animals (Sea Transport) Order of 1930, S.R.& O.1930/923

  The Horses (Sea Transport) Order 1952, S.I. 1952/1291

  The Export of Horses (Veterinary Examination) Order 1966, S.I. 1966/507

  The Export of Horses (Protection) Order 1969, S.I. 1969/1784

  The Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973, S.I. 1973/1377

  The Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975, S.I. 1975/1024

  The Importation of Animals Order 1977, S.I. 1977/1175

  The Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981, S.I. 1981/1051

  The Welfare of Poultry (Transport) Order 1988, S.I. 1988/851

  The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992, S.I. 1992/3304

  At Community level the welfare of animals during transport is governed by Council directive 91/628/EEC (OJ No. L340, 11.12.91, p.17). This is implemented by the 1992 order as well as some of the earlier orders, as is set out in the explanatory note of the 1992 order. The directive permits certain national legislation to be retained pending the adoption of further detailed rules. The United Kingdom has taken advantage of this by maintaining certain national rules, in particular a maximum interval of 15 hours for feeding and watering animals in transport.

  Rabbits
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what enforcement action has been taken by her officials in accordance with their powers under the Pests Act 1954 to ensure that occupiers of land remove rabbits from it;

  (2) what action she is taking to meet the statutory obligations under the Pests Act 1954 to control the number of rabbits on land used for rail and road transport; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Section 1 of the Pests Act 1954 places a continuing obligation on occupiers of land designated as rabbit clearance areas to control rabbits harboured on their land. The current Rabbit Clearance Order, issued in 1972, covers the whole of England and Wales excluding the City of London, the Isles of Scilly and Skokholm island. This obligation is irrespective of the use being made of the occupier's land.

  Where occupiers are failing to meet their obligations under the 1954 Act, the Agriculture Ministers have the power, under section 98 of the Agriculture Act 1947, to require action to be taken. These powers are discretionary and MAFF generally seeks to gain compliance with the legislation without resorting to the use of its legal powers. Nevertheless, these powers remain available and are invoked where necessary. MAFF is aware of the damage that rabbits can cause and keeps its policy on rabbit control under continual review.

  Meat Exports (Germany)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she plans to take if Germany decides to impose a partial ban on the import of British beef and veal; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  We have made it very clear that we would not accept a unilateral trade restriction if this were to be imposed by the German Government. The European Commission has made it clear to the German authorities that it too sees no justification for such measures and that it would take appropriate action.

  A range of measures have already been introduced nationally and at Community level to protect consumers from any possible health hazard because of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. BSE has been discussed many times at expert and political level within the European Union and no less than three times in recent months at Council of Ministers level. The view of the Commission and all member states except Germany, is that there is no scientific justification for further measures.

  Fisheries
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels left the non-sector to join fish producer organisations between 1993 and 1994; how much cod quota in total and per boat average went with them; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Between 1 January 1993 and 1 January 1994, 146 vessels moved from the non-sector to producer organisations. Information about the cod quota attributable to the vessels which left the non-sector is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries asnd Food if she will make it her policy to persuade the European Commission to abandon fishing discards before Norway joins the European Union.

  Mr. Jack
  Discards occur since different species and sizes of fish are caught together. If fishermen are to comply with the current common fisheries policy rules on quotas and minimum landing sizes they necessarily have to discard fish which cannot be legally landed. In Norwegian waters the mix of species and the legal requirements are different and a discard ban is in operation. Under its accession treaty, Norway has been authorised to maintain its discard ban for three years.

  The Government support the search for ways to reduce discards within the CFP. However, banning discards is not a practicable proposition, if the CFP is to operate effectively. The Council of Ministers has considered a Commission report on the discard problem and asked the Commission to bring forward proposals for action on a Community-wide basis. To this end, the Commission is funding a two-year project, which began in October 1993, to examine more selective fishing gears and the technical operational, economic and social pressures surrounding their adoption, taking account of regional variations. Recommendations are to be made as to how the Community might adapt its policies more effectively to promote selective fishing and reduce discards.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the
  443
  changes to the common fisheries policy British fishermen will need to adopt (a) in the preparation for Norway's entry into the European Union and (b) once Norway has joined.

  Mr. Jack
  In my reply of 19 April to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell),Official Report, columns 440–41, I set out the provisions on fisheries management in the treaty of accession.

  Few changes are made, by the accession treaty to the reciprocal rights of access for Norway and the EU to each others' waters and fisheries. The Commission has proposed a system of fishing permits to control the exploitation of Community resources when the CFP applies to an enlarged Community and the Council is likely to consider this at its June meeting. It is for the Commission to propose any further new or amending regulations which may be necessary.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of sheep scrapie have been notified in Great Britain during each month since notification became a legal requirement.

  Mr. Soames
  Scrapie became notifiable on 1 January 1993.

  The table provides details of the number of cases of scrapie confirmed in sheep by laboratory investigations from 1 January 1993 to 30 April 1994.

  1993

  1994

  January

  22

  22

  February

  31

  14

  March

  54

  120

  April

  27

  117

  May

  22

  —

  June

  17

  —

  July

  30

  —

  August

  17

  —

  September

  14

  —

  October

  33

  —

  November

  17

  —

  December

  2

  —

  TOTALS

  286

  173

  1 These are provisional figures and may be subject to alteration.

  Note:

  Laboratory investigation of suspect cases of scrapie is not usually carried out for two years after the disease has been confirmed in a flock/herd.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what experiments have been performed in Great Britain over the last 10 years which involve the inoculation or feeding of cattle with infected material from sheep scrapie; and what were the results.

  Mr. Soames
  Since 1984 no experiments involving the inoculation or feeding of cattle with infective material from sheep with scrapie have been undertaken in Great Britain.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been undertaken in Great Britain over the last 10 years into the possible relationship of scrapie in sheep and motor neurone disease in the human population.

  Mr. Soames
  Motor neurone disease of man and scrapie of sheep are quite separate and distinct diseases. The Ministry is not aware of any such research.
  444
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information she has on differences in the properties of strains of scrapie from Suffolk sheep from the USA and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  Scrapie isolates from sheep can be strain-typed by identifying their biological characteristics in mice. Strains which have been derived by selection in mice may not be the same as those existing in the sheep from which the material was originally obtained. This Ministry is not aware of any direct comparison of strains of scrapie derived from sheep in the USA and sheep in Great Britain, that have been undertaken using the same strains of mice in the same laboratory. However it is known that at least one strain of scrapie—as determined by mouse bioassay—is common to British and USA sheep.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the names of consultancies held by members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee during the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  Members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee are not asked to provide this information.

  Animal Health
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific measures she plans to take to ensure that Britain's animal health and veterinary standards are not jeopardised by moves to harmonise such standards throughout Europe; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on 27 April,Official Report, column 230.

  Sheep Exports
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action her Department has taken concerning reported deaths of sheep travelling between Portsmouth and France; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  It has been reported that 30 dead sheep were found after a vehicle was unloaded from a ferry sailing between Portsmouth and St. Malo on 19 April. It has also been reported that in a separate incident on 25 April 39 sheep were found to be dead in similar circumstances after crossing from Portsmouth to Le Havre. No carcases have been made available either to the British or French authorities to determine the cause of death. The Ministry has discussed the circumstances of both cases with the exporters, ferry companies and Hampshire county council, which is responsible for enforcing the legislation on the welfare of animals during transport. It has been concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that any person carried out an action so as to cause the animals unnecessary suffering.

  The Ministry has issued comprehensive guidance for exporters and ferry operators about the standards to be observed when livestock is carried on roll on/roll off ferries. Steps have been taken to remind exporters about

  445
  the importance of following this guidance and the Ministry will be inviting ferry operators to participate in discussions about their procedures for ensuring that proper arrange-ments are made to safeguard the welfare of animals.

EMPLOYMENT

  Working Mothers
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of lone mothers with dependent children were in work in 1979; and what percentage of lone mothers with dependent children are now in work.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of lone mothers with dependent children were in work in 1979; and what percentage of lone mothers with dependent children are now in work.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest estimates from the labour force survey for autumn 1993 show that 37 per cent. of lone mothers of working age with dependent children were in employment. The equivalent figure for spring 1981 —the earliest date available—is 45 per cent.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentage the unemployment rate changed during the period 1974 to 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  During the period of the last Labour Government unemployment increased by 122 per cent.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations his Department has received from business men or business organisations urging the Government to adopt the social chapter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The overwhelming majority of British business supports the Government's decision to reject the social chapter because of its adverse effects on jobs and prosperity.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the United Kingdom adopting the social chapter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's decision to reject the social chapter was supported by the great majority of employers' organisations because of the damage it would have done to the United Kingdom economy and jobs.

  Senior Managers
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives he has encouraged to improve opportunities for women to progress into senior management positions.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Our new joint initiative with the Equal Opportunities Commission Fair Play for Women,446
  will promote and expand the role of women at work, building on the success of our New Horizons campaign, our out-of-school childcare initiative and our support for the employer-led Opportunity 2000.

  Full Employment
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to achieve full employment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Employment cannot be created by Act of Parliament or by Government action alone. Government policy will be directed to bringing conditions favourable to the maintenance of a high level of employment.

  Part-time Employment
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures will be brought forward to continue to enhance growth in part-time employment in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We shall continue with policies designed to create a flexible and deregulated labour market.

  Works Councils
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to impose statutory trade union-dominated works councils on the businesses of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Economic Competitiveness
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures his Department is taking to improve the competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In the submission my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I made at the G7 jobs conference in Detroit, we said that we would improve competitiveness by:enhancing the working of the labour market; increasing the ability of unemployed people to get jobs and encouraging investment in skills.

  Unemployment, Dartford
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are unemployed in the Dartford travel-to-work area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Dartford is covered by the London travel-to-work area, where unadjusted claimant unemployment in March 1994 stood at 414,551. This is 24,621 or 6 per cent. lower than in April 1993.

  Employment Appeal Tribunal
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the working and running of the Employment Appeal Tribunal with a view to strengthening its independence from the Executive.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Appeal Tribunal is an entirely independent judical body.

  Labour Statistics
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the total of civilian employment in Yorkshire and Humberside has changed in the last 10 years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Between December 1983 and December 1993, the civilian workforce in employment in Yorkshire and Humberside rose by 96,000, or 5 per cent.

  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the total of civilian employment in the west midlands in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Between December 1983 and December 1993, the civilian workforce in employment in the west midlands rose by 73,000 or 3 per cent.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the Harrogate/ Knaresborough travel-to-work area have been placed in work by the Employment Service in the past 12 months.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Robert Banks, dated 17 May 1994.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking how many people in the Harrogate travel to walk area have been placed in work by the Employment Service in the past twelve months.
  It may be helpful if I explain that Jobcentre boundaries do not match travel to work area boundaries. Harrogate travel to work area covers the towns of Harrogate and Knaresborough, and villages mainly to the north west of Harrogate. Harrogate is the only Jobcentre in the travel to work area. The Jobcentre boundary closely matches the travel to work area, but also includes Wetherby which falls into the neighbouring Leeds travel to work area.
  In the past twelve months, up to and including 8 April 1994, a total of 5,379 people have been placed in work by the Harrogate Employment Service Jobcentre.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in(a) absolute terms and (b) percentage terms in unemployment in the parliamentary constituencies of Bradford, West and Bradford, South over the period April 1992 to March 1994.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In Bradford, West unadjusted claimant unemployment fell by 11, or 0.2 per cent., and in Bradford, South it rose by 13, or 0.3 per cent.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking to help unemployed people in Buckinghamshire find new jobs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the year to March 1994, jobcentres in Buckinghamshire placed nearly 19,000 people into jobs—up 15 per cent. on the previous year.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on funding for training and enterprise councils.
  448
  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department negotiates funding locally with training and enterprise councils on an annual basis, in line with the contents of their agreed business plans.

  Strikes
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost through strikes in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Germany in the latest year for which figures are available; and what the figures for the United Kingdom and West Germany were in 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1992 the United Kingdom lost 0.5 million days to labour disputes, one third of the former west Germany total of 1.5 million. In 1979 the United Kingdom lost 29.5 million days, over 50 times the west Germany total of 0–5 million.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in Yorkshire in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Data for Yorkshire and Humberside are given in the following table:

  Year

  Working days lost (thousands)

  1993

  23

  1992

  46

  1991

  55

  1990

  89

  1989

  325

  1988

  244

  1987

  339

  1986

  250

  1985

  2,076

  1984

  9,354

  1983

  415

  1982

  575

  1981

  449

  1980

  2,832

  1979

  3,115

  1978

  199

  Earnings
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what monitoring is done by his Department of the wage rates being paid in employment that was covered by wages councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department monitors the earnings of workers by industrial sector, including those sectors where there were wages councils, through the monthly average earnings indices and the annual new earnings survey.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Government intend to introduce legislation to protect part-time workers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Only 3 per cent. of employees are disqualified from employment protection on the basis of hours alone. Part-timers benefit from the enhanced rights introduced by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993.

  Hall's Electrical Contracting Company, Ossett
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will investigate the length of notice given to workers at the Hall's electrical contracting company in Ossett, West Yorkshire, when it was closed;

  (2) if he will investigate the extent of prior consultations with the workers at the Hall's electrical contracting works in Ossett, West Yorkshire, owned by East Midlands Electricity on the closure of the plant;

  (3) if he will set up an inquiry into the manner in which workers at the Ossett electrical contracting business
  450
  company in West Yorkshire owned by the East Midlands Electricity Board were given notice that the company would close.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answers 16 May 1994]: Any complaint that an employer has failed to consult representatives of recognised trade unions about proposed redundancy dismissals in accordance with the statutory requirements would be a matter for determination by an industrial tribunal. Rights to individual notice of termination are contractual matters, though statutory minimum periods are specified in section 49 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Questions concerning proper contractual notice, or pay in lieu of notice, are matters for the courts.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

A.1 Trunk Road: Upgrading
Lord Palmer Lord Palmer asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, despite their assurances in 1992 and 1993 that they were committed to upgrading the A.I trunk road between Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Edinburgh to dual carriageway throughout its length, that pledge has now been abandoned; and, if so, why in view of their recent statement that priority will be given to schemes involving major trunk roads.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the pledge has not been abandoned. Progress, however, depends on the overall availability of resources and the national priorities.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Originally, this Question was in the name of my noble friend Lord Walton. For personal reasons, he very much regrets being unable to be here this afternoon. Does the noble Lord agree that the A.1 is fast becoming one of the most dangerous stretches of road in Britain with 291 casualties in the past two years over a small 95 kilometre stretch?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in comparison with some roads, the accident rate on this road is indeed high, but I can tell the noble Lord that it is reducing. Steps are being taken to improve it. New dualling is being put in, and three-lane overtaking lanes have been introduced on steep hills. Road marking and speed traps are also being used to cut the speed of motorists, which is the root cause of many of the accidents.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have to cross the A.1 very frequently? Will he be good enough to confirm that he appreciates the danger and difficulty that I have in so doing and my ardent support for him? Now that the priority of improving the road from the North East to the central belt has been fulfilled—very rightly, I think— what priority is attached to the Great North Road?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join me in saying that we wish to keep my noble friend Lord Stodart alive, healthy, and safely crossing the A.1. I do not think that this part of the A.1 has been accorded the priority that has been accorded to the road south from Aberdeen or, indeed, other roads throughout the country. However, it is still a major priority in the road building programme.
126
A number of dualling schemes are at various stages of preparation and nearing a start over the course of the road between Edinburgh and Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why the Scottish Office failed to make the recently opened Cockburnspath by-pass a dual carriageway, with the result that it is now unsafe during high winds and has been pronounced so?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the principal reason why the portion of the road was not made a dual carriageway was that the volume of traffic on that length of road did not justify a dual carriageway. However, because of the accident record on the old road and the lack of an overtaking opportunities, it was felt that a by-pass with an overtaking lane for the uphill traffic should be created. As far as the wind problem is concerned, my noble friend will know that we are talking about a fairly high section of road in a fairly exposed situation. Unfortunately, shortly after it was opened in December 1992, a number of high-sided vehicles were blown over. I am assured that that is not a frequent occurrence and that it happens only on the very rare occasions when the wind speed and direction are such that high-sided vehicles are in danger. My noble friend may have noticed that there are signs there, as there are in many other parts of the country, warning drivers when the wind speed and direction are such that they should be careful.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure that the House would love a definition of what the Minister means by "frequent". I have not been over that road for quite a time myself, but I have often read about it in the Scottish papers. Indeed, it is so bad that death toll notices were going to be erected on the road showing the death toll over the previous 18 months or two years. I do not know whether that has happened; I am asking the Minister for information. That idea was so bizarre that one wonders, first, how many notices have been put up and, secondly, what effect they have had. The Minister will also be aware that just before the last general election a commitment was given about dualling the road—sheer coincidence, I am sure—but can the Minister give us any more information about the promise that was made?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am happy to tell the noble Lord that due to various methods of reducing the speed of traffic, the accident rate has been reduced. However, it is undoubtedly still a road with a poorish accident record. As other roads are modernised and upgraded, roads such as this come towards the top of the list of poorish roads remaining to be improved. The statement by my right honourable friend Mr. Malcolm Rifkind and my honourable friend Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was that it would be desirable if the A.1 could be fully dualled between Newcastle and Edinburgh. As the noble Lord will know, the priority in the Scottish Office programme is to make the A.74 south of Glasgow up to motorway standard. I understand that that is what the Scottish Office is concentrating its roads resources on.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, if the intention is to improve the road from Newcastle to Edinburgh, as the Minister said, would it not be very much better to improve the road via Coldstream, which everybody uses, rather than the A.1, which few people use because it is far too long a distance?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend rightly points out that there is another road across the Border at Coldstream, but the road via Coldstream is inland, going over some pretty high country and is subject to problems in winter, whereas the A.1 is the coast road and is a lot less subject to weather.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the A.92 south of Aberdeen. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question about the A.92 north of Aberdeen. The section between Blairton and the Ellon bypass was originally supposed to be dualled in 1994. Will he tell us when that will happen?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this is becoming a bit of a tour of the roads of Scotland. I fully appreciate my noble friend's interest in this matter. I am afraid that I cannot answer the question about the Ellon bypass. She will have to put down a Question about that if she wishes to know. But I can assure her, as she well knows, that the road south of Aberdeen is now a splendid road. If she wishes, she can drive from Aberdeen to Paris on a dual carriageway road or better.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that as we now have cameras on the A.1 road, which is under discussion, the accident rate has dropped dramatically in recent months?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, yes. I can confirm that the appearance of cameras, in addition to the improved road markings, has led to a decrease in the number of road accidents in that area, as it does on all roads upon which cameras appear.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, would not the Minister be better advised to advise his noble friend Lady Saltoun to travel by rail rather than to take her car all the way?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course, my friend can do that once she gets to Aberdeen or she can travel by air. But I believe that she will still have to get to Aberdeen by road.

Migratory Birds: Protection
2.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will oppose at the Council of Environment Ministers the proposal by the European Commission to amend Directive 79/409 on the protection of migrating birds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran):
My Lords, the proposal, which was considered at the Environment Council of Ministers in March, would
128
clarify the birds directive's provisions for hunting migratory birds. The European Parliament has been asked for an opinion and the matter will be referred back to the Council of Ministers. The Government's statutory scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, are advising on the proposal.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I appreciate that the Question has been partly overtaken by events, and thank the noble Earl for that pro tanto encouraging Answer. Will he undertake to ensure that the Government will point out, with suitable emphasis, that the control of shooting is not an example of subsidiarity since if migrating birds are blasted by Frenchmen in the Dordogne, it is the British and other Europeans whose moorlands and estuaries will be denuded of wildlife?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Secretary of State for the Environment secured assurances at the Council of Ministers that the protection of migratory birds would continue and that conservation and scientific evidence would be the main ingredients when decisions are made in the future.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will assure my noble and learned friend that a committee of this House is about to look into the effect of that directive and hopes to advise the Government on it soon.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, when that directive comes to your Lordships' House it will be given due consideration, as such matters always are.
Earl Peel: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the proposal in the directive to restrict the activities which are carried out at present would not affect the migratory status of those birds? Will he also confirm that the criteria that have been drawn up by independent scientists and experts would lead to the sustainability of those species and ensure that the hunting would be compatible with those important words "wide use"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the words "wide use" are important. My noble friend Lord Peel is a great expert and knows a considerable amount in this sphere. We shall have to take seriously and consider again the conclusions that have been put forward by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, one of which is that the proposal has no implications for the hunting of species in the United Kingdom or for United Kingdom hunting law.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I accept that we have to wait a bit for the Government's view on this directive. Would it not be sensible now for the Government to declare, as part of their campaign, that they will implement immediately the habitats directive?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course that is being given due consideration. It will come before your Lordships at the appropriate time.

Sheep Scab
2.49 pm
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much sheep scab has increased in the past three years, what harm it is doing and what steps are being considered to control it.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My
Lords, official records on the number of sheep scab outbreaks are not available following the deregulation of scab controls in April 1992. A recent ministry surveillance programme at markets and sales has indicated that the number of affected sheep has increased from the levels recorded before deregulation. Sheep scab can lead to serious welfare problems and has commercial implications for farmers and the leather industry. The Government therefore propose to carry out a publicity campaign to encourage farmers to treat their sheep. Farmers must take their welfare respon-sibilities seriously. Surveillance at markets will be increased and sheep suffering from scab will be required to be removed from markets for treatment and the vendor may be prosecuted.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very helpful and, indeed, constructive Answer. Will he consider tackling the problem, first, by making it possible for a person, usually a neighbouring farmer, to inform MAFF that there are scab-infected sheep present in a flock next door and to insist that a veterinary officer inspects the flock? Secondly, will he provide that if scab is present in the flock, the owner should be obliged to treat the sheep in accordance with the directions given by the veterinary officer? The costs of that visit should automatically be paid by the guilty flock owner.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those suggestions. In the circumstances which he outlines, it would be advisable for the farmer, if he spotted sheep scab in a neighbour's flock, to treat his own flock as a precautionary measure. I should expect him also to urge his neighbour to do the same and perhaps inform the local branch of the NFU or the National Sheep Association. Serious cases of scab should be reported to the local authority for consideration of action on welfare grounds. However, we shall have to reflect carefully about further action. I take positive note of what my noble friend said.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Government have done away with compulsory sheep dipping and will they re-introduce it in the near future?
Earl Howe: My Lords, one must be honest about compulsory sheep dipping and say that it was a policy that failed. It did not eradicate sheep scab. Notifiability of sheep scab did not work. While it should never be said that Ministers have closed their minds to anything which your Lordships may wish to call for, I shall take
130
a lot of persuading that compulsory dipping or notifiability in themselves will materially assist the problem. As I say, that did not work in the past. We now need a concerted effort to inform and encourage the industry over what it has in its power to do. That is where the initiative that I have outlined has a real role to play.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Earl appreciate that not all sheep farmers are good stockmen and that many of them will disregard advice and instructions from the ministry unless they are compulsory? It is very important that sheep scab, which causes millions of pounds of loss to the leather industry and the sheep farmers, becomes notifiable again.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understand the point which the noble Countess makes. As I said, veterinary presence at markets will be stepped up; unfit animals will be removed for treatment; offenders will be prosecuted where appropriate; and there is provision for substantial fines in the worst cases. On top of that, the publicity campaign I mentioned, which urges farmers to deal with the problem, should have an effect. If there is a deterrent in prospect I believe that that will encourage farmers to do what they should be doing. As I said, we shall review the effectiveness of those measures in due course and take matters from there.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I find the logic of the Minister's argument rather difficult to follow. If it is no longer necessary to notify because notification did not work, why is notification still considered effective with regard to the warble fly? Surely the same arguments apply in that case.
Earl Howe: My Lords, there are a number of material differences with regard to the warble fly. It is a devastating disease, as the noble Baroness will know. But the campaign to eradicate the warble fly was successful. Having reached the stage at which we have freedom from warble, it is only sensible to continue our efforts to ensure that the country remains free of it. A material difference with regard to warble is that a diagnostic test can screen for warble whereas that cannot be done in relation to sheep scab. Warble also requires our farmers to be educated as to what type of treatment may be used at what time of year and so on. Therefore, there are more complications than the noble Baroness seeks to suggest.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will my noble friend say what effect the increase in sheep scab is having on the export of sheep and sheep products?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware that it is having any material effect at all. I shall look into the matter and write to my noble friend if that information has changed in any way. I do not believe that our exports, which last year stood at record levels, have suffered to any extent at all from the increase in sheep scab.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in an ideal world, with everyone taking the right action, how would the Minister suggest we get rid of sheep scab?
Earl Howe: My Lords, bearing in mind that we are some way away from an ideal world, in theory it would be possible, if all sheep owners were to treat their sheep simultaneously, which is something of a tall order, to eradicate sheep scab throughout the country. However, that would not prevent sheep scab re-entering the national flock through imported animals. That is a weak link which needs stressing, as I informed the noble Countess the other day when we were debating the issue of sheep dips.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the excellent report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council on the welfare of sheep, which was produced only last week, recommended that:
"Since we are unaware of any alternative effective control, we recommend that sheep scab should be reinstated as a notifiable disease with compulsory, supervised dipping/treatment of infected flocks and that movement restrictions should be imposed until treatment has been completed satisfactorily"?
In the light of that extremely strong recommendation, does the Minister agree that the Government would need very strong arguments if they decided not to accept the recommendation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we welcome that report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council. We shall respond in full to all its recommendations in due course. However, the essential point which bears repeating is that when we had notification it did not work. We believe that there is currently considerable scope for action by the industry itself before regulation should again be considered. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that it is not in anyone's interest to spread the disease. I am encouraged by initiatives such as that taken by the National Sheep Association, and the measures that I have announced today show that MAFF is playing its part in tackling the problem.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many sheep farmers would not wish to see the reintroduction of compulsory dipping but would wish to dip their sheep voluntarily if satisfied that there were available alternative dips to treat sheep scab which did not contain the poisonous substances to which the noble Countess, almost single handedly, has drawn the attention of the country? Will the noble Earl tell us whether those dips are in existence and, if they are, when they will be made available to sheep farmers?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Baroness indicates, there are many alternatives to OP sheep dips. Flumethrin dips can be used to treat sheep scab. Those have been available for some years. A new injectable product was licensed this year for the treatment of sheep scab and is expected to be on the market, I understand, very shortly. Cyromazine or cypermethrin pour-ons can be used to combat blowfly strike.

Identity Cards
2.59 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now set up an independent inquiry to examine the case for the introduction of a national identity card.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers):
My Lords, we have no plans to set up an independent inquiry but we continue to keep the question of the introduction of a national identity card under review.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, may I take it that my noble friend agrees with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he said on 28th April that there is a strong case to be made for the introduction of identity cards and when he said on 5th May that there is now widespread public support for the introduction of those cards? Does the Minister recognise that, nevertheless, there are those who would be apprehensive and concerned about that development? It would be extremely difficult for those people to be reassured if the matter is left to Whitehall. It would be far better to have an independent inquiry which could hope to take on board and satisfy the doubts.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I share the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Marlesford about those who may be apprehensive about the introduction of ID cards. He will be glad to know that I agree wholeheartedly with what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said—as I do on all occasions. He was right in saying that there is a strong case to be made for identity cards. I understand my noble friend's view that if one sets up an independent inquiry everyone can speak and their views can be considered. It is one route but it is not the route that we intend to take. This is a complex matter and would require huge upheaval. However, it is a matter which we think it right to consider carefully.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Department of Transport intends to introduce a photo ID card scheme for 32 million motorists, while at the same time industry, banks, Whitehall and Parliament use different ID card schemes? Does not that seem a ridiculous, higgledy-piggledy development and should we not have a national ID scheme?
Secondly, is the Minister aware that the Downing Street efficiency unit has recommended an ID pilot scheme based on a report that it received dealing with security, fraud and benefit expenditure? Is the Home Office giving the scheme its support?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, has always had a great interest in ID cards and I admire him for his interventions on this matter. I would not say that the approach is higgledy-piggledy. It is true that the DVLA will introduce driving licence cards which will eventually have photographs on them. That will take some time. Furthermore, there will be a European Community common format for driving licences. The incorporation of that with all the other

133
facets of government—for instance, social security—is a major problem at which we are looking. However, it is right that there are many advantages to be obtained.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the public apprehension about this issue, before proceeding further would it not be wise to have a public inquiry at which all points of public view could be ventilated, not in Whitehall but before a distinguished independent body? Furthermore, is not the case for identity cards somewhat strengthened by the worrying growth in the number of illegal immigrants in this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's point of view about the virtue of an independent inquiry. I shall consider what he and my noble friend Lord Marlesford said. However, that was not the route that we intended to take.
With regard to illegal immigrants, my noble friend is right. If everyone had to have a card, someone arriving illegally without such a card would be more readily identifiable. However, our view is that because of our island location it is easier to have immigrations checks at airports and sea ports rather than to have an identity card system for that purpose, which some other countries in Europe have.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the anxiety shown by a number of people is in respect of compulsory identity cards? Does he agree that voluntary identity cards would be more acceptable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, a voluntary identity card falls between two stools. Those whom my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter might like to see with identity cards probably would not have them. If the cards were to be full identity cards, possibly operating with a smart card, the cost to the individual would be enormous.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will the Minister answer the second question that I posed? What is the reaction of the Home Office to the Downing Street efficiency unit recommendations for a pilot scheme?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are considering that scheme and we find it a matter of interest.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, is the review that is being carried out in respect of this matter active or passive? Does he agree that, as a result of the questions that have been asked today, there is on the one hand increasing awareness of the potential advantages and on the other hand a residue of fear? Therefore, is it not exactly the kind of subject that should be aired in public? That need not necessarily be done by an independent inquiry but could be done at least by a discussion paper produced by the Government.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that this is an active review—the matter is under active consideration. He is right to draw attention to the fact that many noble Lords and others feel strongly in favour of identity cards, but there are those who feel great apprehension. The Government would not wish to
134
issue a consultation paper until they have done more research and discovered exactly what their own thoughts are.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to the strength of public opinion in favour of ID cards and of the fears in the public mind about them. What evidence do the Government have on the public view of ID cards, either for or against?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the public have a curious capacity to write and to give their view. The majority of the views that we have received have been in favour of identity cards. Of course, those who are in favour of a change are usually those who write, while those who are in favour of the status quo tend to remain more quiescent.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are problems associated with the suggestion? Clearly, there is a case for the introduction of identity cards and that has been made clear today. However, does the Minister agree that one of the problems is that high quality, professional criminals will have no difficulty in obtaining bogus identity cards, just as they can obtain bogus passports?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Harris, is, as so often, wise to draw the attention of the House to that matter. It is true that if one tries to find a way of getting round professional criminals, they will find a way of getting around that. There is an argument for having ID cards, which could operate on the smart card principle where a great deal of information is contained on a chip. In the view of many people, that would solve a lot of problems. However, the trouble is that the chip must be constantly updated; for instance, on a change of address or a driving licence being out of date. However, the noble Lord is right.

Church of Scotland (Properties and Investments) Order Confirmation Bill
3.7 p.m.
Considered on Report.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 19 [Extension of kinds of secure accommodation]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 12, line 25, leave out ("or a registered children's home").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 12I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15. The amendments would limit the type of organisations

135
to which local authority secure accommodation can be contracted out to voluntary organisations and would rule out the private sector. That is, first, because the private sector has no experience of or expertise in dealing with disturbed and vulnerable young people. Secondly, at present young people in care who are placed in local authority secure accommodation are regularly reviewed to see whether they can be moved to non-secure provision. If secure units are run by private sector organisations with a direct financial interest in maintaining a high level of occupancy, that will reduce the incentive to move children to other types of provision when that has become appropriate.
If secure accommodation is open to the private sector there are four points that I should like to make. First, the children are likely to be unnecessarily locked up. Research commissioned by the Department of Health in the 1970s and 1980s on secure accommodation concluded that the more secure placements available, the more children will be locked up. There is no determinable limit to the demand for secure places. That is because large numbers of teenagers in care are at some risk either to themselves or to others and thus meet the legal criteria for a locked placement. We have to admit that such a placement is an attractive option for harassed social services because the child is then apparently safe and the social workers protected from the possibility of public scandals. The formal checks on locking children up through court hearings and social services reviews are necessary but inadequate safeguards. The expense of secure placement, the shortage of places and the strict admissions policy of the units themselves also operate as checks against over-use.
If the private sector was encouraged to run secure accommodation, those three obstacles could be removed. No doubt a private unit could offer very competitive prices, but in order to survive financially it would have to maintain full occupation. Given the fluctuation in demand, that could mean having to accept unsuitable children; for example, a child from a distant part of the country or a child exhibiting a minor form of disturbance or a child who could be kept—albeit at greater expense—in open accommodation.
Secondly, the welfare of children will be less protected in a private lock-up. A secure unit should be part of a continuum of community-based services. Local authority secure units already have some difficulty in maintaining links with other services within the authority. That difficulty would be intensified in the private sector. Even now, some secure units encounter problems with recruiting suitably qualified staff. Private providers have no track record in this business and will, for cost reasons as well, be likely to employ less qualified, or fewer, staff. Profits will have to come from somewhere. That is why it is so important that we should see the specification about which we talked yesterday before we reach the next stage. By their nature, secure units are vulnerable to scandal and abuse of power. The safeguards within the statutory sector will be absent within the private sector.
Thirdly, as regards making profits from the secure units, however beneficial their objectives in practice, secure units are nonetheless viewed as punitive by many young people placed in them. All are placed in those units as a result of a court order which the Government introduced in 1982 in order to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. The conven-tion provides that all restrictions of liberty, even when the individual agrees, must be subject to judicial review as one of the most serious interventions on human rights. That is the main reason why the voluntary sector has to date declined to run secure accommodation.
Should profits be made from a serious breach of human rights? We think not. Some companies have argued that it is essential to make a profit in order to plough back money for developing facilities. That is a fallacious argument. If the company was using all its profits to develop services, it could legitimately become a non-profit-making voluntary organisation. The argument is used to deflect attention from the personal profits made by the managers; and given the fact that private secure units, like some existing children's homes, do not have to be registered companies, there may be no way of discovering how great a profit is being made from locking up children.
Fourthly, secure accommodation is often ineffective. Although preferable to penal lock-ups, secure accom-modation must be treated with as much caution as any other form of custody. All the research suggests that secure accommodation is as ineffective as the rest in curing children's problems. Aggressive children are made more aggressive; persistent offending continues; self-abusive children need high staff-child ratios and not locks and bars; and absconding children need better open provision. On the negative side, placement in any sort of lock up would institutionalise, criminalise and stigmatise children. All forms of locking up children must be restricted to the absolute minimum necessary. Private provision must be highly suspect. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Yesterday the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lady Faithfull—
Baroness David: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I am finding it rather difficult to hear him. I wonder whether the noble Lord could speak up.
Lord Renton: I apologise. I had thought that I was reasonably audible. As I was saying, yesterday the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lady Faithfull were very anxious that children should ever have to spend a night in a police cell or in any kind of accommodation provided by the prison service. By the provisions that they have put into Clause 19 (which amplify the provisions of previous Children and Young Persons Acts) the Government make it less likely that a police cell will ever have to be used for that purpose.
If the amendments were accepted—amendments which enable those concerned to provide more secure accommodation for children under those Acts—then the very minor risk of a child occasionally having to spend a night in a police cell would become greater. Therefore, I do not expect my noble friend Lord Ferrers to welcome the amendments.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to express my support for the amendment. Registered children's homes, as the noble Baroness explained, are profit-making homes for children. It is true that such homes are inspected by the social services departments under the umbrella of the Department of Health—I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton—but voluntary homes run, for example, by Barnardo's are staffed by people with experience and knowledge of such children. They could supply the kind of places when there is an emergency to prevent a child having to be put in a police cell.
I wonder whether private homes have the experience and the background to deal with such children. As has been said, they are profit-making. It is possible that they might not want to lose such a child. Therefore, it is most important that they should be excluded from taking children.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Renton was, if I may say so, very far seeing in his remarks. He said that he did not believe I would want to welcome the amendments. He is quite right. The noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to the business of making profits from locking up children. I believe that that is a very strident form of expression. If children are to be locked up, such a service must be provided. I believe that most Members of the Committee agree that, regrettably, there are some children who have to be locked up for the benefit of the remainder of the public, irrespective of who carries it out. That service is either provided by the state or the private sector. As I explained yesterday, the important thing is not who actually does the locking up but the service that is provided. If it is possible for the private sector to provide a service which is better and cheaper to the taxpayer than the public service, I do not see that that can be wrong.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull, referred to making profits from locking up children. If that argument is used, I wonder whether it is any worse than those who make a living from looking after prisoners. Indeed, it could be said that many people in the prison service make their living by locking up prisoners. I believe that to be a most emotive expression.
The fact is that if we are going to have these places, we want to ensure that the regime will be proper and correct for the children; that the children will be looked after properly, and will be helped to get back on to the rails. The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to the European Court of Human Rights. She said there had been breaches in secure accommodation. No breaches have been reported to us. There are strict criteria for the placement of children under the Children Act 1989 which necessitate court approval and which prevent undue use of the powers to place children in secure accommodation.
It is expected that the premises will meet the inspection requirements and the quality of care standards which are expected of the local authority sector. It is necessary to obtain the Secretary of State's approval for them. The children will have to meet the
138
strict criteria for admission to secure accommodation which are set down in Section 25 of the Children Act 1989, and the local authority will retain responsibility for placing the children and determining the length of stay.
The voluntary organisations such as Barnardo's or the National Children's Home have done a great deal in the area of looking after children, and the private sector has for many years made a valuable contribution to our child care services. Many of the organisations have a good record of providing open residential accommoda-tion with good care and a good regime. There is a wealth of experience and a wealth of expertise in caring for difficult and disturbed young people. It seems only logical that we should be able to tap into this resource so as to facilitate good care in secure settings.
This part of the Bill is an enabling provision. The local authority will remain the placing authority and it will retain the responsibility for deciding how long any particular placement should last. It will be up to the local authority therefore to satisfy itself about the all-round suitability of a provider. It follows that no arrangements will be made and no agreement will be reached until there has been full consultation between the responsible local authority and the private interests involved.
The secure provision by the private sector will of course be subject to the same strict criteria which apply now to local authority secure accommodation. Following consultation, the Secretary of State has made her expectations of the independent sector quite clear. Private homes will be expected to provide secure facilities, management, and care to the same high quality and rigorous standards which are required of local authorities who provide secure facilities.
The same inspection requirements will apply. No private individual or organisation will be allowed to operate a secure unit without the express approval of the Secretary of State—both in advance and during its period of operation. Given these requirements, I think that the private sector should be allowed to make a substantial contribution, alongside local authorities, towards the provision of this secure accommodation.
Lord Brookes: Will the Minister, for whom I have great respect, accept that there is a permissible distinction between service to the social structure and the state and service to an accountant? That is the essence of the point which is being addressed.
Lord Hunt: The noble Earl, in replying to the mover of this amendment, did not address the question of the very specialised training, and—equally important-—the actual experience required of the staff of whatever accommodation is provided for these difficult and in some cases dangerous young people. The voluntary bodies which are involved in this business, such as Barnardo's and the National Children's Home and others, have precisely that experience. Perhaps the Minister would like to say something about the staffing of the centres that are to be provided by the private sector.
Lord Elton: My noble friend would do much to reassure those of us who feel there may be a place for the private sector in these activities if he could address with more sympathy the reservations which they show and the rather more sharp reservations of those who feel there is no such place. I tried yesterday to demonstrate that there is a difference of significance between institutions which are run for profit and institutions which are run out of the public purse. My noble friend almost touched on that matter. If a person in charge of an institution which is operated out of public funds has the choice of having 25 or 24 inmates in it, and he is working to a budget, it is attractive to have 24 rather than 25 because that leaves some of the budget unconsumed. If on the other hand, the institution is being run for profit and the choice is between having 24 and 25 inmates, if the institution is run on a normal accounting basis, having 25 inmates rather than 24 is more attractive because it gives one more item on which a profit may be made.
I do not say that it is iniquitous that a profit should be made. I accept what my noble friend says without reservation. But it does then mean that one must look at both halves of the equation which he put to the Committee. He asked whether the private sector can deliver a service which is both cheaper and better. We can see what is cheaper from the balance sheet at the end of the year, just as a company can see what is most profitable; but what is better has to be ascertained by some form of inspection or transparency. We addressed this yesterday without too much success. If my noble friend could have a greater regard for these anxieties and guarantee more transparency or greater supervision, he would do much to take the enthusiasm out of the pursuit of this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wish to follow the point that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just been making and with which I entirely agree. The Minister has sought to draw an analogy between the use of the private sector for this kind of accommodation and the use of the private sector in prisons. Some of us have both principled and other objections to the use of the private sector in prisons, but I do not think the Minister would deny that prisons do not on the whole have the problem of under-occupation, and that therefore the problems as between 25 and 24 people, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred, would not apply to the Wolds or to Blakenhurst, or to any other potential future private prison. However, the problem of the profit and loss account requiring high occupation levels applies strongly to the institutions that we are talking about, just as it applies to bail hostels, for example, which we shall discuss later. To that extent surely the analogy which the Minister has drawn falls down.
Baroness David: I wish to follow up this one point. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said we will know what is cheaper by the balance sheets. But as I pointed out when I spoke, if the private secure units do not have to be registered companies, there may be no way of discovering how great a profit is being made.
LordDixon-Smith: I hope that the Committee will not run away with the general idea that because an establishment happens to be in what is termed the public sector it is necessarily good and inherently good. The awful truth is that there are both good and bad establishments within that sector. I get an amazing sense of déjà vu in listening to this debate because I had not expected to come to this Chamber to find myself taking part in the sort of discussion that has gone on in council chambers across the breadth of the land for the past five years. But the fact of the matter is that what we are looking for is an establishment which has a proper regime and which will do a good job in the best interests of the public at large. Whether that happens to be in the public or private sector is certainly not an issue on which I feel strongly. What is quite certain is that from all the evidence that we have in local government, the private sector can do it at least as well as—and in many cases better than—the public sector; and there is a great deal of experience to show that is so.
3.30 pm
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith is entirely right in saying that there is good and bad in the public sector, and that is a fact. Over the years there have been many people in this Chamber who have been prepared to criticise the public sector and to ask why it is not better. We have tried to make it better and I think we have succeeded. One of the ways in which we have made it better is to incorporate the use of not only private sector finance but also expertise. There is no monopoly of expertise in this area attaching only to government or to public sector employees, although the value of what they do is considerable.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, that there is a difference between someone who is engaged in public service and someone who is engaged as an employee of a company. People say that there is something wrong with making money out of locking up children. The point that I was trying to make—and this is where the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, misunderstood me slightly—was that in the public sector people make their living looking after prisoners. It could be said that that is just as bad as making a profit out of looking after prisoners or young offenders. Therefore I do not accept the analogy that it is wrong to make a profit. Any private organisation which is involved will of course have to make a profit; otherwise it will not survive. That is not the case in the public sector because there is no profit regime.
My noble friend Lord Elton said that if only I could be a little more sympathetic, that would take a little of the steam out of the amendment. I try to be sympathetic to the cause espoused by my noble friend and others. He was concerned that if a home had only 24 people the company would not make as much money as if it had 25 people. The number of people who are placed in a centre or home will not be the responsibility of the company. It will be the responsibility of the courts or the local authorities which place people in the homes. In the case of the secure training centres which we were discussing the other day there will be an arrangement whereby the Government obviously have to ensure that a certain

141
level of expenditure will be available to the centre because if there were only three people in the centre, which had to be run on the basis of holding 40, that would not be workable. Therefore, some arrangement has to be arrived at. That is a perfectly normal part of a contract.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that the establishments require specialised training and staff. He is quite right. But there are many people who are specialists in this area. In relation to secure training centres, which I recognise are slightly different, we suggest that it will be up to the organisations to obtain the necessary staffing. If they do not achieve that level of staffing, they will not win the contract. With regard to these particular establishments, I am bound to tell the noble Lord that, before he approves a home, the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied about its management and staffing and about the staffing of the secure units.
Over the past two years the Secretary of State has allocated more than £30 million to a training support programme which is geared to the many needs of the heads of homes and of staff. Private homes will be subject to the same statutory safeguards as those run by local authorities and voluntary organisations. Those safeguards will include the Secretary of State for Health's approval of secure units, the 1991 children's homes regulations, the secure accommodation regula-tions 1991 which relate to the procedural safeguards of placements and the SSI inspections. Ultimately, the Secretary of State can close homes which are unsatisfactory.
I tried to say yesterday, I said again today, and I repeat that I understand the anxieties which were expressed by those who feel that we should not put children into homes which are badly run or badly staffed. The point that I tried to make, and which I suggest to the Committee is worth considering, is that what really matters is not who provides what is provided, but what is provided. What is provided is a matter for the regulations and for the specification, and will be subject to inspection and safeguards. Whether it is provided by a private interest, a local authority or a charitable organisation is relatively immaterial. The important point is that the standards are satisfactory.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question. Who will be responsible for the training of the staff, and where will they be trained, whether it be a public sector or private sector home?
Earl Ferrers: It will be up to the home concerned to arrange the training of staff. The Home Office will have to be satisfied that the staff are trained up to the appropriate standard.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I listened with great interest to the Minister when he listed the various organisations which will make sure that staffing is appropriate. I did not hear him mention teachers and the education which the children will receive. As the noble Earl will be aware, teachers who are guilty of any misconduct have to be reported to the Department for Education. One would like to be sure that the
142
regulations governing the safety of the children under various Acts of Parliament will apply to teachers brought into the secure units and also that those teachers will come under the same jurisdiction as teachers in local authority or any other schools.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may say a few words on this subject. First, perhaps I may return briefly to what was said during last evening's debates, particularly in relation to the question of who would undertake the inspection. The noble Earl very kindly said that he would pay attention to everything that had been said in the debate. He will recall that a great deal of anxiety was expressed about the inspection, who was to undertake it, the rather curious situation of two government departments being involved in the inspection, and the consequences of an adverse report. I should be grateful if the Minister would undertake to write to us before Report stage with any views he may have on what was said last night.
Another point which the noble Earl raised yesterday —and there was a faint echo of it in what he said this afternoon—was what he would no doubt describe as the inherent unreasonableness of those who have criticised the quality of some of the public institutions holding inmates. He said that there has been criticism but now this new Jerusalem is arriving with the private sector being involved. Of course we have criticised the position in public sector prisons because many public sector prisons were built more than a century ago. The two private sector establishments—the Wolds and Blakenhurst—were designed by the Home Office. Of course the physical facilities in those establishments are admirable, as one would expect. One is not comparing like with like. Of course we shall continue to complain about the conditions in prisons such as Wormwood Scrubs and Wandsworth, but there is no comparison between the situation in those establishments and in the two new private sector establishments which have all the advantages of being purpose built by the Home Office.
The noble Earl went on to say that these facilities, both in relation to prisons and to the new secure units for children, will be better. The implication is that we shall receive better value for money. But what evidence is there that that is true? There is none whatever. We are not allowed to know the financial arrangements underpinning the Wolds and Blakenhurst. As I pointed out last night, there is an extraordinary situation in relation to Blakenhurst, where there was a substantial disturbance. The Home Office monitor wrote a highly critical report about what had happened at Blakenhurst. The provider of the service at Blakenhurst was fined. We are not even allowed to be told the level of the fine.
The noble Earl must recognise, as must the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that when it is suggested, as it is consistently, that we are getting better value for money, there is no evidence that that is so because we are denied the financial information upon which to form a judgment.
Earl Ferrers: I can give the noble. Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, the assurance which she requires. The people who teach in these establishments will be subject

143
to the same inspections, constraints—if that is the right word, and it is not—and standards as any of the other people. It may be that they come under a different department—it will be the department which covers education—because that is where their responsibilities lie. There is no question that those teachers' standards will not be to the same standards of the others who operate those homes.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Perhaps I did not phrase the question correctly. It was not the standards I was considering. Teachers are often removed from the list on the ground of misconduct. That means that they can never teach again. The point I sought to make was that those people are on a register. Children will be sent to the centres. I believe that everyone should see that those teachers have not been put on the register.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. However, I should like to confirm it. Perhaps I may write to her giving full details of such an assurance. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether I would take up the points which the Committee made last night; I will. It would be wrong if I were to say that I have given the matter a lot of consideration since then and this morning because I required a certain amount of time in which to sleep. However, I shall certainly ensure that those points are taken on board. I shall write to the noble Lord before the next stage.
The noble Lord was slightly unfair when he said that the Government now say that we have come to a new Jerusalem where everything will be wonderful. We have never taken that view; the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows that. All we have sought to do is to say that there is no reason why only bodies which exist now should be capable of looking after these young people. We want to see new ideas, new thoughts and possibly new regimes introduced.
I can understand the noble Lord's apprehension, and indeed that of my noble friend Lord Elton. They ask: if there is a new scheme, are we sure that we shall achieve something better? I can give no guarantee. No one can guarantee the future. I can understand the concern of the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee that what they are getting is better, or as good as, the current system. I shall take those matters into account and see whether there are ways in which we can meet those concerns to the satisfaction of the Committee.
Baroness David: That last statement was rather more reassuring than some we have heard. I thank the many people who supported my amendment. The noble Earl must realise that there are still many anxieties about the contracting out to the private sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, there must be a temptation to keep the places full in order to make a profit. I do not say that making a profit generally is a bad thing. We are anxious about profit being made from locking up children. That is why there is such anxiety about the standards of inspection, and so on. We hope that we shall receive reassurance on that issue.
144
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to police cells, and so on. We must remember that we already have 290 local authority secure accommodation places. There will be 170 more. I believe what I have been told: that if we had 40 or 50 more such places, and the spread around the country geographically was better, there probably would be enough places and we should not need the five units for 40 children in each.
There are still great anxieties. I moved yesterday that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill. I did not press that to a vote. This amendment covers some of the ground that I covered then. At the next stage we shall come forward with amendments which cover both Clause 7 and the matters I have raised today. We shall be only too pleased if voluntary organisations such as Barnardo's or the National Children's Home will run those centres. There will be no objection whatever; in fact we shall be pleased. Such bodies will be the best people to run them if we have to have more units.
The Minister concluded that he would give us reassurance and would write to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I hope that that letter may be put in the Library as we are all interested in the inspection issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 16:
page 13, line 20, after ("expressions") insert (", other than "local authority",").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 16 is simply a technical amendment to remove an ambiguity in Clause 19. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 17: After clause 20, insert the following new clause:
Restriction on remand to prison service custody. (" In section 23(5) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

"(a) he is charged with or has been convicted in the current proceedings or on a previous occasion of a violent or sexual offence, or is charged with or has been convicted in the current proceedings of an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more,". ").

The noble Baroness said: This new clause is intended to clarify the criteria for remanding young people aged 15 and 16 to adult prison and remand centres. It is generally agreed that such remands are undesirable and the Government are committed to phasing them out as soon as sufficient local authority secure accommodation is available.
In the meantime, the Government decided in 1991 —a very short time ago—to change the criteria for such remands, which are contained in Section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Those criteria were changed by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which provided that a juvenile could only be remanded to prison service custody when either charged with, or

145
convicted of, a violent or sexual offence or an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for 14 years or more, or he has a recent history of absconding from local authority accommodation and is charged with or convicted of an offence committed while remanded to such accommodation. In addition the court must be of the opinion that remanding the juvenile to prison service custody is necessary to protect the public from serious harm.
In the case of Re C (22nd October 1993) the Divisional Court held that a 15 year-old boy charged with theft and other non-violent offences, none of which had a maximum penalty for an adult of 14 years or more, could be remanded to prison service custody because he had previously committed a domestic burglary for which he had received a conditional discharge. Domestic burglary carries a maximum penalty for an adult of 14 years and the Divisional Court held that the phrase,
"is charged with or has been convicted of … an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more"
could include a non-violent offence of which he was convicted on a previous occasion, although he had had only a conditional discharge. Therefore the defendant was eligible to be remanded to prison service custody because of his earlier offence of domestic burglary, even though the offences with which he was now charged had lower maximum penalties.
It is difficult to believe that that was the intention of the changes to the criteria made by the Government in 1991. The express intention of the changes was to reduce the number of juveniles remanded to adult prisons and remand centres to cases where there was a genuine risk to the public. The Divisional Court's interpretation of the statute means that a young person could be remanded to prison service custody because of an offence of burglary or handling stolen goods (both of which have 14-year maximum penalties for adults) of a minor kind committed when he was 11 or 12. The amendment therefore inserts the words "in current proceedings" to make it clear that—except in the case of violent or sexual offences—the young person must be currently charged with or convicted of an offence with a 14-year maximum penalty to be eligible for a remand to prison service custody.
I consider this a reasonable amendment. I hope very much that the Minister will see fit to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she will explain this matter. She says that the proposed amendment refers to the person being convicted "in current proceedings" but the provision continues, "or on a previous occasion". Will she be so kind as to clarify that?
Baroness David: The case I described which caused the anxiety was when the previous offence of burglary carried the possibility of a prison sentence. However, the young person was only given a conditional discharge. We agree that if it is a violent or sexual offence, then the offender can be committed to custody. What we are anxious about, however, is that we wish to
146
include the words "in the current proceedings", as in the proposed new clause. We want it to be absolutely clear that the young person is charged with something which carries that penalty. I hope that I have made that clear. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The noble Baroness has a point. She is asking the Government to be consistent with their previous legislation. At first sight that is a good aim in itself, especially in those circumstances However, I am not quite sure that what has been laid down by the previous legislation is quite enough. One certainly agrees with the noble Baroness about the young person, at present aged 15 or 16, or under the powers which the Government seek, at 14, perhaps to be extended later to 13 or even 12.
If the young person has been convicted, for example, of frequently driving motor cars without the owner's consent to the danger of the public, without actually causing violence, that does not carry imprisonment with a maximum sentence of 14 years. If I remember rightly, the maximum is two years.
There are cases—rare enough but notorious—of teenagers stealing motor cars, driving them round, joyriding; sometimes committing violence with them but quite often not. I should have thought that the court ought to have the power to remand young people in custody if such offences become persistent. Under the noble Baroness's amendment, that would not be possible. A fair point which she makes is that neither would it be possible under the amendment which the Government made in the 1991 Act.
I should be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say, but in all such circumstances we need to ensure that the court has the power and the discretion to make such orders for remand in custody to protect not only the public but the young person from his own folly.
Baroness Faithfull: We agree with my noble friend Lord Renton, but we disagree as to where the young offenders should be remanded. We are saying that they should not be remanded to prison but to local authority secure units.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lady Faithfull is always on the ball about such matters but I think that she is wrong in her interpretation. As the Committee knows, the courts will have power, when sufficient accommoda-tion is available, to remand 15 and 16 year-olds to local authority accommodation with a security requirement when certain conditions are met. Those include the cases where young people are charged, or have been convicted, of violent or sexual offences; or have been charged with, or convicted of, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. Those are the conditions where the sentence can be given.
On top of that, the court must be satisfied that there is a need to protect the public from serious harm from the juvenile. Clause 20 will make 12 to 14 year-olds eligible for a secure remand. We had always assumed that the words "had been convicted of referred to one particular occasion. However, the divisional court ruled that the phrase in the existing criteria "has been

147
convicted of" can refer to previous convictions as well as a conviction in the current proceedings. As I understand it, the reason for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady David, is to deal with that. Her amendment would restrict the scope of that decision of the divisional court by allowing courts to remand 12 to 16 year-olds to local authority accommodation with a security requirement in cases where the juvenile has been convicted of a violent or sexual offence on a previous occasion, but not where the previous conviction is for an offence carrying a 14-year sentence; for example, burglary.
It is an important point, and in the light of that and of the noble Baroness's remarks I have some sympathy with her amendment. If she will allow me, I should like to consider whether the amendment addresses the issue in quite the way that the Government consider appropriate. If necessary, I am prepared to bring forward our amendment at a later stage. If the noble Baroness will be kind enough to withdraw her amendment, if she sees fit, I shall give the matter consideration and ascertain whether we can meet the points she makes.
Baroness David: I am grateful to the noble Earl and of course I agree to withdraw the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, there seems to be an inconsistency which appears to have raised questions. I am happy to accept the noble Earl's offer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause:
Duty of local authority to provide bail support schemes
(".—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to provide, or to make arrangements with such persons as seem to them to be appropriate for the provision by these persons of, "bail support schemes", that is to say arrangements for the support and supervision of children and young persons granted bail in criminal proceedings.
(2) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make such grants as he considers appropriate to local authorities in connection with their duties under this section.").
The noble Baroness said: The new clause alters the rules governing the detention of arrested juveniles after charge and before they are brought to court. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 amended Section 38(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to provide that juveniles cannot be held overnight in police detention unless a custody officer certifies, first, that it is impractical to transfer the juvenile to local authority accommodation or, secondly, where the juvenile is aged 15 or over, that no secure accommodation is available and that keeping him in other local authority accommodation would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm by him. "Serious harm" is not limited to violent or sexual offences. The government amendment changes the minimum age in the second criterion from 15 to 12.
The new clause is disturbing. It is undesirable that children aged 12 to 14 should be held overnight in police cells when they could be transferred and held overnight in local authority accommodation. Before the
148
rules were changed in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, young people of this age were not infrequently held in police custody in circumstances where local authority accommodation was available.
NACRO has provided two examples which occurred in the same London borough in two successive weeks in 1989. The details are readily available because they were assembled in 1989 for a possible judicial review case, but they are typical of what often happened before the 1991 Act.
On 8th June 1989, A, aged 14, was arrested, charged and detained by police. A senior social worker of the social services department spoke by telephone that afternoon to the custody sergeant and was informed that it was likely that the boy would be detained in police custody unless secure accommodation was provided for him by the local authority. Later, a superintendent insisted that, as a secure placement was not available for the boy, he be kept in police custody overnight. At juvenile court the next day, the boy was granted conditional bail on charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, criminal damage and an offence under the Telecommunications Act 1984.
On 20th June 1989, B, aged 13, was arrested by the police on matters relating to criminal damage and burglary. In discussions between social workers and police officers the police insisted that the boy would be detained overnight in police custody unless a secure care place was made available.
Following B's production at court the next morning, the boy was remanded into the care of the local authority. He was then placed in the open unit of a regional remand and assessment unit. It is disturbing that the police should be able to detain overnight in a police station a juvenile as young as 12 even though local authority acommodation is available for him or her, particularly in cases when bail or a remand to non-secure local authority accommodation is the most likely course when the child appears in court. If the provision of more local authority secure places is considered necessary to ensure that a place will more often be available at short notice in such cases, that is the direction in which we should go rather than seeking to solve the problem by a greater use of police custody, which is so clearly inappropriate for such young people.
Yesterday and today we all said how unsuitable police custody detention in police cells is for young people (juveniles) and more particularly for those aged 12 and 13. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said yesterday, these are just children. So I hope that the Minister will again be kind and will be willing to look at this favourably. I beg to move.
4 pm
Baroness Mallalieu: I am not entirely clear whether the noble Baroness's remarks go to opposition to the question that Clause 23 stand part of the Bill or to Amendment No. 18 standing in her name. Perhaps I might—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It is
Amendment No. 18.
Baroness David: I am very sorry. I have made a terrible mistake and read the wrong brief. I do apologise. Can I start again?
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for coming to my rescue as well as to the rescue of her noble friend. I thought that she was possibly referring to clause stand part as opposed to Amendment No. 18. It is an easy mistake and we all understand it. I am quite sure that the noble Baroness would like to deliver herself of what she intended to say as opposed to what she did say. We shall all understand.
Baroness David: I do apologise to the Committee. Thank you for treating me so kindly and generously. I hope that someone else will make that speech next time. I suppose that I am not used to doing three amendments right on top of each other. I found that a bit overwhelming. However, I shall try again.
This is a new clause imposing a statutory duty on local authorities to provide bail support schemes for juveniles. Bail support schemes, which provide support and supervision for defendants on bail, have grown in number in recent years and provide an important means of reducing the likelihood of offending during the crucial period awaiting trial. At present most such schemes work with juveniles, although I am pleased to say that the number working with young adults is now growing. They use a range of approaches which encourage young offenders to comply with the conditions of bail and help them to gain access to constructive opportunities and activities.
The methods used include regular officer reporting; placements with volunteers during the evening and at weekends; monitored attendance at youth activities; the monitoring of school attendance; programmes designed to reintroduce juveniles to school, or the negotiation of specialist educational provision; assistance with employment problems; involvement in youth training schemes; participation in supervised activity programmes; and work with families to help resolve conflicts, to ensure a continuing home base for the young person and to involve parents in taking more responsibility for their children's behaviour. Additionally, in some areas curfews, supervision throughout the day and regular daily reporting are used. The great advantage of bail support schemes is that constructive work with the young person begins during the bail period. It is not put off for weeks or months until the case has been heard. This early intervention can be crucial in stopping the cycle of reoffending.
Unfortunately, many areas do not have bail support schemes. A survey carried out last year by NACRO of 103 social services departments found that 30 of those authorities had no bail support arrangements at all for juveniles in their area and a further six had such arrangements in only part of the area.
In 1992 the Home Office announced that, over a three-year period beginning in March that year, it would make available £8 million for bail support programmes of various kinds. However, that was mainly aimed at schemes run by the probation service for adult defendants.
150
At present local authorities are under a statutory duty to provide certain services for young offenders. They are also under a statutory duty to provide intermediate treatment facilities. When Section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is implemented, they will be under a statutory duty to provide secure accommodation. We are saying that the prevention of offending on bail is so important that there should be a similar statutory duty in relation to bail support schemes. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: Public anger about young people who commit crimes and are released on bail by the courts to commit further offences while on bail is both understandable and justified. Getting into trouble in the first place usually happens because things have gone wrong at home or at school, or because the youngster has got mixed up with other difficult young people in the neighbourhood.
Bail without guidance, without support and without teeth for these young people often simply returns the offender to the same community and the same problems, but with the additional worry of a pending court appearance for the period leading to his trial, which may be anything up to a year, particularly if his case goes to the Crown Court and is contested.
The alternative to bail is often a remand in secure local authority accommodation, which the noble Earl said last night (if I remember him correctly) costs between £1,500 and £3,000 per week per child.
If local authorities are to be obliged by statute to provide secure accommodation, surely it makes sense to oblige them, too, to provide these very much cheaper schemes which are designed to prevent, where possible, the drastic step of removing a child from his home, his family, his school and his community even before conviction. Such schemes, where they exist, tend to be patchy and tend to be aimed mainly at adult offenders. The monitoring of behaviour, to which the noble Baroness has already referred, the monitoring of attendance at school or training programmes, help and advice for the possible offender and his family, even curfews with repeated checks at night are all practical steps which can be taken to make bail work and to prevent reoffending. Surely it makes sense to give statutory encouragement to local authorities, which will have to provide secure accommodation when Section 61 of the 1991 Act is implemented, to provide this considerably cheaper alternative too. I support the amendment.
Lord Milverton: I should probably like to support this amendment, if, as has been said, positive help is to be given while a young person is on bail. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, it is not much good their being on bail if they are not exercised (shall we say?) in a positive way. So long as that is possible, and their energies and minds are used in such a way as to be of help to them, then I should have thought that this is a reasonable amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I can understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady David, about bail support; and indeed that of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Bail support schemes have an important part to play in the

151
arrangements for the support of children and young persons who are granted bail. Guidance from the Home Office and the Department of Health in March 1992 encouraged local authorities to establish these kinds of schemes.
According to the most recently published survey, which was conducted by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, as many as 78 local authorities have made bail support available in their areas. There would seem to be no evidence from this that local authorities are avoiding their responsibili-ties in this respect. Of course, the voluntary sector also plays an important part in providing bail support, and the number of such projects is growing.
The Home Office is devolving to local probation services the funds which have been made available for grants to the voluntary sector. This is in order that projects which provide support for people on bail form part of local partnership arrangements and in order that spending decisions can be taken at local level in the light of local needs and priorities.
Many of these schemes will be run in conjunction with local authorities, where that is the most effective arrangement. In fact, the number of voluntary sector projects which have been funded by the Home Office nearly doubled during 1993. Last year the Home Office made more than 30 grants to schemes offering bail support, some of which include juveniles. We certainly want to encourage the probation services to look carefully at the possible benefits of well established projects to support the bail system and give the courts greater confidence in giving bail in appropriate cases.
In fact, we have gone further. The Home Office has recently provided the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders with a grant to fund a national unit to develop bail support schemes. That has the task of undertaking a three-year programme of work designed to help develop bail support where it is likely to be most effective.
The level of bail support which is found to be necessary in each area is bound to depend upon the local circumstances. It is right that local authorities and probation services should have the flexibility to make these arrangements in accordance with local needs. I believe that a statutory provision, such as the one proposed in the amendment, would place a constriction on the arrangements. It would be much better to allow them to remain flexible.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: I accept that there are ways of providing bail support other than the one provided in this new clause. But surely the issue which arises from subsection (2) of the new clause is one of resources for local authorities. When he mentioned the additional ways of providing bail support, the Minister did not say that local authorities should not be providing bail support. Does he agree that they should be encouraged, in the terms of the amendment, by having the resources made available to them by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury?
Earl Ferrers: I tried to make the point that instead of the Home Office saying, as it were, what should be
152
made available and where, that money has been devolved down to local probation services, so that they should use that money which previously would have been administered centrally. It should be administered locally.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl said—I am sure he is right—that there are 78 local authorities (I believe that is the figure he gave) which are providing such services. It follows therefore that a very significant number do not have arrangements of that character in hand. It seems fairly clear that the Government, for understandable reasons, are reluctant to impose a new statutory duty on all local authorities because of the public expenditure implications. There can be no other explanation for resistance to an amendment of this kind.
The noble Earl will recognise the problem. If people are put in a custodial environment, the public expenditure implications are even greater than in having a proper bail support system.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord has made a mathematical calculation. If 78 local authorities provide bail support schemes and there are more than that number of local authorities, then some of them do not provide them.
Baroness David: Perhaps I could just clarify that point. The survey covered only 103 social services departments and 30 had no bail support. It did not cover absolutely every authority in the country.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I think that possibly the noble Baroness may be confusing two figures. It is my fault. According to the recently published survey, as many as 78 local authorities have made bail support available in their areas. That means that 30 do not do so. Later I went on to say that the Home Office made more than 30 grants to schemes offering bail support. The two figures, each of 30, may have caused the confusion. The Home Office has made 30 grants to schemes offering bail support. There are 78 local authorities which provide that and 30 apparently do not do so.
Baroness David: Can the noble Earl say whether the 30 which were given money for bail support were the 30 which gave no services at all before?
Earl Ferrers: I should have to find out for the noble Baroness. I was not aware that she would want to know precisely which local authorities had the support and which had not. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is a reasonable one. The local authorities should be encouraged. But part of the whole effect of government is the devolution of responsibilities through local government. Inevitably that means that some local authorities will decide to do what other local authorities will not do. It is a matter for the local authorities to decide on what they will do.
We certainly provide encouragement and assistance where necessary. It is strongly in the financial interests of local authorities to provide bail support for juveniles, given the very high cost of open and secure accommodation to which juveniles might otherwise go.

153
In the light of that, I hope that most local authorities —in fact more local authorities—will take up these bail support schemes and so reduce the figure to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, drew attention.
Lord Hylton: Will the noble Earl follow up his words by having a circular issued pointing out to local authorities the importance and advantages of bail support schemes?
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may just add one point. This morning I was briefly at the National Probation Council's annual general meeting. There I picked up the concern about the under-use of bail hostel accommoda-tion. The view was that there was a very urgent need for it to be taken up, otherwise the funding for it would wither on the bough. In fact, that appears to be happening already.
It is an area in which a Home Office circular could be extremely helpful. Indeed, the idea of the noble Baroness, Lady David—I understand that it was her idea —to restrict the money for this purpose to that use has its precedent in my noble friend's department in the ring-fencing of 5 per cent. of the probation service money for use in the voluntary sector. I hope that my noble friend will look closely at this area, in which there is much to be done and a great deal of harm to be avoided.
Earl Ferrers: I quite understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to have a circular, which is supported by my noble friend Lord Elton. Obviously, there is a limit to the number of circulars that one can chase around to local authorities. I shall certainly consider the points that have been made. I cannot guarantee that a circular would be the right course to take, but it is a point worthy of consideration.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to make two points. First, a number of children's voluntary organisations, such as Barnardo's, run community-based supervised projects for such children. Secondly, one of their great successes is the work that they do with parents. The parents are involved in coming to those projects and working with the staff and children together. They are essentially cost effective and often very much better for the children than being sent away.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may add a further word. The noble Earl was kind enough to say that he would reflect on what has been said this afternoon. We all welcome that. He referred to devolving funds to the probation services to support bail schemes. Will he accept that those are mainly schemes directed at adult offenders? In fact, does not the social services department deal with the young people whose future we are now discussing? Certainly we all very much welcome the grant to NACRO to establish these new national units. But their purpose is entirely advisory.
I repeat that I welcome very much what the Minister said this afternoon. I hope that, when he writes to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, he will also add some of our names to the letter.
Earl Ferrers: This has been a useful debate. It has drawn out a lot of strands of an important area, some of which are matters of detail which we shall need to consider. Many of the schemes are jointly managed by the probation and social services. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether or not we would issue guidance. I said that these are matters that we shall certainly consider. In fact they are being considered at the moment and it is expected that the Home Office will publish a circular on bail at some time in the near future. The fact that we have had this discussion this afternoon will be extremely helpful.
Baroness David: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. There is no doubt that bail support schemes for juveniles are welcomed on all sides of the Chamber. It is really a question of whether or not there is enough money to pay for them. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will use his influence to make sure that there is enough money.
I shall not divide the Committee now about the question of there being a statutory duty. But I should like to think about the matter and decide whether or not it is important to come back at the next stage. I thank the Minister for what he said in support of the amendment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Elton: I gave notice of my intention to resist the proposal that this clause shall stand part of the Bill. The field which I intended to sow has been usefully, albeit accidently, ploughed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in advance.
The purpose of Clause 23 is to mirror the level of security of detention provided in Clause 1 for children of certain categories, for children in the same categories who have been arrested and charged but not taken to court. The Committee will readily see that the clause goes beyond that purpose and I shall return to that. As it is in itself an extension of a system set up in 1984, which your Lordships amended in 1991, we should first look to see how the system into which it is intended to draw children of 12 and 13 is now working and to what extent your Lordships' intentions are being met.
When we made our amendments in 1991 my noble friend said that no one wished to see children locked up in police cells. I am sure that we all subscribe to that view today, as we did then. We understood that very few children would in fact be so. Strict guidelines were undertaken and accurately reflected in later Home Office guidance. We are again asked to have the same understanding by the responsible Minister in another place. In discussing the matter he said,
"this is an exceptional power and the local authority social services department will be fully involved in decisions. The vast majority of juveniles aged 12 to 16 who are refusal bail will continue to be looked after by the local authority in the short period after being charged and before their first court appearance".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B; 1/3/94; col. 1097.]
Let us look at the background to our first understanding before assessing that invitation to renew it. I can help the

155
Committee to do so thanks to the information provided by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, which is much exercised about the matter.
In the majority of police force areas constabularies have taken on board the spirit of Parliament's intentions. So let us start with an example from one of those. The problem used to be particularly acute in the relatively small north-western metropolitan borough of Bolton. I am informed that between June and December 1991, 183 juveniles were detained in police cells with only two being moved to local authority accommodation. For the first nine months of 1992 the figures were 211 and six respectively. Our amendment to Section 38(6) then came into force and over the next three months seven juveniles were detained and 15 moved to local authority accommodation. In 1993 as a whole 56 juveniles remained in the police station, not at the instance of the custody officer, but because the social services department considered that they would abscond or because they could not obtain secure accommodation.
That is the security that Members of the Committee are looking for from Clause 23. In that year 143 juveniles were moved to local authority accommoda-tion. Of those remaining in police custody, 11 were aged 14 and would be caught by the clause, and of those moved out of the police station, 19 were 13-year olds and 26 14-year olds, who would also be caught by the clause.
That practice of social workers, in consultation with the police, of assessing the risk of children not appearing in court, reflects excellent practice mirrored in a number of other police force areas. Those facts provide a good example of police and social workers working together with the social work departments carrying out the functions allocated to them under the arrangements we made in 1991 and which are to be extended by the clause. The figures illustrate the scale of the operation where is it working well. But the scale can be much greater in spite of the changes we then made.
For instance, in 1993 I understand that 1,106 juveniles were produced before Nottingham Guildhall court with fewer than 50 coming from local authority accommodation. Of that 1,106, 88 were 13 and under and 146 were 14 years old. The majority of those children would have been kept in police custody overnight or over a weekend. That was a reduction in the 1992 figure when 324 juveniles aged 14 or under were produced before the court.
In another East Midlands authority—Humberside— where numbers are more reasonable because of effective inter-agency agreements and policy on the section, there is nevertheless difficulty in accommodating detained juveniles. In 1993, 363 aged 11 to 16 were brought before the courts, either having spent the night in police custody or having been moved to local authority accommodation. Of that figure, only 50 juveniles fell into the latter category; that is, from local authority accommodation. Of those 50, 23 were aged 11 to 14. A further 36 children of that age were left in the police stations. In total, 313 children remained in police cells either overnight or over a weekend in that one borough.
156
Clause 23 would extend the operation of Section 38(6) of the 1984 Act downwards in age from 15 to 12. Even in the well conducted area I have just quoted the volume will be increased and so inevitably will the numbers of children kept inappropriately in police cells overnight and over the weekend. It is at that point that I ask Members of the Committee to recall that the declared intention of Clause 23 is merely that it shall extend the level of security established in Clause 1 for the customers defined in Clause 1, after sentence, to the same child customers after they have been arrested and charged so that they can be reliably delivered up for trial —something that we all want to be achieved.
The point to note in Clause 1, is that its customers are clearly and carefully defined. The definition is in two parts. The first relates to their age,
"not less than 12 but under 15".
That is reflected in Clause 23 and I have no quarrel with it. The second definition relates to their history and is to be found in Clause 1(5). It defines a child who has been convicted of three or more imprisonable offences and has either been found by a court to be in breach of a Children and Young Persons Act supervision order or has been convicted of an imprisonable offence while subject to such an order.
The whole of the second restricted definition is missing from Clause 23; nor does the clause contain anything to provide an even vaguely similar restriction on its effect. Clause 23 therefore seems to me to be designed to catch—perhaps unintentionally—a large number of customers who will never qualify even to be considered for sentencing under Clause 1. It will therefore greatly overload a system that I have shown to be already greatly overloaded and much unjust and inhuman treatment of children will result.
I hope that my noble friend can bring the clause back to your Lordships at Report stage, suitably restricted to match the restrictions already in Clause 1. If he cannot, I do not think it ought to remain part of the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have much sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, says. This is a real problem. It affects both the social services and the police. I do not believe that there is any chief constable in the country who wants to keep 12 year-olds and 13 year-olds in police cells. It would be an absurdity for them to have any such ambition. The problem is that there is a woeful lack of local authority secure accommodation. It is a real difficulty for the police.
Perhaps I may give an example. A couple of years ago I visited a quite substantial county police force with a senior police officer from outside that county. I was talking to a detective chief superintendent. The problem he identified related to non-secure local authority homes in his force area where children were regularly decamping and committing a substantial number of criminal offences. They were eventually captured by the police. What then was the police force supposed to do? Did it simply return them to the children's home from which they had run away, knowing that if they did so the

157
children would almost certainly leave and commit another dozen or so criminal offences before they were yet again caught?
The problem was that in that force area there was a woeful lack of local authority secure accommodation where the children could be put. No doubt, in many cases, they were kept in police cells. The police did not want to keep them there; they regarded it as profoundly unsatisfactory. That is why so many of us have been pressing the Government over the past few years, and before that, to have a well-planned programme for increasing the amount of local authority secure accommodation. The fact is that if we do not have this accommodation the children will in some cases go to police cells. I find that most unsatisfactory. As I said yesterday, I welcome the fact that Mrs. Bottomley now has a programme to increase the amount of local authority secure accommodation. I hope that that programme is going to be pressed ahead with considerable energy because if it is not the kind of situation outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be repeated in many parts of the country.
Baroness Faithfull: I support my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The Department of Health has agreed to 170 more places in the country. There are two problems here. One is resolved: there is to be a grant made for the setting up of the centres. But there is no grant made for running them. With local authorities in difficulties over finance and resources at the moment, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister will consider that point.
Baroness Mallalieu: I too support the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said about the provision of more local authority secure places. From all sides of the Committee and from those who are concerned in this matter, there is undoubtedly growing disquiet about the number of children being kept, even for relatively short periods, in police custody. If these provisions remain in the Bill there will no doubt be an increase in the number of children in that position and, sadly, their age will be lowered to 12.
Yesterday the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke of her own experience in spending a night in a police cell. Even those of us who have not taken the drastic step that she has know that that is unsatisfactory accommodation for an adult, let alone a child. There are no exercise facilities and worse still, in the case of what is often a difficult and disturbed youngster, there is very unlikely to be anyone who is trained to deal with the specific problems of a child. It is a frightening experience for an adult but a terrifying and possibly a scarring one for a child.
If the provision of more local authority secure places is considered necessary to ensure that no children have to go, even temporarily, into police custody, that surely is the direction in which we should be going. I too am grateful that provision has been made at any rate to provide 170 more places. But it is clear that provision must be made to ensure that those places can continue to be run. Greater use of police custody is clearly inappropriate to deal with children in this position. I
158
hope that the noble Earl will address the questions which have been put to him by Members of the Committee.
Lord Renton: Despite what I felt obliged to say yesterday about police custody sometimes having to be used because there is no other accommodation available, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and with my noble friends, that we should try to avoid that situation as far as possible.
I invite the attention of the Committee to Clause 23 as it stands. The Government's purposes there is to be achieved by an amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We have legislation by reference of a fairly simple kind. But when we look at the explanatory memorandum which purports to describe the effects of Clause 23, Members of the Committee will see that it gives police,
"a power to detain juveniles aged 12–14 in police cells prior to their appearance in court".
I stress those words of limitation,
"prior to their appearance in court".
Then conditions are laid down, which are not specifically referred to in the clause itself. Those
conditions are,
"when no local authority secure accommodation is available and
there is risk to the public of serious harm from the juveniles".
I hope that I am not asking too much of my noble friend Lord Ferrers in dealing with what he may consider a rather technical point. However, can he assure the Committee that Clause 23, by merely amending the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, achieves the Government's purpose as described in the explanatory memorandum and in particular whether it limits it to the position,
"prior to their appearance in court"
and also to,
"when no local authority secure accommodation is available"?
Is it also limited to cases where,
"there is risk to the public of serious harm from the juveniles"?
One does not gather from a simple amendment to the 1984 Act that those conditions are covered by the clause as drafted.
Lord Elton: My noble friend puts his finger on an important point. While other noble friends are gathering their wits I should point out that the restrictive phrases in the explanatory memorandum are extracted from the Act which is amended by reference—that Is to say, the 1984 legislation. I am struggling to pin them down as I speak. I refer to the case of an arrested juvenile who has attained the age of 15 years, for whom no secure accommodation is available and when keeping him in other local authority accommodation would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm. That is not the restriction I am seeking because it is already in place.
All I seek is a balance between Clause 1and Clause 23. Clause 1 concerns one handful of people and Clause 23 concerns three handfuls of people of whom only one is going to be of any use to the system. They should not be exposed to this provision.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be even more grateful because it will save him explaining the technicalities.
Lord Elton: No doubt a message will come from the box and prove that I am wrong.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to make a brief intervention on this matter. I cannot see any reason why this clause should not stand part of the Bill. I accept that there has to be a balance between Clause 1 and Clause 23, but Clause 1 stands part. Therefore, after the commission of an alleged arrestable offence, surely an accused of 12 years of age may be arrested and charged. Looking at the matter in practical terms, if he is not released on police bail and the offence is of a very serious nature, the accused must be detained and brought before the magistrates when the question of release on bail will be judicially considered on the morrow. We are not concerned about conviction because there is no way in which prison accommodation or police cells may be used on conviction. My noble friend the Minister gave that clear undertaking yesterday at col. 62 of Hansard, so we are not concerned with that. In the circumstances, I cannot see any reason why Clause 23 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Elton: Without knowing for which part of the debate my noble friend was absent, it is difficult to know how to answer his point. The point very narrowly is that the expressed purpose of Clause 23 is to catch the customers who may qualify under Clause 1 for sentence. That means the people whose description is clearly set out in Clause 1 (1) and Clause 1 (5). That definitive restriction is absent from Clause 23 and makes its effect very much wider. That is what I am seeking to narrow.
4.45 pm
Earl Ferrers: I think that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has made a very sensible intervention in suggesting that he can see no reason why the clause should not stand part of the Bill. I agree with him. I wish that my noble friend, who had the privilege of serving in the Home Office once upon a time, would do the same when Home Office Bills come up and would not always try to exclude various of their clauses. That would make my life a great deal easier.
I know that my noble friend is very concerned about children. He is right to express that concern. There is no question but that we all share that concern. However, the simple fact is that crime is being committed more and more by younger and younger people. That is a very sad fact. It is also a fact that we have to do something about it. The other fact is that the public have to be protected from those people. Therefore, the route that we have chosen is that there should be secure training centres and more local authority secure accommodation. That is the point about which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was concerned. One is always in difficulty when trying to balance the two halves of this equation which run contrary to each other. One is that it is wrong to lock up children, and the other is that it is intolerable
160
to have those children running around creating mayhem for the public. One cannot meet those two points without causing some anxiety somewhere.
All of us dislike the idea of children spending nights in police cells. Equally, all of us dislike the idea of children creating chaos in their communities. The fact is that children will be kept in police cells on only the very rarest of occasions. My noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to the fact that more local authority accommodation was being made available and that although there was a grant for the setting up of such accommodation there was none for the running of it. However, my noble friend will see from Clause 21 that there is a power for central government to reimburse the revenue costs of local authorities which are looking after juveniles who are remanded by the courts to secure accommodation. That should be a help.
My noble friend Lord Elton was concerned because he said that there is an imbalance between Clause 1 and Clause 23. He said that he thought that Clause 23 was designed to catch a large number of customers not covered by Clause 1. He suggested that the criteria for detention in police stations should be identical to those for the secure training orders. That is not correct because the police should not have to consider all of the factors which a court has to consider when sentencing. I do not think that they can be expected to do that. The police want to ensure that the juvenile appears in court and that the public are protected. To some extent, the need to protect the public from harm is a more stringent criterion than that in Clause 1.
My noble friend Lord Renton posed some questions about Clause 23 and asked about the effect of achieving the Government's purpose as described in the explanatory memorandum. He asked whether Clause 23 did that. I think that it does. It limits the situation in the way described by my noble friend. The amendment to the 1984 Act, which was made by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, should be read together with the amendment that is made by Clause 23.
My noble friend said that he was concerned about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 under which, when a juvenile—in other words, a person who is under 17—is charged and when bail is withheld by the police he or she must be transferred to local authority accommodation until their first court appearance unless such a course is impracticable. This properly reflects the fact that young people need to be looked after in a way which is appropriate to their age, and police cells are not generally the most suitable environment in which to keep children for long periods of time.
Your Lordships will remember that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduced exceptions so that the police can hold onto juveniles when it is impracticable to transfer them. In the case of 15 and 16 year-olds, they can also be held onto in police accommodation when there is no secure local authority accommodation available and when the custody officer considers that any other form of accommodation would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm. Those are fairly stringent criteria.
Clause 23 will extend the scope of this exception so that 12 to 14 year-olds, in addition to 15 and 16

161
year-olds, may be held in police cells on those rare occasions, following charge and before their first court appearance, when bail is refused and where there is a risk to the public of serious harm from the child but where no local authority secure accommodation is available.
To some extent this will complement two other measures in the Bill—the secure training order for persistent young offenders aged 12 to 14 and the extension of the courts' powers to order secure remands for 12 to 14 year-olds—and it will give police the necessary powers to carry out their responsibility to protect the public in the period before a juvenile appears in court.
I must emphasise that that is an exceptional power and that the local authority social services department will be fully involved in any decision of that nature. The vast majority of juveniles, who are aged 12 to 16 and who are refused bail, will continue to be looked after by the local authority in the short period following charge and before their first court appearance. Therefore, I hope that I have been able to persuade my noble friend Lord Elton that Clause 23 should remain in the Bill.
Lord Elton: My noble friend's closing remarks underline the principal message of the debate, which is the urgent need for more secure places so that his undertaking can be delivered. We are standing at the divide between two departments, in both of which I have had the privilege of serving: the Department of Health and the Home Office. The irony of the situation is that it is the Department of Health which has to deliver the machinery which, in turn, will deliver my noble friend's undertaking.
I agree that it is a privilege to serve in the Home Office and it is the greatest privilege to persuade the Committee not only that the generality of what is proposed is right—that children sometimes have to be locked up—but also of the particularity; which is that the right children are being locked up.
My noble friend has not answered my case as to the definition of those to be caught by Clause 23 differing from those in Clause 1 except to point out that the constable, the custody officer, should not have the same duty as the court to discover the antecedent history of the offence. That is why I was careful in my opening remarks to say that if the clause could not be brought back with the same restrictions, or something similar, it should not be in the Bill.
My noble friend frequently assures us that placing children in police cells will be a rare occurrence. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out that no policeman in his senses wants to have his police station swarming with rebellious 12 year-olds. I can say only that subjectively I entirely agree with that, but I have in my papers two cases—I think the noble Baroness quoted one of them earlier—from which it is clear that a particular custody officer retained juveniles of, I think, the age of 14 in each case, in custody overnight when the local authority was willing and had suitable accommodation available. I hope that I can pursue that issue with my noble friend outside the purlieus of this debate, because one thing that should emerge from this
162
is not just pressure to increase the amount of local authority secure accommodation available but to have some effective monitoring of what is going on.
I am disturbed by the number of cases, other than those, which have been brought to my attention, for it seems to me that children have been treated wrongfully. My noble friend said that crime is being committed more and more by younger and younger people. I accept that. I ask merely that it is only those younger people who are committing the "more and more" crime who are detained overnight in police cells under the clause. However, I hope that between now and Report, he will consider whether there is anything in the restrictive definition of this, or any further arguments against having such a restrictive definition in the clause. I see my noble friend teetering on the edge of the seat. I shall give him the opportunity to respond to that point before I withdraw my opposition.
Earl Ferrers: I have been teetering on the edge of my seat for the past few minutes, because I cannot let my noble friend get away with saying that I have not answered his problem about why Clause 23 is different from Clause 1. My noble friend is normally understanding and generous about these matters, but he was not at all generous over that this afternoon. Let me try to explain the problem, if he has not understood it.
A secure training centre is one which will be used for special people who will have been convicted of three imprisonable offences and will have failed to abide by a community service order. We are not necessarily talking about those people in Clause 23; we are talking about people who come into a police station, and whose: behaviour the constable concerned considers to be such as to put the public in danger if they are not put into secure accommodation.
If there is secure accommodation available locally —they will not be secure training units because they will be for those convicted only—then such people will go to that. It is only if there is no local secure accommodation available that they will be retained in a police station. My noble friend does not seem to understand that those individuals who will be retained will not necessarily have been convicted of three imprisonable offences; they will not have been given a community supervision order; they might just be terrible menaces who, if allowed out, will go and do harm to the public. That is why Clause 23 is different from Clause 1.
Baroness David: When I spoke prematurely, and quoted those two cases, the point was that both the boys concerned were not given custodial sentences afterwards.
Earl Ferrers: I dare say. I shall have to read what the noble Baroness said because it was some time ago now, and I was so confused by the speech that she was making, because it did not co-relate to the one that I was going to make, that I find it difficult to remember. It would not surprise me though. She was saying that the children who were kept in were not necessarily put into secure accommodation afterwards. If that is what she said, it is of course a matter for the courts to judge. But

163
the immediate problem arises when they come into police custody. The policeman has to decide, "Are we going to let this person out who is likely to cause more damage, even though he has not yet gone to court, or should we keep him in custody?" Those two things are different: police responsibility towards the public and that which the courts decide.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to my noble friend. I like it when he gets warmed up to his theme like that, because we get better value for our money than we normally do, and that is considerable.
I may have been led astray slightly by reading the remarks of his honourable friend in another place who said that the new clause would embody two measures in the Bill: the secure training order for persistent young offenders aged 12 to 14, and the extension of the court's power to order secure remands for 12 to 14 year-olds.
We have had long enough on this issue. We have displayed our concerns, and how they might be amended. I shall say no more now. I hope to come back at the next stage when the temperature has fallen a little.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Mandatory pre-sentence reports for offenders under 21.
•In Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, after
subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) In the case of an offender aged under 21, the Court
shall not form any such opinion as is mentioned in
subsection (2) above, unless it has obtained and considered
a pre-sentence report".").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 171, 171A and 17IB. All the amendments relate to pre-sentence reports and are an attempt to deal with the complete turnaround in government policy currently contained in the Bill. The Committee will remember that 18 months ago (October 1992) the provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into force. Thereafter, the court has had to consider pre-sentence reports before passing a custodial sentence in every case, except where the offence is one that is triable on indictment only; in other words, of the utmost seriousness—murder, rape or robbery. The court has also to consider a report even in those cases unless it considers a report to be unnecessary.
Similarly, the court has had to consider a pre-sentence report before passing certain community sentences such as community service orders and some probation orders. Since that date, those provisions have been working well. Major investment was undertaken in training not merely probation officers to produce the reports, but magistrates and judges in relation to the purpose and content and the use to which those reports were to be put.
A great deal of work has gone into developing national standards in relation to reports; to monitoring the way in which and the speed at which they were provided; and to ensuring their quality. The new working procedures have undoubtedly improved the efficiency of the production of such reports, and since 1992 magistrates and judges have, in the vast majority
164
of cases that have come before them for sentence, had the advantage of information about offenders' personal and social backgrounds and what community penalties are relevant and available in their area.
The new arrangements have not, as yet, had time to become established, but in that respect the outcome of the 1991 Act appears to be excellent. That was perhaps too good to be true, and in the Bill the Government seem to have been unable to resist interfering with what they put in place such a short time ago.
Under the Bill, courts will no longer have to obtain a pre-sentence report before passing on an offender a custodial or community sentence if they consider that such a report is unnecessary. The incentives for those proposed changes are no doubt in part financial and in part prompted by judges who have, on occasions, said that a report is unnecessary in a case where, for example, they believe the need for a custodial sentence is self-evident.
I readily accept that there may be some cases in which, at the end of the day, the report makes no difference to the sentence, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to say that beforehand. The benefits of pre-sentence reports are inestimable. Perhaps I can begin to give just some indication of them as someone who appears not merely as a barrister, both prosecuting and defending, but who for some years, until relatively recently, has sat as a recorder, sentencing and making use of them. First, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation says that in a significant number of cases judges have changed their minds on reading a pre-sentence report. In relation to custodial sentences, reports may affect the length of a sentence. They may also affect the way in which an offender is dealt with within the prison system, if a custodial sentence is enforced and also his treatment after his release on licence or otherwise.
A report gives an independent investigation of the family background of a man or woman. That may involve interviews with the family, visits to the home, interviews with employers and so forth. It is an in-depth study which no lawyer is likely to be able to make; an independent assessment from material which no lawyer is ever likely to see.
A report of this kind may also indicate a need for psychiatric examination or a psychiatric history, which is unknown to the lawyer representing the man and therefore unknown to the court from what the lawyer has told the judge. Often in the brief period of time during which the lawyer sees his client such a background may not have been mentioned or may not have been apparent.
It is right to say that often it is better and easier to assess the degree of genuine remorse which an offender may have and, indeed, the likelihood of his reoffending when a probation officer has time to interview him over a lengthy period and away from the courtroom atmosphere. The probation officer preparing the report is also likely to have access to earlier reports if they exist and to have indications of an offender's response to previous sentences, which may well be unknown to legal advisers.
When non-custodial sentences are being contem-plated, while a local judge may know very well what is available in his area in relation to specific programmes for offenders today recorders and assistant recorders often sit in a great many different areas and will not know what is available. Matching an offender to a specific programme which is available in his area and where a place is likely to be found for him is a job for an expert and often that job is done by a pre-sentence report. For all those reasons, and no doubt many more, those reports are seldom, if ever, a complete waste of time.
There may well be some hidden benefits of the 1991 legislation. Home Office research studies carried out in 1988,1989 and 1992 show a disproportionate number of black offenders ending up in custody. No doubt there are many reasons for that but it is significant that the 1988 research showed that 22 per cent. of white defendants had no social inquiry report prepared in their cases whereas 37 per cent. of non-whites did.
Under the present law as enacted by this Government in the 1991 Act, pre-sentence reports are prepared on the vast majority of offenders in all racial groups. The proposed changes in the Bill may well reverse what was a valuable reform. Amendment No. 19 introduces a new clause which seeks to retain the present position for offenders who are under 21. The other amendments grouped with it relate to changes to Schedule 9, which in effect seeks to achieve the same object.
The government proposals in the Bill contain a supposed safeguard in relation to offenders under 18; namely, that the court must consider a pre-sentence report on an offender of this age unless it has a previous pre-sentence report on that offender. That simply is not good enough because a previous report will not include an assessment of what community sentences are now available and which will be suitable to the offender in his present circumstances. Nor is an old report able to make any recommendation matching a sufficient punishment to the seriousness of the current offence for which the offender must be dealt with by the court. Unless there is an up-to-date court report which contains up-to-date information, there is a real danger that a court may find itself imposing sentences on young offenders which may be harsher or more lenient than is justified if all the circumstances were known; or which is too short to protect the public if all the circumstances of the offender's background and his response to other punishments were known; or which is inappropriate simply because the sentencer was unaware of a sentencing option which was open to him in that area.
Thankfully, most young offenders grow out of offending. These offences tend to occur during a period of rapid change and of a variety of problems. They may include difficulties at home, difficulties with drugs, difficulties with work and difficulties with homeless-ness. But often those situations change rapidly at this age. At the very least, in these cases the courts must continue to have help from pre-sentence reports. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Amendment No. 171, which stands in my name, is grouped with this amendment and perhaps,
166
therefore, I might briefly address this problem. I shall be most interested to hear my noble friend's reply. I am grateful to him for the letter that he sent to me earlier today giving the reasons for introducing this change.
Perhaps I may first remind the Committee that the effect of Amendment No. 171 will be to strike out paragraph 34 of Schedule 9. That is the paragraph which does the work that the noble Baroness's amendment seeks to address. I am not sure that without my amendment her amendment will have the desired effect because the schedule will have the effect of setting aside part of her requirements. However, that is an academic question and we are looking at the generality of the issue.
The effective parts of paragraph 34, which appears on page 158 of the Bill, are contained in two sub-paragraphs. Sub-paragraph (2) deals with offenders under the age of 18. It sets aside the requirement to obtain a pre-sentence report if there exists a previous pre-sentence report. My noble friend pointed out in his letter that the court will have to look at the previous pre-sentence report before deciding whether a further report is necessary.
Apart from looking at the date, it is difficult to set; how an old report will reveal the changes that have taken place since it was written. I do not believe that anyone can come to a judgment on that without the advice of someone responsible for and knowledgeable of the juvenile in question. Therefore, such a judgment should be made by the kind of person who would be writing the new report, if that were required. Such a person would know whether the parents who had broken up had come together again, whether the history of offending had ceased six months ago, whether in the interim the child had been adopted or whatever, and whether the pattern of behaviour had entirely changed. That will not be apparent to the court on reading the old report but only on hearing from someone who knows what has happened since. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure me about that.
The second effective part of paragraph 34 is sub-paragraph (3) and it falls into two parts. As the noble Baroness said, as regards the 18 year-old it waives the necessity to obtain a pre-sentence report. My area of interest is with the younger customer but 1 see that that makes one somewhat anxious. As regards the younger person, the same requirement exists: that the necessity for a new pre-sentence report should be considered in the light of the old one. I am bringing to my noble friend a simple issue and I hope that he will look at it sympathetically and will reassure me.
Baroness Faithfull: As one who has had to present pre-sentence reports in court, I rise to support the amendment. It is important that there should be a pre-sentence report and I have spoken to the Principal Probation Officer of Inner London who feels strongly about the matter.
Perhaps I may cite various examples. A man may have been ill, in a mental hospital, have had an accident, or have become homeless. It is important that whoever is passing the sentence has that information.

167
I agree with my noble friend Lord Elton. Circumstances may have changed greatly since the previous pre-sentence report. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I raise a rather difficult matter. To delete paragraph 34 of Schedule 9 would leave out a chunk of Scottish law which I believe could be improved. The difficulty is that paragraph 34 makes an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 1991. If the Committee desires to make amendments, I suggest respectfully that they should be added to paragraph 34 of Schedule 4. That schedule is introduced by Clause 40 which applies to England and Wales; it would not affect Scotland.
I often find it difficult to see exactly which parts of the Bill affect Scotland and which affect England and Wales. Basically, most of the Bill applies to England and Wales, but according to Clause 152(9), Clause 148 applies to the United Kingdom.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may help my noble friend. I am quite happy to be wrong because I am addressing a general principle. If I am wrong, let us tackle it a different way. However, I believe I am right in saying that Clause 3 of the Criminal Justice Bill bites on either England and Wales or the United Kingdom; but I believe that it is the former. In that case, whatever the introductory clause, the effect will be to change Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The effects will flow from that. It is not my intention to mess around with Scottish law. I avoid doing that like the plague, and I sometimes wish that Scottish Peers would do the same.
Viscount Tenby: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I shall be brief because she has said it all extremely adequately and far more effectively than I could hope to do. I believe it to be an unfortunate precedent to remove the mandatory requirement for a pre-sentence report, even if it is deemed, perhaps because of previous offences and, therefore, the presence of some kind of past report, that no new report is necessary for the new offence.
As a magistrate, I must say that time after time the one absolutely indispensable tool in determining a certain course of action has been a pre-sentence report. I cannot emphasise that too strongly. No one knows better than the Bench the rapidity with which a defendant's circumstances can change.
Most courts will not proceed on motoring matters without an up-to-date print-out from Swansea if the defendant does not have his licence available. How much more vital is it that one should be up to date in matters relating to the disposal of criminal cases and the possible removal of freedom for a young offender.
Baroness David: The research commissioned by the Home Office, which resulted in the book Persistent Young Offenders, issued in January, also emphasised the necessity of an absolutely up-to-date report because, as has been said, the circumstances of these young people do change incredibly quickly.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The requirement to obtain and consider pre-sentence reports before passing custodial or certain community sentences was placed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, quite rightly said, upon the courts by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. But that was subject to a discretion not to have a report where the offence was triable only on indictment.
The requirement to obtain reports has produced a number of very considerable benefits. However, having heard the views of judges and magistrates and having seen the results of a review of the way in which present arrangements work in practice—a review undertaken by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation—we concluded that the requirements should not impose unnecessary fetters on the courts and unnecessary costs for the criminal justice system as a whole. Therefore, in another place we amended the Bill to extend to all cases—not just cases triable only on indictment—the courts' discretion to dispense with a report where they consider that a proper sentencing judgment can be reached without one. I am sure that the courts will exercise their extended discretion with great care, bearing in mind the value of a good pre-sentence report in bringing out information about the offender and the offence.
There is no question of abolishing pre-sentence reports or anything like that. The Bill includes a special safeguard for juvenile offenders. The court must have proper regard to their welfare requirements. In their case, the discretion is subject to there being in existence a previous report on the offender and subject to the court councerned having regard to the report or, where there is more than one report, to the last report.
My noble friend Lord Elton was concerned about how a court knows whether a person has stopped offending. There is no point in obtaining a pre-sentence report if the court already has one and if it knows about the person concerned. If there is any doubt, the court will ask for a pre-sentence report. The court must consider whether to dispense with obtaining a new report. If the information in an existing report is not up to date, then the court will wish to obtain a new report in order that it has available the most up-to-date information.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, when he announced the amendment, said in reply to a Parliamentary Question that the courts will obviously wish to exercise the discretion not to have a pre-sentence report sparingly and with care. The provision retains the benefits of the 1991 Act while avoiding unnecessary delays and costs in cases where a pre-sentence report will add nothing of value to the sentencing decision.
In their different ways, the amendments would cause us to miss out on the benefits of giving courts more discretion. Amendment No. 171 would leave the law as it is now with the result that the court in some cases may have to call for a report even when, for example, it is clear that a substantial custodial sentence is, in all the circumstances, inevitable and where nothing in the report would bear on that outcome. Amendments Nos. 19, 171A and 17IB would create complicated and

169
unwelcome anomalies by treating the age of 21 as the cut-off point for additional safeguards instead of the age of 18. The standard distinction is between offenders who are under the age of 18 and those who are over the age of 18 who are, therefore, considered to be adults. It is only when offenders are under the age of 18 that the court must consider their welfare needs.
I believe that the amendments will also require a court to obtain a new report even though a recent report on the offender might contain all the information that the court needed to bring out the welfare arguments. I do not believe that that is necessary. In my view, the amendments are unnecessarily wide in terms of age and unnecessarily burdensome in terms of bureaucracy.
My noble friend Lord Balfour referred to Clause 34 amending part of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. He said that if the amendments were agreed they should be added to Schedule 4 and not to Schedule 9 because, in his view, Schedule 4 affects England and Wales and not Scotland, whereas Schedule 9 refers to the United Kingdom. My noble friend was kind enough to warn me that he was going to refer to that point. It agitated me enormously. However, I became so excited about answering a Question on identity cards earlier this afternoon that I failed to apprise myself of the proper information for my noble friend. Nevertheless, I believe that I am correct in saying that Clause 34 only extends to England and Wales. Clause 152(15) provides that amendments in Schedule 9 have the same extent as the enactments which they amend. Part I of the 1991 Act extends only to England and Wales. Therefore, while I shall consider my noble friend's exposition more carefully to ensure that we have got it right, I believe that I am right to assure him that it is my view that we have. However, I shall certainly consider the point.
Lord Elton: In the parenthesis between my noble friend and the noble Baroness, perhaps I may put in my little fourpennyworth. I am partially reassured by what my noble friend said. I can see that there are cases where a custodial sentence is inevitable and others where, perhaps, it is unthinkable. Under those circumstances, the first leg—that is, paragraph 34(2) of Schedule 9— need not be activated. That is the provision which deals with custodial sentences.
Sub-paragraph (3) deals with community sentences for which there is a less stringent requirement for the 18 year-old; indeed, there is none as it is made entirely optional. For the juveniles, those of 17 years of age and under, we have the same restriction about there having been sight of an earlier report.
However, my noble friend has not quite relieved my mind about the case where there is such a report which is, let us say, 12 weeks old. Such a report may look pretty new. The court may well then decide under paragraph 34(2) to impose a custodial sentence on the basis of the report, though there may actually have been a dramatic change in the circumstances leading to the likelihood of reoffending. If the intention of custody is to prevent reoffending—as is the theme of the Bill— then such a change in circumstances must be relevant. Can my noble friend tell the Committee how the court is to be made aware of that fact? My noble friend said
170
that the court will know the juvenile, but how will it know him other than through the report which, did the court but know, is already out of date.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend said that he wanted to put in his "fourpennyworth". Of course, he is entitled to do so. I believe that I should try to answer his last speech because my noble friend seems to like to make four speeches on each amendment; that is his prerogative.
I must explain to my noble friend—and, indeed, to Members of the Committee—that the Home Secretary made it perfectly clear that the courts will use their discretion sparingly and with care. In the normal course of events the court will ask for a pre-sentence report. But, obviously, if the previous pre-sentence report is 12 weeks' old, and the court is in any doubt as to whether it is out of date, those concerned will ask for a new report. But, on the other hand, if the court has received a report on the same individual only two weeks earlier it would not be surprising to think that such a report would have a similar bearing on any new report produced. Therefore, in those cases, it would seem an unnecessary duplication to ask for yet another report which is likely to be very similar to that which the court has already received. However, if there is any doubt the court will, of course, ask for a further report.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am grateful to all speakers from all sides of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. The noble Earl piloted through the; legislation which introduced the requirement in 1991. From all that the noble Earl has said today I am still unclear as to where legislation has fallen down so as to require the changes that he now seeks to introduce. The: noble Earl said that the views of judges and magistrates have been taken into account by the Government in bringing such changes before this Chamber. However, the council of the Magistrates' Association agreed at its meeting earlier this month that it would oppose the Bill's abolition of mandatory pre-sentence reports for offenders under the age of 21.
The noble Earl talked about cases where reports were unnecessary before a substantial custodial sentence was inevitable. But, even there, a pre-sentence report can contain vital information about the culpability or the dangerousness of the offender which may well affect the ultimate length of the sentence.
I listened with the greatest care to the Minister's reply in the hope that there might be some shred of comfort that the Government are aware that, perhaps, their proposal is unsatisfactory in a number of respects. I had also hoped that what has been said by other Members of the Committee—some of whom have the greatest of experience in the area, both as magistrates and, indeed, as the writers of reports—might have produced a shadow of self-doubt. However, I am afraid that there has not been one. In those circumstances, I must test the opinion of the Committee.
5.27 pm
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 89; Not-contents, 184.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Annan, L.

Longford, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ardwick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Avebury, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Meston, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Chapple, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mulley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Parry, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rea, L.

Faithfull, B.

Richard, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fitt, L.

Rochester, L.

Geraint, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Glenamara, L.

Seear, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

[Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Gregson, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tenby, V.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Warnock, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Byron, L.

Ackner, L.

Cadman, L.

Addison, V.

Caithness, E.

Aldington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Annaly, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Astor, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Attlee, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Balfour, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Bancroft, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Colwyn, L.

Barber, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cox, B.

Blatch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Blyth, L.

Cranborne, V.

Boardman, L.

Crathorne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cross, V,

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Davidson, V.

Brookes, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denham, L.

Burnham, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Butterworth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

172

Donegall, M.

Moyne, L.

Dormer, L.

Munster, E.

Dundonald, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Nelson, E.

Ferrers, E.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gibson, L.

Orkney, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gisborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Goschen, V.

Palmer, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Halsbury, E.

Peel, E.

Hampden, V.

Pender, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Harlech, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Plan of Writtle, B.

Harrowby, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Quinton, L.

Hemphill, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Henley, L.

Rees, L.

Hertford, M.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hives, L.

Renton, L.

Holdemess, L.

Renwick, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hood, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Howe, E.

Romney, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Kimball, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kitchener, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Knollys, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Selborne, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

St. Davids, V.

Liverpool, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Long, V.

Stewartby, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lucas, L.

Strafford, E.

Lyell, L.

Strange, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Chancellor.]

[Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swinfen, L.

Manton, L.

Swinton, E.

Marlesford, L.

Teviot, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Melville, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Middleton, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Vivian, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Morris, L.

Wise, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wynford, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5. 36 p. m.
Clause 24 [No bail for defendants charged with or convicted of homicide or rape]:
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mottistone: I find Clause 24 rather repulsive. Perhaps I should mention that we are now leaving the subject of young people and moving on to bail. Perhaps that will cause a different sort of atmosphere. As the Committee will see, in Clause 24 it is planned to make

173
it statutory that bail will not be granted to people who have been charged or convicted of offences of murder or rape and associated offences if they have done the same thing before. This particular subject was debated at some length in another place. The Minister, my honourable friend Mr. Maclean, said,
"The Government believe that in most cases bail decisions should be at the discretion of the courts".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 25/11/94; col. 280.]
He then produced an argument as to why that should not apply in the particular cases of the offences in Clause 24.
Having read the debate that occurred in another place carefully—there was a lengthy debate of three-quarters of an hour which started at 3.45 a.m. and ended at half-past four in the morning—I must say that the people taking part in the debate were remarkably coherent in what they had to say. But all the same, I find the Government's argument most unconvincing. I am surprised that the people who were present during the debate allowed it to go through. I hope that if there is a convincing case, my noble friend on the Front Bench will produce an argument which will be more satisfactory than that produced by his honourable friend in January.
It is a basic point that automatic refusal of bail must be bad in principle. The granting of bail is a judicial decision and should remain discretionary in statute. That is the basis of the whole argument. Quite clearly the offences concerned are very grave, but given the requirement for the court to state its reasons—it has to do this—when not granting bail, and the prosecution's right of appeal under the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, the provision of this clause is both unnecessary as well as being undesirable.
Of course, it would be extremely unusual to grant bail in those circumstances, but it is possible to envisage instances where that might be appropriate. Indeed, in another place an example was produced of a case of a man who when aged 15 was convicted of attempted rape. Some 40 years later his mother had an incurable disease and wanted desperately to die, and he assisted her to do so. In such circumstances under this clause he would automatically be refused bail, yet it is a case in which a court might allow bail because of the circumstances and because he had lived an ordinary life for 40 years, having sown his oats as a young man.
It is difficult to find an example where this provision might be appropriate. In fact, cases in which courts would give bail for the type of offences with which we are concerned, which have been committed more than once, are very unlikely ever to occur. Therefore, why do we need this lengthy clause in the Bill? It goes against the principle of bail being a matter for the courts and not for statute.
Therefore, I hope that my noble and learned friend who is to reply will be able to produce a much stronger argument than his colleague, or will take this away and say that it is an unnecessary addition to legislation and the Government will either take it away now or remove it at a later stage. I hope that that will be the outcome.
Baroness Mallalieu: I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. The granting of bail must be a
174
matter for judicial discretion, exercised either by a judge or a magistrate. In my experience in the criminal courts, bail in cases of this severity is not granted either easily or routinely. Where there are police objections and the offence is a serious one both magistrates and judges are today fully aware of the risk they run and the serious criticisms that they will face if their assessment proves to be wrong. They tend, if anything, to err on the side of caution.
To take a less extreme example than the one which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, produced, there may be a case in which a man has been convicted of a serious crime when he was very young. After his. sentence he may well have returned to society and made a decent life for himself with a wife, a family and a job. Subsequently, many years later, he may be accused of a serious crime. For example, in the case of manslaughter, which is one of those set out in this provision, that could be the result of using excessive force to defend himself when he himself was attacked, when responding to provocation, or when killing without the intention of causing serious harm. Under this provision the court would have no power whatever to grant him bail, despite his family, his work, his community ties and his many years as an exemplary citizen. The offence of which he may subsequently be accused may be the result of exceptional circumstances or a momentary abberation, but in neither case could the court look beyond the bare facts of his earlier conviction and the charge which he now faced.
Hard rules surely make bad law. If one cannot trust magistrates and judges to exercise discretion properly in granting bail, it is a very short step to saying that one cannot trust them to sentence properly either. It is a short step from there to saying that bail, and even sentences, are to be determined in every case according to some rules or formula which take no account of personal circumstances. These must surely be matters for judicial discretion, properly exercised.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, with whom it is a pleasure to be in harness again.
In normal circumstances it is most unlikely that any court would grant bail where homicide, rape or any of the other categories of crime is alleged. The granting of bail—the matter of a defendant's freedom—is, as the noble Lord said, a judicial function. The right of the court should not be removed in this respect.
It is difficult to know the background to this proposal. It may be public concern over the granting of bail in unsuitable cases, however inappropriate that may be in this particular instance, and decisions which in certain circumstances may have led to unfortunate consequences. Of course magistrates make mistakes. I am not sure, however, that proportionately their percentage of mistakes compares unfavourably with more senior branches of the law. Mistakes have been made in the past and no doubt will be made in the future. That is in the nature of things.
In this case, however, the removal of a bench's right to grant bail is an unwarrantable diminution of its

175
power. It would be unusual to say the least for a bench to grant bail to someone accused of either homicide or rape, let alone if that person had already been found guilty of such a crime on an earlier occasion, which are the circumstances to which the provision contained in the Bill relates. The latter contingency is almost unthinkable. But I have to tell the Committee that as a magistrate I have myself granted bail to a defendant accused of rape. I cannot now recall the exact circumstances, but at the time my colleagues and I were satisfied that there were exceptional conditions to justify such a decision.
In this case the offences include attempted rape and manslaughter, that notoriously dodgy charge, in layman's terms, although it may not be so to the law itself. My point is that to make such an exclusion where there is little or no evidence to prove that it is necessary is merely to diminish the power of the justices and in effect to say to them, "We do not fully trust you to do the job and make the decisions you were appointed to make".
Lord Wigoder: I too have doubts about the wisdom of the clause although I can see that it is useful for obtaining headlines of the "Government Tough On Crime" type.
There is a serious problem as to whether a defendant who is charged with a grave offence and who has previously committed a grave offence should be granted bail. There are only two possible approaches. One is to say that we must leave the decision to the discretion of magistrates, subject to a right of appeal by the prosecution. The other is to try to make fixed rules, which is the course which the Government have followed with this clause.
I accept that if the matter is left to the discretion of the magistrates, even with a right of appeal for the prosecution, it is possible that a mistake will turn out to have been made. It is always possible to be wise after the event. It is possible that there may be serious consequences. On the other hand, to attempt to provide, by fixed rules of this type, the conditions under which bail cannot ever be granted and to remove the discretion of the magistrates leads to results that verge on the eccentric.
Perhaps I may take two examples. First, a terrorist who commits a terrorist murder and is either released from prison or escapes from prison and within days is caught in possession of a vast quantity of explosives is not caught by these rules. In that case it can safely be left to the discretion of the magistrates as to whether bail should be granted.
Secondly, let us take an example of a female defendant instead of a male defendant. Take the case of a woman who has been ill treated by her lover or her husband over a period of years and eventually is driven to killing him. That woman may be convicted of murder and released after a short period of time. If she is lucky, as the law now is she may be convicted of manslaughter and given a nominal custodial sentence of three months, six months or 12 months in prison. Nobody would regard her as a danger to the public in any way. Perhaps
176
20 or 30 years later she is in a public house and a man makes an offensive remark to her and she gives him a push. The man falls down. He has an eggshell skull and kills himself as a result of a blow to the head. That is manslaughter. There is no argument about it. If that woman were arrested and charged with manslaughter, she will almost certainly be given a totally nominal sentence. However, she would have to rot in a remand prison for week after week awaiting trial because of these rules. That cannot really be what the Government wish to happen.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I see no purpose in this provision other than in political public relations terms. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, last year we passed an amendment to the Bail Act. What did it provide? It provided that if the Crown Prosecution Service was concerned about a decision of a magistrates' court to grant bail, it had the right to appeal; and the person concerned would have to remain in custody. That is the law. Why therefore do we require this provision? Do we have no trust, no confidence whatever, in our magistrates' courts? If one is to start having lists of categories of offences, as are contained in the Bill, I find it curious that we have cases of the kind cited by my noble friend Lord Wigoder and we leave out, to give another example, people involved in large-scale drug trafficking. Those offences apparently are not as serious as those outlined by my noble friend.
It seems to me that the provision is a profound mistake. The law as it exists as present gives the Crown Prosecution Service an absolute right to keep a person in custody pending a decision by a judge if they are gravely concerned about the decision of a magistrates' court. I can see no case whatever for this provision.
Lord Hylton: I was impressed by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, moved the amendment. I also note that so far none of the Members of the Committee has spoken in favour of keeping the clause as it is.
As a mere layman, perhaps I may draw attention to subsections (4) and (5) which appear to me to be far too widely drawn. I believe that it is a matter that the Government should reconsider.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am worried about the amendment. There are no political overtones in this matter. It is a matter of procedure.
The provision is far too interventionist. It is far too selective. I give two examples. What about a very serious armed robbery? What about a very serious case of drugs? I give just two examples. The provision is too selective. It impinges upon the province of the discretion of the magistrates, to my mind to an unacceptable degree.
On a question of drafting, I do not understand the provision. It may be my own fault. If the Committee considers subsection (3), the third line states "any such offence" and continues with the words, "or of culpable homicide". That can only mean attempted murder, murder or manslaughter. Therefore why do we have the words "any such offence" and then specify three of those offences, with the reference,

177
"and, in the case of a previous conviction of manslaughter or of culpable homicide"?
What is the drafting purpose of that repetition? I do not understand. My hope is that, as a gesture of goodwill, my noble friend will take the matter back to reconsider it. From a professional point of view I find it almost impossible to support the provision as drafted.
Lord Mottistone: Before my noble friend sits down, he began by saying that he did not like the amendment. I believe that he referred to the clause.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Yes.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry):
I must confess that for one moment I rather hoped that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was going to break the somewhat depressing uniformity of the Committee's comments on this matter, but, alas, that was not to be.
I take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell about the drafting. I believe that the drafting is satisfactory. It provides:
"This section applies to a person charged with or convicted of any such offence only if he has been previously convicted by … a court in any part of the United Kingdom of any such offence or of culpable homicide".
The principal part, where the offences are listed, applies only to courts in England and Wales where manslaughter is the offence. But it is envisaged that a person may, for example, have been convicted of culpable homicide previously in a Scottish court. It is to take that matter into account that the matter of culpable homicide is mentioned.
Taking a slightly broader view of the matter one has to notice that it is very carefully confined in the case of manslaughter, or culpable homicide (where that offence is the previous conviction) to cases where the person was then sentenced to imprisonment or, if he were a child or young person, to long-term detention under the relevant enactments.
The purpose is to keep the scope of the clause as narrow as possible. The Committee criticised the provision in one sense for being, on the one hand, too narrow and, on the other, too broad. But it is narrowly drafted precisely because the Government accept that it is very unusual indeed for the legislature to be seeking to enter into this specific area which, as a number of Members of the Committee said—in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby—is normally a matter for the. discretion of the magistrates. I accept that matters of bail, overwhelmingly, are dealt with by the courts and the magistrates. I, of course, accept that when the measure comes into force, the appeal provisions will allow those matters to be taken up where the prosecution is not satisfied with the decision. Nonetheless, the government view is that there are indeed cases—they are narrowly defined—where the element of violence in both the previous conviction and the charge which a person now faces indicates that the risk is simply not acceptable. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said that magistrates make mistakes. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, accepted that even courts make mistakes. The trouble is that those mistakes can have tragic results. The view has been taken that it really is not proper to ask
178
members of the public to run that risk, even if the risk is being run only in a small number of cases. There is only a limited number of cases. We think it right that the matter should be decided on the basis of a rule laid down by Parliament on the face of the statute, and that in this narrow, limited range of cases, there should not be any bail.
I accept that in other cases the issue is a matter entirely for the magistrates and for the judges. But although it is only a limited number of cases, the risk of what might happen if something went wrong is so grave that members of the public should not be asked to run it. For that reason we believe that the provision should stand.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, since he pins his reasoning on the element of violence, will he accept that in the case of manslaughter it is not always an essential ingredient of the crime?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I accept that there are various kinds of manslaughter, but there must always be some element of violence involved in the crime.
6 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: Does the noble and learned Lord accept that the provisions as drafted would catch the woman whose case I postulated? Most people would say that on each occasion she was morally totally innocent.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I accept that it will catch people at extremes of the range but in the case of people involved in manslaughter on an earlier occasion, it is only where that has attracted a sentence of imprisonment. We recognise that there may be cases where manslaughter does not possess the necessary quality to attract that kind of provision. For that reason, the qualification is built in.
Lord Wigoder: The qualification is built in if the manslaughter happens to be the offence for which the person is subsequently arrested.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I accept that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for saying so, he has provided no adequate explanation as to why the provision is necessary. He said at the beginning of his speech that some Members of the Committee suggested that the provision should be drawn more narrowly and others that it should be drawn more widely. The point is that the provision is arbitrary and capricious. That is the centrepiece of our objection to it.
The noble and learned Lord passed rapidly over the amendment to the Bail Act last year which gives the: prosecution the right to appeal to a judge if it believes that a magistrates' court has wrongly given someone bail. In the light of that, why is it necessary to have the. provision at all? It seems astonishing.
I find it difficult when the noble and learned Lord tells us that the cases about which he is worried are those, involving significant violence. As his noble friend pointed out, why is armed robbery excluded? In

179
addition, large-scale drug traffickers are excluded. There seems no serious purpose behind the amendment, and I regret to say that the noble and learned Lord has given no adequate explanation in defence of what is provided in the clause.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The provision has not been drawn more widely because we do not wish to trespass more on the discretion of the magistrates and the courts than we consider necessary. That is why we have not gone further and encompassed other possible crimes which could have been included. We have limited the provision to those areas where we think the measure is proportionate and justified.
I accept that the existence of an appeal provision is of assistance. As a result of that, whether or not the risk is small and even though the chances of a disaster are small, the possibility of one occurring is a risk against which the public are entitled to be protected. That is the thinking behind the clause.
Lord Hylton: Can the noble and learned Lord explain why, under subsection (5) of Clause 24, a person who has been given an absolute discharge should be treated as though he had been convicted? It seems extraordinary, on the face of it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, will he deal with the other point made by my noble friend Lord Wigoder? If we are to have the list which, in itself, is wholly undesirable, why apparently is conspiracy to cause explosions all right? Is that the Government's position?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am happy to take the matter away and consider whether it should be added to the list. As regards the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned, what is required is that the provision should cover situations where there has been a conviction, even though the result is that the person is put on probation or there is an absolute discharge. With that kind of disposal, the provision could apply in such cases under this clause.
Lord Elton: I have not taken part in the debate but there seems to have been a re-statement of the problem rather than an explanation of the reason for inclusion of a person given an absolute discharge. To a layman, that sounds the next best thing to an acquittal. Yet under this provision that person would be treated as being just as culpable as someone convicted and up to the elbows in blood.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If the matter is taken back—and surely it should be, with respect—can my noble and learned friend say whether consideration might be given to this proposal? Instead of drafting the provision in the form of a fixed mandatory rule which impinges on the exercise of discretion, it should be cast in the form of guidance which is not mandatory.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The purpose behind the clause is the one I have stated. I do not think that casting the provision in the form of guidance would meet what we see as being a necessary measure to deal with the
180
situation. After all, guidance would do little more than leave the matter to the discretion of the judges. Because of the risk that that might be used in a wrong way with tragic results, this clause has been included. I shall have to write to Members of the Committee with details of particular points, but various forms of disposal can follow from such offences. In order to cover those disposals—which include probation and which would not be recorded as a conviction—the definition of "convicted" is widened in terms of the earlier part of the clause.
Viscount Tenby: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, one of my hobbies is not the compilation of criminal statistics, the Committee may be surprised to hear. However, are there many occasions on which people have been accused of attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or attempted rape and who have been found guilty of a similar offence? I find it almost incredible that such a situation could have arisen. I wish to know what basis the Home Office has used to make the Government feel that such a provision is necessary in the Bill.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I do not know whether I can help the noble Viscount with the exact statistics he requires. Of the people released from life imprisonment on licence between 1972 and 1990, 56 have been reconvicted of a grave offence, including, for example, arson, serious wounding, robbery, aggravated burglary and so on.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: None of those is included.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: People have been convicted of such offences, so there are those who offend even though they have been dealt with for the most serious crimes.
Lord Mottistone: The real point at issue is this. In the cases which my noble and learned friend has just quoted, when those people came again before the courts, were they given bail? Do the statistics give those facts?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Alas, they do not allow us to go into whether they were granted bail. It is not possible for me to predict exactly how many people would be covered by the provision or how many would be prevented from re-offending while on bail. It is not based on any statistics but on the proposition that even if the risk were only to occur on a few occasions, that risk should not be run.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: The Government could be forgiven if they said that it was difficult to forecast the number of cases that might occur in the future. I do not think that they can be forgiven for saying that they have brought forward this clause without having investigated the number of cases that have occurred in the past. We asked first of all (a very modest requirement): how many people have been convicted of these offences, having been convicted of comparable offences before? We cannot get an answer to that. Then we asked: how many people are charged having been convicted before and are then released on bail? That is

181
a rather critical point, but there is no answer on that. Then we asked: how many people who have been charged, have been convicted before and have been released on bail have committed an offence? There is no answer on that. If there are no answers to any of these questions, surely there is a requirement that there should be some evidence of a mischief which is supposed to be remedied by what is virtually a full page of legislation.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I think I have said quite plainly that the basis of this clause is that, however small the risk may be and even when we cannot predict how often it may occur, it is nonetheless a risk that should simply not be run. That is the proposition upon which this particular legislation stands; and that is the proposition that I put before the Committee.
Lord Mottistone: This is extraordinary. Some of us have taken a lot of trouble to try to think up examples where possibly somebody commits a serious offence for a second time and could then be allowed bail, perhaps on the grounds that there has been a long gap or that all kinds of special factors apply. I think that all the examples were invented—certainly the ones that I have heard of seem to me to have been invented in order to prove the case.
Before the Government start saying, "Look, we can't trust the magistrates or the judges in regard to bail for serious offences", they must be able to tell us that there is a good example of when such a case occurred. Even one example would help. It would give us some thought. When my noble friend (if I may so describe him) Lord Tenby said that magistrates sometimes make mistakes, he was not saying that they make mistakes about giving bail to people who have committed murder twice! He was saying that sometimes they make mistakes when they do not send noble Lords who exceed the speed limit to prison when they should, or whatever. That is quite a different consideration. I see that my noble friend is nodding at me.
This is much too serious a matter. It relates to trust in the courts on the part of the Executive. The courts are set up in this country to conduct the law to the best of their ability on behalf of the Sovereign, separately from the Executive. It is not a simple matter which can be dealt with on the assumption that, even though there is no proof that there has been one in the past, there might be a case in the future which the country thought was dreadful and then no doubt the Home Secretary of the day (which might be in 30 years' time) would get tremendous stick from people because he had not introduced a law to make sure that the courts did the sorts of things that clause 24 requires them to do. That really is absurd.
I honestly ask my noble and learned friend to take away the thoughts that have come from all sides of the Committee. Not one Member of the Committee has opened his mouth to say that he understands what my noble and learned friend is at. The explanation that he gives is really not good enough. Is he prepared to come back to me before we get to the next stage of the Bill with a letter saying, "These are examples of what happened when people who committed offences twice or committed one offence within the terms of this Bill
182
were allowed bail"—I believe that that part was commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—"the second time they were charged, and that is enough to show why bail should not be given"?
If my noble and learned friend can say that he will write to me and give me examples of where that has actually happened and bail has been given by either the magistrates' courts or the Crown Courts, then I shall be very happy. I really do not want to take this matter to a Division, because not enough Members have been in the Chamber to hear what has been going on, but if he cannot do that I shall certainly come back to this issue at the next stage. It would be very, very much easier not to have to do so. I hope my noble and learned friend will give me the sort of evidence that I think is essential before we can accept this lack of trust in the courts by the Executive.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The Committee can rest assured that, if I had had examples which I could have given in the Committee, I would of course have done so. I did not seek to say to the Committee that I had such examples. I simply put the matter on the basis that, without being able to cite examples of the kind that my noble friend desired, my proposition to the Committee was that, even though I could not identify such cases, nonetheless Parliament was entitled to take the view that the risk was not one that should be run; and if in 20 or 30 years' time some child was killed because of a mistake made in that situation, then that would not be acceptable. If it can be prevented in this way, then the Government's view is that it should be prevented. Therefore, although I have listened most carefully to what has been said, I doubt whether I can give the assurance that my noble friend seeks.
Lord Ackner: I listened to the noble and learned Lord with mounting depression. The risk of which he talks has been in existence for years and years and years. Yet he can give no example of the risk having been wrongly taken. He fails in that regard while seeking to justify interference with judicial discretion. This is an excellent example of the Executive, in my respectful submission, totally overlooking the essential division of functions. If the noble and learned Lord cannot give any examples, he cannot justify the interference; and I should be very sad if, on the wholly negative note echoed by the noble and learned Lord, we let the matter stay as it is today.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will report to the Home Secretary the general attitude of the Committee. He has been put in an extremely unpleasant and disagreeable situation, having no direct personal responsibility for this Bill and acting as an advocate for the Home Office. If the noble and learned Lord is not able to give us any examples, it means that a decision was taken to put this clause in the Bill without any such evidence. That seems to me to be an extraordinary proposition. As I have indicated, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will report to the Home

183
Secretary the overwhelming feeling of the Committee on this matter. He will of course realise that we shall certainly come back to this matter at Report stage.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As I said, nobody could fail to be impressed by the strength of the opinions that have been expressed. I have tried to put to the Committee the thinking which lies behind this proposal. With the greatest possible respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I would not say that it is an attempt on the part of the Executive to interfere: Parliament would be taking this decision—and the courts are always subject to the law of Parliament. I hear what Members of the Committee have said on the matter and I shall report those observations to the Home Secretary.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [No right to bail for persons accused or convicted of committing offence while on bail]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 19A:
Page 15, leave out lines 34 to 42 and insert ("in paragraph 9, after sub-paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(e) whether it appears to the court that the defendant was on bail in criminal proceedings on the date of the offence.".")
The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Lord will be relieved to hear that this concerns a much narrower question. It is little more than a drafting point. Nevertheless, I feel that the Committee should consider the issue and I should be interested to hear the noble and learned Lord's reply.
Clause 25 has the effect of reversing the presumption in favour of bail where a defendant is charged with an offence allegedly committed while on bail. In other words, the court will be empowered to remand the defendant in custody without any additional require-ment that there is a substantial likelihood of him absconding, offending or interfering with the course of justice if bail is granted. It is common ground that there has been a significant number of cases in which people on bail have allegedly committed other criminal offences. When that has happened it has caused great anger in the police service and elsewhere. But as a matter of common sense, the court which hears a bail application on behalf of a person who is already on bail for having committed another alleged offence is highly likely in any event to remand that person in custody. But it would have to give reasons for that decision. I think that that is right.
The noble and learned Lord may be aware of the views of the Law Society on this matter. It said:
"The presumption of innocence before trial requires that there is a presumption that the accused is entitled to bail. This presumption can be rebutted if the prosecution can show that there are substantial grounds for believing that if granted bail the accused would abscond, commit further offences or interfere with witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. If the accused is already on bail, the judiciary will take that into account when deciding whether or not the prosecution has established grounds for rebutting the presumption".
This amendment thus changes the clause to take account of that view, which is held by others as well as by the Law Society. It requires the court, when making
184
bail decisions, to have regard to the fact that the defendant was on bail at the time of the alleged offence. I feel that that probably strikes the right balance. As I indicated, I should be very interested to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say about it.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As the noble Lord indicated, the effect of Clause 25 as it stands is to add to the exceptions to the general right to bail. Under the Bail Act there is, generally speaking, a right to bail and there are only a limited number of exceptions. The exception which it is proposed to add relates to the case in which the person has committed—it has to be noted that, again, the provision is narrowly drawn—an indictable offence or an offence triable either way and it appears that he did so when he was on bail already.
As the noble Lord said, that is unfortunately an all too common circumstance. It appears to the Government that a proper balance is struck by Clause 25 if one says that by offending in that way while he is on bail, such a person loses the right to bail which otherwise he would have. As the noble Lord knows, that is only the first stage because the mere fact of him not having a right to bail does not mean that he will not obtain it. The magistrates will thereafter have to consider all the various circumstances which are set out in paragraph 9 and which relate to the offender. The noble Lord wishes to add to that paragraph.
It seems to us that in that way a proper balance is struck. Someone who commits an offence while on bail forfeits the right to bail on a subsequent occasion, but all the circumstances are taken into account when the decision is taken on whether or not he should be granted bail. In that way and in this instance there is every trust and faith put in the decision of the magistrates.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I indicated that I wanted to hear the response on this point from the noble and learned Lord. I shall reflect on what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 20.
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Application for bail
(" .—(1) In determining a bail application, a court shall have regard to the appropriateness of the applicant's attendance at bail hostel.
(2) In pursuance of subsection (1) above, the court may consider a report from the probation service.")
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether this is an amendment or a cry of pain. It is an appeal to the Government not to continue, on spurious grounds, reducing the number of places in bail and probation hostels. Until recently there were roughly 2,500 places in bail and probation hostels. Those hostels provide an effective alternative to remands in custody, which increase the prison population.
It has been generally agreed that over the period in which they have been in existence bail hostels have done an effective job. Some 40 per cent. of those charged have already been in prison and therefore would otherwise almost certainly have to be remanded in

185
custody rather than released on full bail. These hostels work. Two thirds of those in bail hostels complete their period there without in any way breaching the conditions of their referral to the bail hostel. In case anybody should think that there are a significant number of failures in the use of bail hostels, the figures show that only 10 per cent. of those in bail hostels are remanded into custody because of any offence committed while they are in the hostel. It must be remembered that a number of those charged are sent to bail hostels not because they have committed crimes of armed robbery or such offences but because they have committed crimes possibly of personal or family violence. If it can possibly be avoided, it is clearly neither desirable nor appropriate for such people, who certainly need to be protected and whose families need protection, to be put into remand prisons. So bail hostels, unlike prisons, do work. They have proved to be successful and have a good reputation in the penal system.
But what happens? On 4th April this year the Home Secretary closed 11 of the bail hostels with 270 places. That is more than 10 per cent. of the bail hostels in this country. The Government did not do that because the bail hostels do not work or are even claimed not to work, but because it was pointed out that last summer the occupancy rate was 64 per cent. rather than the preferred higher figure. On those grounds it is claimed that the hostels are poor value for money. That in itself is contestable, even if it were thought that public expenditure cuts of that kind were appropriate. By January 1994 the occupancy rate of bail hostels had increased to 77 per cent., which is only 3 per cent. off the figure which the Home Office itself recommends should be the natural occupancy rate of bail hostels. The Home Office says that because of the changeover that takes place, approximately 20 per cent. of the theoretical capacity should, in practice, remain vacant. The Home Office is therefore working with inadequate statistics, and the occupancy rate at the time the decision was taken was close to the recommendation of the Home Office itself. It is poor value for money as an economy because the cost of a remand in custody is of the order of £566 a week, whereas the cost of remand in a bail hostel is £145 a week.
At a time when the prison population is rising it is extraordinary that because of this faulty argument about occupancy rates the Government should make a deliberate decision to reduce the number of bail hostel places available and put more pressure on the prison service by increasing the number of remand prisoners. Therefore, although we recognise that the courts frequently have regard to the appropriateness of the applicant's attendance at a bail hostel, and we recognise that in making that determination they frequently consider reports from the probation service, without in any way reducing the independence of the courts we believe that it is right to show—by including this provision on the statute book—that this Chamber disapproves of a reduction in the proportion of bail hostels on purely financial grounds. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My noble and learned friend was not here for the debate on Clause 23 stand part when there was a long discussion which included a passage of significant remarks in regard to the appropriateness and effectiveness of bail hostels. In that exchange I mentioned that I was this morning briefly at the annual general meeting of the National Probation Council and I reported to the Committee—and do so now for the benefit of my noble and learned friend—the great anxiety expressed there that bail hostels should be fully used and that the Government should take initiatives to ensure that that was done. Reference was also made to the fact that on 2nd April, as the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, said, a percentage of hostels were closed by the Government.
I rise to say that I endorse the cry for greater use of bail hostels as an effective system and to ask my noble and learned friend by what other means that could be encouraged than by the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh. If that is the only way, it is tempting to support it, which I do not wish to do unless I have to.
Baroness Seear: I rise to strongly support the amendment. It is not only the question of the immediate and relevant expense of keeping someone in a bail hostel and on remand in prison that should be considered. We must remember, particularly where women are concerned—though it is true to a lesser degree of men—that over 50 per cent. of the women held on remand do not ultimately receive a custodial sentence. It is outrageous that women, often young women with children, should spend time in prison in custody for weeks, sometimes extending to months, at great expense but also with great disruption to the family, because there is no place for them in a bail hostel. The whole stigma of being in prison and all that that involves is something we surely want to avoid and have an obligation to avoid for people who are proved in the end not to have committed an offence which justifies a custodial sentence. I therefore strongly support the increase rather than the diminution of the number of bail places available.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: There seems to be a view that the Government do not support the use of bail hostels. That is not the case. In recent years the Government have invested considerable sums and management effort in the hostel system. The result of that can be seen from the fact that as of 1988–89 there-were 1,770 places in the hostel sector; in 1992 another 630 or so places had been brought on stream, bringing the total number of places up to 2,400. Since that time a further 345 places have been brought into existence.
It is of course true to say, as was pointed out by the; noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, that the Government closed certain hostels and asked some authorities to consider closing others. That is partly because—one is familiar with this in other areas of life —sometimes one finds that with population shifts, and so forth, not all hostels are in places where they would

187
be most useful. Therefore, although there are planned closures, it is also intended to continue developing places but in areas where they will be needed.
Under the programme envisaged, and taking into account the closures envisaged, it is anticipated that by April 1996 there will be 2,680 hostel places. There is therefore no question of the Government taking a negative view of bail hostels. As of today the figures show that the occupancy rate for bail hostels is around 70 per cent. The latest figure I was able to obtain today shows that at present there are 700 vacancies in the bail hostel system. That is not something which we particularly welcome. Like the noble Baroness and others who spoke, the Government believe that the hostels perform an important role. They fall short of custody and therefore allow people to be dealt with, without the need for them to go into remand. That is obviously desirable in the kinds of cases to which the noble Baroness pointed. There is no question, therefore, of the Government not being committed to them.
In relation to the courts, the Government must accept that we cannot tell the courts that they must use the hostel system. At the end of the day it is a matter for the magistrates. The existence of hostels is drawn to the attention of magistrates, partly through their training and also because they receive information in relation to the national standards for bail hostels.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question. This is highly relevant to what he was saying. Not so long ago it was said that magistrates' courts were not always informed, or did not have the information, about the availability of bail hostels in the area in which they worked. On occasion, people were placed on remand simply because the information was not made available at the right time as to what accommodation existed in the bail hostels. Can the noble and learned Lord assure us that there is now full and regular information before the courts as to what places are available in bail hostels when they are sentencing?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I cannot tell the noble Baroness how it is done in all cases. I am stressing that magistrates are encouraged to visit their local hostels and become aware of their existence so that they will bear that alternative in mind when considering disposals. To some extent they have not been using them, and there may be various reasons for that. However, that does not arise from any hostility on the part of the Government. We are doing our best to draw these matters to the attention of magistrates and places will certainly be kept available. There is no question of cutting back.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: It is always welcome to have the assurance that the Government support bail hostels. But if that is the case I can only say that they are going about it in a very curious way because the history of the past six or seven months shows a very different situation. The decision to close 11 bail hostels and 270 places was announced in November 1993. The explicit reason given was that the occupancy rate had dropped to
188
64 per cent. in the summer despite the fact that it has been established for a number of years that occupancy rates in bail hostels do fall during the summer.
In the period between November 1993, when the decision was announced, and the closures taking place in April of this year, not only did the occupancy rate increase to 77 per cent.—in other words, very close to the Home Office recommendation—but when the decision was announced it aroused a storm in another place. I understand that 135 Members of Parliament, including many Conservatives, signed an Early Day Motion against the proposed closures. I believe that a very large number of protests were made to the Home Office and the Home Secretary from the legal profession and the courts.
Generally speaking, one can only say that if the Government are indeed supporting bail hostels they have not got their public relations very well organised. It is curious that if they have a policy of opening new bail hostels in areas where they are most needed they do not proclaim that at the same time as the programme of closures is announced. As far as I am aware, however, the Government have not announced any programme of new openings, but simply said that the objective is that in 1996 there will be close to 2,700 places.
It would be wise for the Government to look again at the presentation of their policy. I know that this is a matter which is normally said at Conservative Party conferences rather than from the Opposition Front Bench. The Government could do well to think about the way in which they present their policy if they are to secure any conviction.
I have no basis on which to disbelieve what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate says about the Government's intentions and their desire to increase the number of places in future. This is not an amendment which has enough force—it is not an intrusion on judicial independence—to justify pursuing it to a Division. I hope that the point has been made that any further action that the Government take, not only to increase the availability of bail hostel places but to urge the courts and the magistrates' courts to make good use of them, will be welcomed from these Benches and, I believe, from all parts of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Power for police to grant conditional bail to persons charged]:
On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mottistone: I hasten to say to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate that, this time, far from not knowing what the purpose of the clause is I know it only too well because we are aware that the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice said it believed that the power embodied within the clause could lead to a substantial reduction in the number of persons held overnight in police cells. The Committee will find, on page xvii, at the beginning of the Bill, under "Financial effects of the Bill", that a reduction in the number of

189
persons held overnight is expected from 100,000 to 40,000. So it is quite clear that this particular clause is a moneysaver.
However, as regards Clause 24 in relation to the Executive, magistrates believe that restriction on personal liberty is a matter for the courts and not for the police. The police have a duty to bring the accused person to court as soon as is practically possible so that the bail decision can be made by the courts. The granting of bail is a judicial decision and should remain in the hands of the courts. If this provision goes through the courts will find themselves having to deal with breaches of conditions imposed by the police and not by the courts themselves. That is a most undesirable situation.
There is a strong feeling that the police already grant bail too easily, usually because they are unaware of the existing bail and of offending on bail. To carry out these powers fairly and effectively the police need access to criminal records which are accurate and reliable. The present system has many inaccuracies. Therefore, I believe that the error of having Clause 26 in the Bill is different. It is not a matter of the Executive not trusting the courts—which is disastrous—but the fact that the accepted powers of the courts to grant bail and restrict liberty are being taken away from them in an area which has nothing to do with the principles of the matter but only with whether it is going to save a lot of money.
I know that the Benches opposite always criticise us on this side for wanting to save money. We have to do that, but one has to draw a balance between doing that and trusting the judicial system of the country. To say that the authority for granting bail—which over centuries has been in the hands of the courts—should be delegated to police, who have a totally different function, needs to be considered very carefully. One wonders whether the Home Office has properly thought this through and whether it feels it right for magistrates —and no doubt the judiciary—to gain the impression that the Executive does not really believe that they can be trusted to get on with their job and deal with the granting of bail, and so on, which they have been empowered and entrusted to do for centuries.
This is a matter which is not of the same order of importance as Clause 24, but it means that Clause 26 is thoroughly undesirable as a matter of principle. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to give me some encouragement that he might persuade his ministerial colleagues to think again about this issue before they insist that it remain in the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: I supported the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, very strongly in his opposition to Clause 24 of the Bill. Therefore, it is with some sorrow that I say to him that his opposition to Clause 26 is misconceived. I believe that he misunderstands the purpose of police bail if he thinks that it is a derogation from the powers of the courts to grant bail. Police bail is normally used not instead of bail granted by the courts, but before an accused person has the opportunity to come before the courts.
190
In practice, what happens is that the police grant bail to somebody who will then come before the courts in the morning, or at the next possible opportunity. Failing that power, they have to keep the person in custody overnight. The difficulty which they have is that although it is possible for them to give bail they cannot give it with conditions. As I understand it, that is what this clause seeks to provide. It is not even as though it were true that the conditions on which the police can grant bail cannot be challenged. If an accused believes that the conditions imposed are unreasonable or too burdensome, there is provision in Schedule 3 for those conditions to be challenged. I hate to say it from this Dispatch Box but, in practice, the provisions in Clause 26 are almost entirely benign.
A recent study of three courts in Wales, carried out by Anthea Hucklesby of the University of Glamorgan, found that 38 per cent. of defendants produced for their first court appearance from police custody had been kept in that police custody only so that the prosecution could suggest bail conditions and that the CPS and the police did not oppose bail. If the conditions could be imposed by the police beforehand, such defendants need not be kept in police custody in advance of the court appearance.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will not feel that I am betraying him by these views because,, in general, I agree with his approach to much of the Bill. However, on this occasion, I feel that he is mistaken.
Viscount Tenby: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and to share the sorrow of the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh. We have been on the same side in these matters in trawling these deep waters over the past months, but I think that in one respect this is part of the same undesirable trend that has already been proposed by the earlier Clause 24 of blessed memory.
How proper is it to remove the sole right of a court to grant or withhold bail? Presumably, as we have heard already, in this instance the object is a saving to the public purse and, to use an extremely inelegant phrase, to "free up" police cell accommodation. The matter might be deemed to be relatively minor. I think that we; are all agreed on that. That is not something for which we would all go to the stake but the matter deserves the discussion that it is getting now. However, I do not believe it to be right that the police should be able to grant conditional bail in this way, although I am aware that the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice made a recommendation to that effect.
It is not as if we were living in the early years of the 18th century. We now have modern means of communication and most magistrates live within a reasonable distance of the courts they serve. I take my own Bench as an example. I appreciate that this does not cover the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, made tellingly, but it does cover the question of Saturdays and Bank Holidays because we have a duty roster to cover those days. I am fairly confident that the same procedure is followed throughout the country.
On looking at the amendments, I cannot help recalling the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill which this House discussed—with, can I say, advantage?—

191
earlier this year. Discernible in that Bill was a certain chipping away of the power of magistrates to order their own affairs locally. Now we have these clauses, which are not perhaps earth-shattering in themselves, but which are nevertheless important, if indicative of a certain attitude of mind towards the magistracy.
That aside, I do not believe it to be appropriate for the police to be able to grant conditional bail overnight. I would even have reservations about justices' clerics being used in that way, although I understand that the Justices' Clerks' Society would not be averse to that development. As has already been said almost ad nauseaum tonight, the granting of bail is a judicial function and should be left well alone.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may say briefly that I wholly support the careful analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey. It was totally right and I share the conclusions that he drew.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is with pleasure that I can say that on this occasion I go along with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, said on this matter. The provisions should not be seen as in any sense an attack on magistrates. For many years police officers have had the power to grant bail. That is found in Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. To the extent, therefore, that the power for the police to grant bail already exists, there has already been an inroad in the monopoly of the courts on this matter.
The problem which has arisen was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh. It is that that power does not contain a power to impose a condition. The police may believe it correct that a condition should be imposed before bail is granted—a desirable condition, but perhaps not a very serious condition; for example, that the offender should not visit a certain pub or something like that, which is designed to prevent reoffending. However, in that situation the police cannot grant the conditional bail that they would wish and the person concerned has to be kept in custody overnight just to be brought before the court on the following day. The police will often have suggested the form of the condition that will then be put to the magistrates. As the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, said, that will often not be opposed by the Crown Prosecution Service and the magistrates will use it as the basis for granting the conditional bail. The result of that procedure is that an individual is unnecessarily kept in custody overnight just so that he can appear before the court on the following day whereas if the police had been given the power to impose the condition that person could have been released.
It is not a matter of saving pounds, shillings and pence; it is a matter of simple justice. If it is possible for somebody to be released and to go home (or wherever it may be) on that basis, it seems desirable for that to happen as soon as possible. That person should not be detained unnecessarily simply because of the absence of that power in the police officers. There is, of course, a restriction on the kind of condition which the police are entitled to impose. That seems correct. In all the
192
circumstances, it seems a useful power. It was recommend by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Mottistone: It gives me great pleasure to be able to say to my noble and learned friend how grateful I am for having an explanation which I not only understand, but by which I am convinced. It was a great pleasure to me that I did not have to say that to him in respect of Clause 24. I see the point. However, I should like to leave a note of warning with the Home Office: watch it and do not chip away at the authority of the accepted courts of justice in this country.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 20A:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
("Entitlement to full bail hearing.
• The following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraph 3 of Part HA of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976—

"3. At subsequent hearings the court need not hear arguments as to fact or law which it has heard previously except as provided by paragraph 4 below.

4. At any hearing where the court is committing the defendant to the Crown Court for trial he may support an application for bail with any argument as to fact or law that he desires (whether or not he has advanced that argument previously).".").

The noble Lord said: This new clause provides that courts should hear a defendant's full argument for bail when he or she is in the process of being committed to the Crown Court for trial. The present day history of this area of the law dates from the Nottingham Justices case, which has been debated in this House on a number of occasions. That is Regina v. Nottingham Justices, ex parte Davis; a case heard in 1981. That laid down that when a defendant had been remanded in custody, the court should not hear arguments for the defence in support of a bail application at subsequent hearings unless there had been a substantial change in the circumstances since the last remand hearing.
The 1988 Criminal Justice Act modified that rule by providing that courts should hear a defendant's full argument for bail on his second appearance before the court, as well as on his first. Thereafter, they do not have to hear defence arguments for bail unless, once again, they believe that there has been a direct change in the circumstances.
However, I believe that committal to the Crown Court should always be regarded as a change of circumstances requiring a fresh look at the overall bail situation. When a defendant is on bail from a magistrates' court, he may often come back frequently, so the case for bail can always be looked at again. But when the defendant is committed to the Crown Court he may face many weeks or, indeed, many months in custody before trial with no requirement for regular court appearances to review the situation.
In the light of the serious implications of committal in custody, magistrates should always be required to review the case for bail fully before the defendant is committed to the Crown Court. If the defence wants to make representations, the magistrates should hear them

193
fully. The argument that I have put forward is largely consistent with the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. When sitting as a Lord Justice of Appeal he delivered the judgment of the Divisional Court, first, in the Nottingham Justices case and then in a later case R v. Reading Crown Court, ex parte Malik. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said:
"In passing, we would have thought that there had been a very clear change of circumstances, namely that the prosecution had by then completed its investigations and that the applicants had been committed for trial. Although there may be exceptional cases, as a general rule the moment of committal for trial must, in our judgement, be an occasion upon which an accused person is entitled to have his case for bail fully reviewed. In any particular case, the eligibility of the accused for bail may or may not have improved, but it is almost inevitable that there will have been a change in circumstances. For example, the court will be in a much better position to assess 'the nature and the seriousness of the offence", (Schedule 1 para 9(a) Bail Act 1976). In addition, the strength of the prosecution case can for the first time be fully assessed, both by the committing court and by the accused himself. This can be very material in considering the likelihood that the accused may fail to surrender to custody".
Those words are persuasive. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said on that occasion is consistent with the terms of the amendment, and I hope that it will be considered in that light. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The amendment seeks to impose upon the court holding the committal a hearing the duty to hear any argument on bail even though it had been advanced previously. The position under the existing legislation is that after the first two hearings, subsequently the court need not hear arguments as to fact or law which had been heard previously.
There are two aspects to that. The first is that it merely relieves the court of an obligation to hear those arguments. It leaves it of course open to it to hear such arguments if it wishes. The other matter is that the only things that it does not need to hear are arguments as to fact or law which have been heard previously.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made a number of telling points in connection with the kind of matters which might be raised moment of committal. He said, for example, that for the first time the full strength of the prosecution case might be available, and the nature and seriousness of the offence might be apparent for the first time. Those of course would be fresh matters which could be raised and would not merely be arguments on fact or law which had been heard previously. They would be good examples of the kind of fresh matters which could be put forward at that stage and would not be caught by the existing provisions of the Act.
The only point that is caught here is where all that is being put forward is something that has been put forward previously with nothing more besides. It is that which the court does not require to hear, but it may hear it. The kind of case that the noble Lord has put forward so tellingly is one that is already catered for under the existing legislation. Accordingly, there is no need for the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not propose to continue this argument at this time of night. We shall be coming back to the Nottingham Justices decision. Nevertheless I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 20B:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause,
("Consideration of mental health
In paragraph 9 of Part I of Schedule I to the Bail Act 1976, after sub-paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

"(e) the state of the mental health of the defendant and the likely effect upon this of a remand in custody".").

The noble Lord said: This new clause requires a court, before remanding a defendant in custody, to consider the likely effect on his mental health. Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 requires courts, before passing a custodial sentence on an offender who is or appears to be mentally disordered, to consider the likely effect of such a sentence on the offender's mental condition. At present there is no equivalent requirement in relation to bail conditions yet the impact of a remand in custody can be at least as damaging.
Thus, the amendment adds to the list of considerations in Schedule 1, paragraph 9 of the Bail Act 1976 to which the court must have regard when taking bail decisions. It includes the words:
"The state of the mental health of the defendant and the likely effect upon this of a remand in custody".
It of course does not prevent the court from remanding such a person in custody if it considers that there is no alternative, but it seeks to ensure that the court should direct its mind to that issue.
Let me just give one illustration of the character of the problem at the moment in just one prison. It is a report by Judge Tumim, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, on Her Majesty's Prison Wakefield which was published only last week. It describes the situation and states:
'This became more disturbing when we were told that some fifty mentally ill inmates were located on the main wings. We observed a number of them walking aimlessly about in what appeared to be a semi-sedated condition. We were concerned that their safety was solely reliant on vigilant staff and the tolerance of other inmates. Efforts to get these inmates transferred to special hospitals were not meeting with much success".
Of course Wakefield is not a remand prison. It may have some remand prisoners, but that is not its primary function. Nevertheless that quotation from Judge Tumim indicates the seriousness of the situation confronting many governors in prisons in this country. As the noble Lord will be aware, a survey of sentenced prisoners carried out by Professor Gunn for the Home Office and published in October of the year before last estimated the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among sentenced prisoners as in the range of 40 per cent., of which substance dependency or abuse accounted for nearly 20 per cent. I have no figures for the proportion of remand prisoners. Many believe that the proportion of remand prisoners suffering from difficulties of this kind is greater than that of the sentenced population as a whole.
As regards mentally ill people who are alleged to have committed a criminal offence which requires them

195
to be kept in custody, the problems are clear. In many cases the risks of suicide and self-mutilation are increased. A research study carried out by Dr. Edna Dooley examined the record of prison suicides in England and Wales between 1972 and 1987. The study was published by the British Journal of Psychiatry. It was found that mental disorder was among the reasons for suicide in 22 per cent. of the cases that were reviewed. More than one-third of the prisoners who committed suicide had a previous history of psychiatric contact. About one-quarter had previous in-patient admissions and 23 per cent. had received some form of psychotropic medication in the month before suicide. According to a Parliamentary Answer given by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in July 1993, of the 218 prisoners who took their own lives in the five years between 1988 and 1992, 102—that is 47 per cent.—were on remand. Of that latter group, 30 were mentally disordered.
It is said that only a small proportion had been charged with serious crimes of violence. Many had been charged with relatively minor offences. Thefts, public nuisance offences and criminal damage tended to predominate. A substantial proportion—40 per cent. in the case of London—had no proper home and had been living in unsettled accommodation or on the streets. The authors concluded that homelessness was an important factor in the decision of keeping the person charged in custody.
The amendment is hardly revolutionary. In terms of its effect, it merely requires the court to take these factors into consideration. Given the amount of anxiety about the number of mentally disordered people who are now in our prisons, it seems the least that we can do. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has brought out clearly facts which are known to some Members of the Committee, in particular members of the all-party penal affairs groups. He has made a most powerful case for an increase in the quantity and distribution of secure wings of psychiatric hospitals. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will report that and emphasise it to his Cabinet colleagues.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The Committee must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for drawing attention to the problem of the mental health of those in prison. I accept everything that he said. But, surely, this is a serious problem of much wider implication than the question of bail as such. With respect, I suggest to the noble Lord that it warrants much wider treatment; a more general treatment. To deal with the subject piecemeal will not do justice to the seriousness of the problem or to Judge Tumim's report.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is true to say that this is one part of a wider problem. Nonetheless, an important question has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. One must remember the context within which it is raised. It is that we are considering someone
196
who, for some reason, no longer has his right to bail —perhaps one of the criteria has not been met—and the court is considering his remand. It is proper to remember that paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 provides that,
"the court shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant … as well as to any others which appear to be relevant".
There is nothing in the present legislation which prevents the court taking into account any representa-tions which may be made to it about the kind of matter to which the noble Lord refers in his amendment.
The Government have supported the setting up of mental health assessment and diversion schemes, which can provide advice to the court on a person's mental condition based on mental history and an appropriate assessment made by a nurse or a psychiatrist. There are now about 100 such schemes around the country, 29 of which the Government have helped with funding. They hope to assist a total of 50 schemes in the present financial year, the cost of which will be about £1 million.
The schemes usually operate before the defendant first appears in court and therefore can help to prevent remands in custody while reports are obtained. I am sure the noble Lord realises that the question is one of balance. We are dealing with people who may re-offend and who therefore may constitute some kind of a danger. We must carry out a balancing exercise.
It must be accepted that imprisonment can impose a strain. It is also true that people with mental health conditions are found in such establishments. The noble Lord mentioned two examples. Neither related to a remand prison, but I do not deny that the kind of thing he mentioned might occur too. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that provision already exists in legislation for prisoners to be removed to hospital if they are in remand centres but it appears that they could be more appropriately dealt with in hospital because of anxieties about their mental health. In that connection, one of the duties and concerns of medical officers in such establishments is to look out for the kinds of problems that have been mentioned and to take the appropriate action. In connection with the courts, probation officers are also alert to such matters.
These issues are difficult but are already being addressed. The compulsory nature of what the noble Lord has suggested is not required. Where it is relevant it can be dealt with by magistrates under the existing law. Although the noble Lord has raised a very important matter, I hope that in the light of this explanation he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I fear that what the noble and learned Lord has said has persuaded me not in the slightest degree. I fear that this has no relationship whatever to the situation faced by prison governors and station sergeants in this country, who often have to hold Home Office prisoners in police cells.
There are now hundreds, if not thousands, of people in that category. Of course, many of them will have to be remanded in custody because, in many cases, there are no alternative arrangements for them. The noble and

197
learned Lord mentioned spending £1 million on something. That is a fleabite compared with the sheer size of the problem.
The noble and learned Lord chided me in very gracious terms for not having given a more detailed illustration of a survey on remand prisoners. Having been chided, I shall now be glad to give him the information which I excluded from my earlier remarks in order to speak briefly.
As the noble and learned Lord will know from his briefing material, a study of mentally disordered remand prisoners was recently carried out for the Home Office by Adrian Brown, Susan Dale and Katie James of the Cambridge Institute of Criminology and by Graham Robinson of the Institute of Psychiatry. The results of that research were summarised by the authors in an article in Home Office Research Bulletin No. 32, published in 1992. The study records details of all men and women remanded in custody in Holloway, Brixton and Risley over a five to six-month period during 1989 who came to the attention of prison doctors for psychiatric reasons.
Earlier, I summarised what that research showed. In many of those cases, there is no great risk to the public because many of the people had been charged with relatively minor offences—theft, public nuisance offences and so on. Often, they were remanded in custody just because they were rather disturbed lost souls and nobody really knew what should be done with them. I do not believe that it is sensible to detain hundreds of people as remand prisoners basically for reasons of their psychiatric welfare. The facilities offered in prison for people in that situation are remarkably limited.
However, the hour is late. I can only guarantee to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that we shall return to this matter. Given the fact that the noble and learned Lord is aware that we shall return to it, I hope that he will look again at this matter.
I read a debate on a similar amendment in Standing Committee of the House of Commons and I was reduced to a state of near despair when I read the mutual abuse while all the serious problems were ignored. I am glad to say that this debate has been of a rather different character. However, the issues involved are extremely serious, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord recognises, and I can see no conceivable reason why courts should not be asked to take account of the mental condition of the people appearing before them. We shall return to this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 20C:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
("Prohibition of remand in custody.
A court shall not remand in custody a person who is not legally represented in that court unless—

(a) he applied for legal aid and the application was refused
on the ground that it did not appear his means were such
that he required assistance; or

(b) having been informed of his right to apply for legal aid
and had the opportunity to do so, he refused or failed to
apply").

The noble Baroness said: This is a new clause to prohibit the remanding in custody of any person who has not been offered legal representation. At present, the law contains a number of requirements for mandatory legal representation to be offered before offenders can be sentenced to custody. For example, it is mandatory for an offender under 21 to be offered legal representation before being given a custodial sentence. It is also mandatory to offer legal representation before a first custodial sentence is imposed on an offender of any age.
The arguments in favour of such a requirement are even more powerful in relation to imposing custody on people who have not yet been found guilty of an offence, particularly as the conditions in which they are held on remand in overcrowded, insanitary prisons are often worse than those for sentenced offenders.
Many defendants are immature, inarticulate, con-fused and daunted by the court setting. They are far from adequately equipped to represent themselves and to do justice to their case for bail. Legal representation can help to ensure that the proceedings are. understood by the defendant; that there is a clear presentation of any considerations relevant to the case for bail; that submissions by the prosecution can be scrutinised for inaccuracies and challenged if necessary; and that efforts can be made to pursue the availability of a hostel or other residential place, or take other steps to improve the defendant's bail prospects.
Anyone who is at risk of being deprived of his liberty and subjected to the appalling conditions in our local prisons and remand centres should have the right to legal representation. In most cases, this does already happen, and so the new clause is largely a statutory reflection of existing practice. We want a statutory guarantee of that position.
Where a defendant is under 17, the law already provides that he or she cannot be remanded in custody unless first offered legal representation. This provision is contained in Section 62 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. There is no valid reason why a similar statutory provision should not be applied to defendants of all ages.
When a similar new clause was debated at the House of Commons Committee stage on 3rd March, the; Minister of State at the Home Office, David Maclean, said:
"New clause 12 is unnecessary. The Legal Aid Act 1988 provides that a defendant must always be allowed representation for bail proceedings when he is before the court in pursuance of a remand in custody and is not—but wishes to be—legally represented".
However, the statutory provision cited by Mr. Maclean refers to a defendant who has already been remanded in custody and is appearing in court for the second time. This new clause would prevent a defendant from being remanded in custody on his or her first appearance without first being offered legal representation.
I thought that the aim of everybody was to try to keep people out of any sort of custody—prison, remand or whatever. I do hope that this might be a help in this direction and that the noble and learned Lord will consider this amendment favourably. I bee; to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The Government believe that this new clause is unnecessary. The Legal Aid Act 1988 provides that criminal legal aid is available to any person charged with a criminal offence where it is in the interests of justice that representation be granted and where his financial resources are such that he requires assistance. In the situation envisaged by the noble Baroness, the defendant would be in imminent danger of losing his liberty if he were remanded. In that situation, legal aid might well be granted.
The second stage is the one to which the noble Baroness referred and to which my honourable friend the Minister of State referred also in the other place; that is, where the defendant has already been remanded in custody and when he appears for a further remand decision, at that stage his eligibility for legal aid is subject only to his financial circumstances. But in either situation, should legal aid be refused or if the defendant has not applied for it, he may request assistance from the court duty solicitor. Such duty solicitors are provided under the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1989 and are financed by the Legal Aid Board. I stress that access to the duty solicitor is not means tested. For those reasons, I believe that the amendment is not necessary and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I am not at all sure that I am satisfied with that reply. However, I should like to read what the noble and learned Lord said and, again, perhaps take advice to decide whether or not I should return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Abolition of corroboration rules]:
[Amendment No. 21 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu Moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 20, line 23, leave out ("is hereby abrogated") and insert ("shall only apply when the court determines that no evidence has been given which is capable of amounting to corroboration").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment, I shall with the leave of the Committee speak also to Amendment No. 23.
The amendments relate to the proposed changes in the Bill in relation to corroboration. If Members of the Committee will allow me, I propose to explain briefly what is the present position; what has gone wrong; what recommendations were made by the Law Commission and the Royal Commission; what the Bill seeks to do; and, finally, what the amendment seeks to achieve.
The usual rule in England and Wales is that the evidence of a single witness is sufficient to prove any issue. Juries and magistrates may convict on the evidence of one competent witness. However, there are some categories of evidence which are exceptions. In some cases, a statute requires that evidence be corroborated for certain offences. Clause 31 of the Bill, with which we shall deal shortly, addresses some but not all of those in the statutory category. In other cases at common law the judge must warn the jury that it is dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of
200
an accomplice—that is, someone who was or who may have been, a party to the alleged offence—or the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant in a sexual complaint.
The warning that is presently given in court takes the following forms. Where an accomplice gives evidence, the judge warns the jury that that witness may have a purpose of his own to serve in giving evidence against the accused and warns the jury in terms which are appropriate to the case of the possible dangers of relying on his evidence alone. In cases of sexual complaint, it has become the custom of the judge to tell the jury that experience has shown that in such cases people, whether they are men or women, boys or girls, do on occasions tell lies—sometimes for a reason and sometimes for no reason—and that it is dangerous to convict unless there is corroboration.
A judge both in cases involving an accomplice and in cases of sexual complaint must then go on to direct the jury that if, after hearing the warning he has given, they nevertheless conclude that the witness is speaking the truth they are entitled to convict even if there is no corroboration. In practice what happens during a jury trial is that, before counsel's speeches and the summing up but after all the evidence has been given on both sides, the judge discusses corroboration with both counsel in open court in the absence of the jury. If the judge decides that there is no evidence which is capable of amounting to corroboration and all are agreed, then the discussion is obviously a short one. Otherwise, that evidence which is capable of being regarded as corroboration has to be identified and distinguished from other evidence which jurors may mistakenly think is corroboration but which is not in law.
In law corroboration has a particular meaning. It is evidence from an independent source, someone other than the complainant or the accomplice, which does two things: it both supports the evidence that the crime has been committed and supports the evidence that the crime has been committed by the accused. With one short illustration, it is easy to show the difficulties that may arise. For example, in a rape case, fingertip bruising on the arms or the legs may support the complainant in her allegation that she has been raped, but it does not amount to corroboration because those fingertip bruises cannot link the defendant to the crime. But, of course, there are many pieces of evidence which do amount to corroboration—for example, blood from the com-plainant on the accused's clothing, admissions by the accused, DNA profiling, and so on. It is for the judge to identify at that stage those pieces of the evidence which are capable of amounting to corroboration and to direct the jury accordingly. However, it is for the jury to decide whether or not the evidence does corroborate the witness.
Difficulties have arisen because there have undoubt-edly been problems in the correct identification of corroborative evidence and the direction which the judge has then had to give in distinguishing corroborative evidence from evidence which is merely supportive. A considerable number of appeals have arisen as a result of an incorrect or an incomplete corroboration direction being given by a judge.
In a report in 1991, the Law Commission recommended the abolition of the whole of the common law rules. That, effectively, is put into force in Clause 30 of the Bill. The commission also recommended that the statutory requirement under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 should go too, and that is incorporated in Clause 31 of the Bill. The Law Commission envisaged that that would leave the judge free to give whatever advice to the jury he or she considered appropriate in a particular case. The Royal Commission also came to the same conclusion but added in Chapter 8, paragraph 35:
"It may still be necessary for the judge in these cases"—
the reference here is to common law cases—
"to warn the jury of the danger of accepting evidence from a particular witness. We agree however with the Law Commission that the approach should be not that the same warning should be applied inflexibly to every case but that, if a warning is required, the judge should tailor it to the particular circumstances of the case".
What troubles me about the proposals in the Bill which simply remove the obligation to give the warning in relation to accomplices and sexual complaints—and it is something that I know troubles other criminal lawyers, especially those who practise in that field—is that the proposed changes in effect throw the baby out with the bath water. It perhaps only takes a moment to look at the position of an accomplice—that is, someone who has played or may have played a part in the actual offence which is alleged against the defendant—to see that his approach to his evidence may well be tainted.
I do not think that it is in any way insulting to complainants in sexual cases—indeed, it is a matter of plain common sense and perhaps obvious—to say that allegations of sexual complaint are in many ways ones which are easily made, which frequently involve no witnesses and which, at the end of the day, are sometimes very difficult to refute. Those who sit in criminal courts dealing with such offences are familiar with false allegations; that is, not merely ones where the evidence is insufficient, but false allegations which on many occasions are retracted during the course of the court proceedings. The fact that such things do occur was illustrated only recently by a public outcry about the behaviour of some youngsters on a train. It prompted a great deal of press coverage and comment, but police investigation subsequently showed that no criminal offence had been committed.
Both the Royal Commission and the Law Commission accepted the need for warnings still to be given in some cases. But the Bill as it stands makes no such provision. Where there is no evidence which is capable of amounting to corroboration—in other words, where the case stands solely on the evidence of the accomplice or the complainant—then the need to warn the jury, in our view, still continues. A jury ought to be reminded that there is a real danger. Moreover, at the very least, they ought to be reminded of the dangers in those cases. We say that it is so important that that should happen that it should remain obligatory in cases where there is no corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice or of a sexual complainant.
The proposal that is made in our amendment is quite simply this: where, at the stage when the judge discusses the question of corroboration with counsel,
202
there is evidence which is capable of amounting to corroboration—that is a matter for the judge to decide —the question of whether or not he feels it is an appropriate case for him to give a warning is a matter for him. But where there is no evidence which is capable of amounting to corroboration, what he should then do is to explain to the jury in terms, as he does at present, that it is dangerous to convict on that evidence alone. However, if, at the end of the day, they are satisfied the witness is telling the truth, they may still go on and convict. That, we say, is a warning which should continue to be given. That is the purpose of Amendment No.22.
The purpose of Amendment No.23—I will readily accept criticism if the drafting goes awry and does not meet what I intend to do—is largely consequential in that it is intended to leave the child in precisely the same position as any other accomplice or sexual complainant, but of course a child now no longer requires corroboration of his or her evidence simply by reason of his age. So far as the magistrates' court is concerned, magistrates are in the perhaps rather artifical position at present of having to direct themselves as to the danger when they are conducting a trial at first instance. That, we say, should continue. Amendment. No.23—I shall obviously deal with that in due course—is in effect consequential to the proposal we make in Amendment No.22. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I beg leave to support this amendment. The excellent procedures have been fully and fairly explained with total accuracy by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, as has the purpose of our amendment. I am able to draw lines through large passages of my speaking notes. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and I served as recorders. I have tried to work it out and I think that between us we have about 90 years' experience in the conduct of criminal cases. Inevitably, for some time past, her experience has been more intensive than mine. We both, in the light of our respective: experiences, for the reasons given, are wholly unable to accept Clause 30 as it stands without Amendment No.22 to Clause 30(1) and some form of amendment redrafted along the lines of Amendment No.23 to Clause 30(2).
My noble friend the Minister has always known that I would either table or support an amendment along those lines. I took up the point in the debate on the Royal Commission report. I said,
"There is one aspect of the proposals of my right honourable: friend, referred to by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, with which I am wholly unable to agree. The concept that in a rape case it is either 'offensive' or 'unjustified'—I use the words [of the 27-point programme]—for the judge to warn the jury of the danger of convicting only on the evidence of the complainant…".
That was the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I continued,
"It is essential that the judge should be able to … give such a warning. It is immaterial whether the subject of the alleged rapt: is male or female; or indeed whether the judge is male or female" [Official Report, 26/10/93; col. 801–802.]
The 27-point programme sought to suggest that it was inappropriate for a female judge to give such a warning. To my mind that is a nonsense.

203
The hope is that this Committee, at this late hour, will not divide. I hope that, without commitment, my noble friend the Minister may be able to take this back. In urging that, may I say in conclusion that my noble friend the Minister must have regard to the fact that as regards sexual offences (where there is only a direct conflict of evidence between the complainant and the accused, and no independent evidence to confirm the complaint) heavy penalties involving imprisonment for substantial periods and an indelible social stigma may well be involved on conviction—a conviction which may well be unsafe. It has been accepted by the profession for years that such a conviction has the possibility, or indeed the probability, or at least the propensity, of being unsafe unless the warning is given. This is an amendment which has no political complexion at all. The noble Baroness and I happened to meet in the Library and this reflects a meeting of our minds as professionals.
7.45 pm
Lord Renton: I too support these amendments very strongly. No problem that I am ever aware of in my long experience has been created by the long-standing requirement that the warning should be given by the court to the jury in those cases where corroboration is required. That is to say, it is very unlikely indeed that guilty people have been acquitted because of the warning. But looking at the other side of the matter, if the warning is not given—if I may have the attention of my noble friend—there is a real danger that some innocent people will be convicted. It is notorious in rape cases, for example, that women have made false allegations of rape for wrong motives, and in those cases I would have thought it is essential that, if there is no corroboration, the jury should be told that they may convict but they should be warned that it is sometimes dangerous to convict without corroboration.
As to subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 30, which deals with the position of children, I suggest that corroboration is even more necessary in those cases, and therefore the warning even more necessary. I say that for various reasons within my experience. Children are easily persuaded by grown-ups to give evidence and to have their minds filled when otherwise the children might not have thought of giving evidence. Children are in any event sometimes very imaginative and unreliable witnesses. I really do hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will take note of what has been said. I remind the noble Baroness that I had the pleasure of her appearing before me when she did her first brief some years ago —not so many years ago as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was hinting. She has never looked back since and her experience is valuable. Of course my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has a lot of experience.
I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will ask the Home Secretary to consider this matter before the Report Stage. As my noble friend knows, I am a keen supporter of the Bill. This is about the only clause which worries me.
Earl Ferrers: I am always worried when my noble friend Lord Renton is worried. What worries me even more is when we discuss a subject on which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friends Lord Campbell and Lord Renton are experts and I am a mere layman. I enter the fray with great trepidation.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, had 90 years' experience between them. I thought that a staggering revelation, if a somewhat ungallant one. I have obviously misjudged the age of my noble friend Lord Campbell considerably. I congratulate him on his fine appearance.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread on a subject such as this. I therefore speak with great trepidation. As I understand the position, in this area the judge is obliged to say to the jury, "This is the law on corroboration". He will then explain it. He will go on to say, "Does anything which has been said in this case fall within the technical definition of corroboration? If you think it does", he says to the jury, "do you believe it?" If the answer to either of those questions is no, the judge then has to say, "I have to warn you that what you are left with is just the evidence of whoever it might be. That may be unreliable because that is what history has taught us. But if you are still sure that the defendant is guilty, then of course you can find him guilty".
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the position. However, Amendment No. 22 seeks to take one element of the current confusion out of this area by leaving it to the judge and not to the jury to decide whether any evidence has been given which is capable of amounting to corroboration.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. To avoid misunderstanding, I should point out that that is not quite right. What happens is that the judge rules in the absence of the jury whether the evidence is capable of corroboration. That is a matter of law. If he rules that it is capable of corroboration he then leaves it to the jury. There is a world of difference.
Earl Ferrers: I stand corrected by my noble friend. I shall mark what he says and digest it. The amendment leaves it to the judge, as I understand it, and not to the jury to decide whether there is any evidence which is capable of amounting to corroboration.
Baroness Mallalieu: That is the position at present in law. As I understand it, there is no proposal to change that. It is a matter for a judge to decide whether evidence is capable of amounting to corroboration and to draw the jury's attention to that evidence which he considers is capable of amounting to corroboration, and it is for the jury to decide whether it does in fact corroborate the witness. I do not propose to change that in any way by this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: That is correct. But the noble Baroness knows that we do not have any great enthusiasm for leaving the corroboration rules in place as they are. If we did so, the amendment might represent one less burden for the jury. But the jury would still be told by the judge, even though the judge had said that the evidence was

205
potentially corroborating evidence, that they had to decide whether that potentially corroborative evidence was in fact corroborative.
Baroness Mallalieu: I think that the noble Earl has not understood my amendment. The amendment is intended to deal only with those cases where, in the absence of the jury, the judge concludes that there is no evidence capable of amounting to corroboration. If that is the position he will give them a warning in simple terms that there is no evidence which is capable of amounting to corroboration, and the evidence of the complainant or accomplice stands alone. He will then go on to tell them that if, nonetheless, with the warning in mind, they believe the witness, they can still convict.
The amendment is not intended to deal with those cases where the judge finds that there is evidence which is capable of amounting to corroboration. Whether he gives a warning in those cases is a matter for the judge's discretion—in other words, the position that the Government seek to apply to every situation. I have only taken those instances where the case rests solely on the one witness. I say that the warning should still be given as a matter of law in those cases.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. This is a technical area in which the noble Baroness is a great expert and in which I lack that facility, as I do on many other occasions. I should like to take away and consider what the noble Baroness and my noble friend said, because I do not want to mislead the Committee or to give a wrong impression.
I say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that Clause 30 as set out in the Bill is the precise wording of the draft Bill proposed by the Law Commission. It allows the judge to give a warning which is tailored to the particular circumstances of a case. The law already requires the judge to sum up, putting the defence case squarely before the jury. With the permission of the Committee and the noble Baroness, I should like to consider what has been said before the next stage.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I am sure that all those who have spoken will be glad to hear that. We very much hope that he will consider carefully whether he introduces an amendment to the present proposal. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
(Imputations on character
In section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 there shall be inserted at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (f) the words "the deceased victim of the alleged crime; or".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a very small, modest and, I hope, uncontentious amendment with which to end the day harmoniously, as I am sure the Committee will wish. The Government have said—and I accept, as many of us do—that the balance is tilted too
206
far in favour of the accused. The Government have also said, and I again agree, that technical rules that have no justification and which fly contrary to common sense should be done away with. My amendment arises in these circumstances.
Members of the Committee probably know that generally speaking an accused who gives evidence cannot be cross-examined as to his record. It cannot be put to him when he is charged with robbery, "You have done it 10 times before". It cannot be put to him that he has assaulted people in the past, as he is now charged. However, there are exceptions to that which go back to the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, the aged statute which first gave the accused the right to give evidence in his own defence. Because he was being given the right to give evidence in his own defence the protection was found in that statute. So far as is relevant to the amendment, the protection contains this exception in Section l(f):
"A person charged and called as a witness in pursuance of this Act shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be required to answer, any question tending to show that he. has committed or been convicted of or been charged with any offence other than that wherewith he is then charged, or is. of bad character, unless"—
and this, in paragraph (ii), is the relevant exception—
"the nature or conduct of the defence is such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for that prosecution".
In other words, if the way in which the defence is conducted is to bring out the bad character of one of the witnesses for the prosecution—to put to that person his previous record—and the accused himself is called to give evidence, then his record can be put to him on the simple basis that it is only right that the jury should see the reality of the situation, the potential unreliability of the evidence given by the prosecution because of his or her bad character, balanced against the potential unreliability of the evidence of the defence as, potentially, the result of his bad character. That has gone on as a matter of ordinary sound common sense and justice. The jury should not be given a false or unbalanced picture. That would be the case if the accused were allowed to give evidence with no cross-examination in regard to his character so that he appeared on the surface to be whiter than white, whereas the prosecution evidence had been attacked up hill and down dale.
I ask the Committee to extend that exemption—I refer to imputations on the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution—to include the character of the deceased victim of the alleged offence.
I give the Committee an example, The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has left the Chamber, but as a member of the western circuit he will remember the well known Portsmouth defence, as it was called. There is a fight and as a result a fatality. The accused, be he charged with murder, manslaughter or wounding with intent, says in his defence, "I was only acting in self defence. X, the deceased, is a well-known homosexual and he carried out a vicious and outrageous homosexual attack on me and I was merely defending myself. This was the sad result". That is the evidence that he gives. He has attacked the character of the deceased victim.
As the law stands at present, the fact that he has a record of violence as long as both arms of your Lordships' arms, having been convicted time after time, cannot be given in evidence. The victim is sullied on the basis of the evidence given by the defendant and the jury are given the false, unbalanced picture that there is the innocent defendant defending himself from an attack in this quite outrageous situation.
Alternatively, getting away from the sexual picture, one takes the example simply of a vicious fight between two men with a resultant fatality. The defendant allows and causes his counsel to bring before the court evidence that the deceased had a long record of violence and that he, the defendant, states that he was attacked without any justification. But in truth he has an even longer record of violence than that of the deceased victim. Once again, a false and unbalanced picture is given to the jury.
That is a situation with which many members of the Bar now on the Bench, who have practised, have come face to face. Speaking for myself, I have felt somewhat uncomfortable that one's client has the benefit of this anomaly, this lacuna in the law. It has no justification except that in 1898 it was not thought of. But the law has been left as it stands. My simple amendment is to make sure that the same just position occurs whether the victim of the alleged offence is dead or alive. If he is alive, in goes the character of the accused when he gives evidence. If the accused has achieved a fatality, he should not be in the highly advantageous position of not having his character put in. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. In many murder cases where the defence is either one of provocation or self defence, an attack on the deceased is an integral part of the defence case. I, too, admit to having felt uncomfortable both in prosecuting and defending in circumstances where that part of the evidence is kept from the jury. The amendment seems to me not only necessary but desirable in the interests of fairness.
Earl Ferrers: It would seem odd that an attack on the character of a prosecuting witness should remove a defendant's protection from the revelation of his previous convictions but that a similar attack on the character of a deceased victim should not. In other words, under the present law a defendant can blacken the name of a deceased but not the name of a living witness without laying himself open to a similar response from the prosecution. In so far as that discrepancy can be justified, I suppose it is that in seeking to undermine the credibility of a prosecution witness in this way the defendant should expect to lay himself open to similar tactics if he also acts as a witness and seeks to persuade the jury in his favour by his condemnation of the prosecution witness. I suppose it can be said that if the defendant is to be allowed to "play dirty", the witness should be allowed to do so too. As I understand it, that is the nub of the noble and learned Lord's amendment. What he says is that just because the victim is dead and cannot, for obvious reasons, be a
208
witness, it is not fair to allow the defendant to adopt tactics for which he would suffer if the victim were alive and giving evidence.
I am naturally hesitant about arguing on any matter with the noble and learned Lord, and especially a legal issue. But the law is about the way the credibility of witnesses is to be established and not about punishing the defendant for adopting unpleasant tactics to secure an acquittal. In practice, the provision is not generally seen in that way, as the tit-for-tat rule implies. However, that tit-for-tat rule brings its own disadvantages. In particular, it places a heavy burden on defence counsel in deciding whether to deploy what may be a perfectly legitimate defence when it involves disclosing information which amounts to an attack on the character of a prosecution witness. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice made limited recommendations for reform in that area. In the Government's view those recommendations should not be introduced in isolation and on the basis of a fairly brief treatment in the commission's report.
What we have done, therefore, is to ask the Law Commission to undertake a review of the law governing evidence of previous misconduct. One of the central questions for the commission will be whether the tit-for-tat rule is still a sensible and just principle on which to found a critical part of the law. I suggest that we might be unwise to pre-empt the commission's conclusions.
There is a fundamental issue which ought to be considered but I doubt whether now is the right time to make a sigificant change to the 1988 Act, despite the noble and learned Lord's convincing arguments. I have no doubt that the Law Commission will look carefully, not only at the whole area, but also at the point which he made. I realise the distress which can be caused to the families of the deceased victims, and it is with some reluctance that I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that it would probably be better to wait until the Law Commission has drawn its conclusions rather than to embark upon the partial reform which he suggested.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Having listened to the debate as a layman like the noble Earl, I was disappointed by his reply. I found the case put forward by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness extremely persuasive. It seems to me an extraordinary proposition that the victim is dead and his character can be assaulted without any risk for the defendant. The noble Earl referred to a Royal Commission recommen-dation which, as I understood it, he thought had been dealt with too briefly. That is how I understood the thrust of his argument. He went on to say that the Law Commission had been asked to consider it. I am in favour of that, but there is now a massive queue of Law Commission Bills and the Government have not found time to introduce them in Parliament. As the noble Earl will recall, the matter has occupied the attention of the Select Committee on the procedure of this House. The Law Commission has already drawn public attention to its anxieties in the matter. The idea of passing the matter back again following the Royal Commission recom-mendation, with no certainty that parliamentary time

209
will be found for any recommendations that it may make, seems to me rather disturbing in the light of the strength of the arguments put forward this evening.
Lord Elton: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, a question. I am a total layman in this and I have no pretensions to being otherwise. I think that when we read Hansard, it will appear as though the noble and learned Lord made the assumption that in every case which he illustrated the accused was guilty and the deceased had not contributed to his decease. Perhaps I may ask whether there will be cases where the character of the deceased has relevance as evidence on the likely events which led to the perhaps unwitnessed decease, where the person had a character of tempestuous and unpredictable violence, and where it was therefore entirely likely that the defendant had acted in self-defence. Should we consider the point with both possibilities equally in mind? Has the noble and learned Lord done that?
Lord Ackner: In reply to that, I was making no assumptions with regard to the guilt of the defendant. I merely indicated that the one thing which should not occur is the jury being given a false and unrealistic picture. That false and unrealistic picture results from the blackened character of the victim and the inability to cross-examine the defendant, so that the jury has, on the one hand, a deceased with a violent character and, on the other hand, a defendant who is asked no questions about his character. Therefore, the inference which the jury draws is: "He is a splendid chap, whereas the deceased got what was coming to him". I make no assumption about guilt; I merely ask that the jury should not be deceived by the false picture. It is not a tit-for-tat situation that I seek to propound; it is avoiding artificial rules that create unreality.
Lord Moyne: The present legal position seems to be an invitation to anyone who finds himself in a brawl to kill his victim rather than leave him alive.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am a great admirer of the Law Commission. The setting up of the commission seems to me to have been the supreme act of the chancellorship of Lord Gardiner. However, it certainly should not be an excuse to shuffle off obviously immediately desirable reforms. My noble and learned friend made an overwhelming case and he was supported by the noble Baroness who has so much experience and other noble Lords.
I suggest that it is most undesirable, when a case like this is made, for the Law Commission to be brought in on the grounds that it might consider other beneficial reforms. The case for this reform has been made out and justified beyond any argument and I hope that the noble Earl will accept the amendment.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may finally add this point. It is not something that has taken the noble Earl by surprise; I raised it six months ago in the debate on the loyal Address, which will be found in Hansard of 23rd November 1993 at col. 217. That is six months ago. This amendment is as simple as the addition of two or three
210
words at the end of a section, to expand that section to include an assault on the character of the deceased, the victim. With the deepest respect, to say: "The whole matter is now before the Law Commission" shows a strange inflexibility on the part of the Government. They have said and will urge in support of their justification for giving the right to comment on silence: "We must redress the balance between the prosecution and the defence", but that favours too much the situation of the defendant arising out of aged, ancient and unjustifiable laws.
There is an inconsistency in hiding behind a reference to a body which will not report for a long time:, after which there is unlikely to be time to deal with the matter. I earnestly ask the noble Earl to say that the matter will be considered again in the light of the support that has come from the Committee. Perhaps he could give us some crumb of hope on the subject
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord is always deeply persuasive when he asks just for a crumb of hope. I should love to give him that crumb. He is perfectly right, he did give notice that he would raise this point as long ago as six months when he spoke in the debate in reply to the Queen's speech. I was grateful to him for that advance warning.
It is often said that the Government are accused of introducing legislation piecemeal, chipping away at one thing here and another there. The reason we felt it would be wrong to do this at the moment is because we asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of the law governing all the evidence of previous misconduct. We thought it would be an appropriate part of that. When one asks the Law Commission to do something and to give an overall view, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, says that we are trying to hide behind the commission. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, suggested that that was what we were doing. However, it was only because, if we were to change the law, we wanted to achieve as good a change as possible in the light of all the circumstances as opposed to one item. Of course I will give the noble and learned Lord his crumb of comfort; of course I will consider what he said and also what the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and other noble Lords said. These are important matters and I would not wish to be dismissive of them in the slightest degree. I shall certainly give consideration to them. I know that the noble and learned Lord would like me to say that I will give them consideration and then come back and say that I totally agree with him. But these matters are not as simple as that to reply to immediately. I shall, however, certainly consider them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As the noble Earl will realise when he refreshes his memory from Hansard, I did not say that the Government were hiding behind the Law Commission. I said that not only will there be the period of consideration of this issue by the Law Commission, but that there will then be the prolonged period between the publication of the Law Commission report and production of any legislation which it recommends. There is a massive queue of Law Commission Bills for which the Government have so far

211
found it impossible to provide parliamentary time. We are therefore talking about something very close to indefinite delay if the Government do not agree to move on this issue. I say that not in order to stimulate the noble Earl to reply but merely to emphasise the seriousness with which many of us who have listened to the debate regard the issues that have been raised.
Earl Ferrers: I know that the noble Lord did not wish to stimulate me to reply, but of course he does—if only to apologise to him for suggesting that he said that we were hiding behind the Law Commission. I believe that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who used such fascinating words. But the effect was the same. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, says that there will be a huge queue and if we do not do something that will happen for a long while. I am sorry if I have misrepresented him. I shall certainly consider the point.
Lord Ackner: The noble Earl will recall that only in the past two or three weeks the head of the Law Commission went public, protesting at the Government's failure to bring before Parliament the various reports that have long been collecting dust. To shrug off so simple an amendment on the basis, "We must see what the Law Commission says in a couple of years or so", is not a way to deal with a serious proposal. The noble Earl knows what enthusiasm can do with a crumb. I hope to demonstrate that when we return to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Heathrow Airport
8.23 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell rose to ask Her Majesty' Government when they will respond to proposals for the enlargement of Heathrow airport, in particular the construction of a third runway, a fifth terminal, and new roads in the area; and what representations they have received from the London Borough of Hillingdon.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful even at this late hour for the chance to put to the Government certain questions about their plans for the development, and perhaps expansion, of Heathrow airport. In this matter I must declare my interest in that I represent in the European Parliament part of the area of Heathrow airport and those who live in the London Borough of Hillingdon, many of whom are affected by any plans for redevelopment in Heathrow.
A number of people in the south of Hillingdon, in the villages of Sipson, Harlington, Harmondsworth and elsewhere are living in a state of some distress because for a few years they have faced the possibility of the bulldozing of their homes. If there were to be a third runway at Heathrow, it is suggested that those villages
212
and an area about them should be totally razed to the ground in order that it could be built. It is therefore as a result of advice from them primarily—although of course I speak for myself—that I am putting these questions today.
I do not know whether or not it was a coincidence, but yesterday Sir John Egan, the chairman of BAA, said that his authority had no intention and indeed no wish to build a third runway at Heathrow. He asked the Government to make it clear that they would not proceed with any such idea.
I realise that this matter is the subject of an inquiry that will not be delivered until the end of this month and that then a period of reflection is required before any decision is given by the Government. However, I would be very grateful if the Minister will indicate when he hopes to be able to set at rest the minds of those who live in the area just north of one of the Heathrow runways. The threat of the destruction of their homes has been hanging over their heads for some years. I believe that that threat has become intolerable. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give them some comfort this evening, or at least indicate when the matter will be resolved and when a final decision will be taken.
I nevertheless welcome the statement by Sir John Egan; I recognise the dilemma that he faces. Indeed, Heathrow airport is a very important facility, not only to the shareholders of the airport but to the economy of this country. It employs tens of thousands of people, some of whom live in the vicinity of the airport, and it is a very great support to British Airways and other British airlines which also employ very large numbers of British people.
It would be quite wrong not to take into account the contribution that Heathrow makes to the local economy.
However, on the other side, I am afraid that there is a price to be paid. That price, as I have just mentioned, is the threat of destruction of homes and also the disruption of the life and living standards of many others who live in Hillingdon, Spelthorne and nearby locations. It is rather like sharing a bed with an elephant for the residents and local businesses. The airport dominates the area. When talking to people locally I sometimes feel that they are small fish swimming in a bowl with one very large fish looming and swimming around them, and they are not quite sure what is going to happen to them and who will gobble whom up next.
There are serious problems of traffic, noise, pollution, and even of objects falling from the sky. There are the problems of night flights, which affect in particular those in the villages I have mentioned. Flights into Heathrow between five and six o'clock in the morning cause people to lose sleep. While the question that I raised first, the destruction of homes, is the most important one, account has also to be taken of the problems of those who have to live with the airport for the foreseeable future.
I therefore come to the question of Terminal 5. I know that BAA has made a strong case to the Government and I would be grateful for the Government's comments upon it. It is suggested by BAA that it proposes to remove only an unsightly sewage or sludge works and a small number of houses

213
and build a brand new Terminal 5 on that spot. It is claimed that Terminal 5 will be a model terminal; that it will deal with those who come to Heathrow in a proper and appropriate way; and that it will be, as it were, an amenity for the surrounding area.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way for a moment. How can he expect the Minister to comment on that issue when it is the subject of an inquiry which is ongoing and in respect of which the Secretary of State occupies a quasi-judicial position? Is it not fruitless to ask this Question?
Lord Bethell: I put down a Question about these points. The Question has been ruled admissible. I hope that my noble friend will do his best. He will be the judge of what he is allowed or not allowed to say. If he cannot answer my questions, no doubt he will make that clear. However, I make these points and put these questions because I have taken advice from many people who live in the area. I believe that I am entitled to do so. If my noble friend does not wish to answer, we shall soon know.
Terminal 5 will be a possibility. However, I am not quite sure how the issue of those who will flood into the airport as a result of Terminal 5 will be dealt with. No doubt it will result in an increase in the number of people coming to the airport and again an increase in traffic, noise and pollution, with people being woken up in the morning.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. When does he expect people to be woken up other than in the morning?
Lord Bethell: That is a very amusing intervention; but, as I said a few moments ago, some people in the Harlington area are being woken up between 5 a.m. and 6. a.m. I imagine that that is rather earlier than the noble Lord is woken up in the morning. The matter was clarified in my earlier comments. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to live near Heathrow. Then he would realise that my points are not frivolous.
Terminal 5 will have to satisfy the local residents of the area before it obtains the go-ahead from the Government. I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will be able to give some idea of how their thinking on this point is moving.
Finally, I need to refer to the matter of access to the airport by road. At the moment those in the West Drayton area bear the brunt of traffic congestion. There is also a possibility of a flyover being built from West Drayton into the north of Heathrow Airport, using the present tunnel system, which already becomes very congested at peak times. Can we have some information on how the departments view the possibility of building further alternative access to Heathrow—perhaps from the south-west and directly from the M.25 from a junction to the south-west of the airport?
I believe that those are enough questions to go on with. No doubt others will be raised by noble Lords. I have been advised that I could continue speaking for longer than the 10 minutes allotted to me under the rules
214
set out on the note. However, I shall not continue for longer than 10 minutes. I understand that it is open to others to speak a little longer than the allotted time.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too will try to stick fairly nearly to the time originally allocated. Perhaps I may use the alteration in this evening's proceedings to speak at a more normal pace than I would otherwise have done in trying to compress many arguments into three minutes. I apologise to the House in that, because of the rearrangement of the proceedings, depending upon how long other noble Lords speak for, I may have to leave before the end of the debate, in order to fulfil an engagement that started some time ago.
I decided that perhaps the main subject that I should address this evening was not merely the environmental issue and matters of the type referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, but the uncritical assumption that London, and in particular the City of London, is dependent on ever-increasing growth at Heathrow Airport. At meetings in which I have participated with colleagues in local government and people from the private sector, it seemed clear to me that the City has the ear of government in a way that local residents and the environmental lobby (by which I mean practically everybody now) cannot emulate. I should like to challenge that assumption and issue a very serious warning. If there is unconstrained expansion at Heathrow, the goose that laid the golden egg is in severe danger of being killed.
London's competitive position in aviation should be judged on the basis of serving the residents and businesses of London and its region. It is not merely a matter of size. I do not believe that London's status is threatened if its airport capacity is limited. It is much more threatened by poor internal transport links; and I include in that links between the centre of London and the airport. Indeed, the RUCATSE study identifying passenger benefits included benefits to foreign nationals. I wonder whether interlining—as the term is —non-British passengers who change planes but do not use London's facilities and do not contribute to London's economy other than by landing charges and so on, really contributes to the economy and whether they do not simply use up the capacity.
As a society we are beginning to understand the benefits of traffic management in respect of the car. I wonder whether the time has come to translate that understanding to the management of air traffic. Should demand be unconstrained? I think not. Can it be unconstrained? Again, I think not. The RUCATSE-based case envisages 136 million foreign air visitors by the year 2025; that is 136 million compared with 11·3 million in 1991. That is a lot of people, In 1991 more than half of those foreign visitors came into London. If that were the case in respect of the 136 million who are expected to come in 2025, London would be completely swamped. Clearly that is plain nonsense.
I must make my observations now under subject headings. First, there is the effect of unconstrained demand. It will mean noise pollution, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred. I have heard the arguments

215
about having quieter aircraft in the future. As was said last week in response to the announcement about the change in the rules for night flights, being woken up by a quiet aircraft is like being run over by a light lorry. That is an apt analogy. Secondly, it is suggested that there will be larger aircraft and therefore fewer flights. I have heard the Civil Aviation Authority say that it believes that that will not happen. The airlines will be reluctant to lose the slots at Heathrow and there will not be fewer flights. Thirdly, there is air pollution from ground traffic as well as air traffic. We are increasingly aware of the problems of pollution in and around our capital city. Asthma is but one result.
London's population is well aware and very vocal on the subject of its poor transport arrangements. It is what it said to the Government in response to the consultation carried out by the Secretary of State. I had thought that the Government, in their Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review accepted that. In the introduction (paragraph 2.2) they said:
"The Government's policy for sustainable development is to strike the right balance between securing economic development, protecting the environment and sustaining future quality of life".
They go on to say that we cannot build our way out of problems by increasing road building.
That must be right. But the review did not apply to "improvements" in West London. It is proposed that the interchange to the M.25 should go through a green belt area—14 lanes of the M.25! The traffic on those 14 lanes will then have to go on to four lanes on the M.4 as the road narrows and on to the flyover from Hammersmith. As the numerate people of West London remarked: 14 into 4 will not go.
In the past week we have seen the response of another place to the proposals for CrossRail—yet another transport development apparently off the books. If the Heathrow expansion goes ahead, what of the Government's proper and admirable policy for addressing the east-west balance in London for more development in the east in order to advantage that area and to take the heat out of west London? What about the Channel tunnel? The issues are almost endless—and I have now doubled the time for which I said I would speak. If the demand is unconstrained, what will have been achieved? If one reads the publicity put out by BAA plc and its explanation of what goes on and will go on at Heathrow, we shall have one of the largest shopping centres in the world. That seems to be the second part of BAA's agenda—shopping, and more shopping.
Finally, and taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the Government cannot get off the hook tonight by saying that it is a matter for the inspectors at the various inquiries. The Secretary of State may or may not take the advice of the inspectors. These are Government decisions and I hope that hearing the anxieties expressed tonight the Minister will give us some indication that the Government are thinking finally in terms of a national airport strategy and not lumping all the development on to Heathrow.
8.41 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are few people outside of this Palace who realise that under the hurly-burly of day-to-day politics there are some extremely good friendships that cross all political parties. We saw that last week and I too have been the beneficiary of such friendship. I thank your Lordships very much for all your help and support over the past months.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are extremely fortunate in this country because we have the finest aviation industry in the world. We did not get it by being Britain; but by hard work, liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation. It is the envy certainly of Europe and having seen, as a transport Minister, what is happening at Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol, I know what their agenda is: it is to take what we have and take our crown away from us.
That crown of being the centre of air traffic is of enormous benefit to Great Britain; to UK Limited. As a result of government action we have turned loss-making concerns that drained taxpayers' money into profitable concerns that are being taxed and that are paying for new schools and hospitals and the quality of life that we need in this country. That is an enormous asset and one that we must not throw away lightly. The aviation industry provides hundreds of thousands of jobs both directly and indirectly. That too is something that in the 1990s we realise is not to be taken for granted. We need to work on it and cherish it so that those jobs are still there for succeeding generations.
What we have is under threat from a variety of sources. As I said, it is under threat from European competition. It is because we gave the passenger the right and the opportunity to fly where, when and how he wants to fly that he made the decision to use London. If we restrict the passenger from making that decision, he may not go to another airport in this country but across the Channel, because at Schiphol and at Charles de Gaulle they are producing facilities that the passenger wants. We did it in the 1980s and they are doing it in the 1990s. We must adapt and change to ensure that we do not lose that advantage. We are also under threat from those who do not want to see further progress. Of course, my noble friend Lord Bethell is right: the quality of life is important; the environment is important; but so too is UK Limited and we must protect that.
The RUCATSE report drew up a number of important questions. Clearly a green field site development will be both politically and practically difficult. I hope therefore that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—whom I am delighted holds the post that he holds—will not make any response to my noble friend Lord Bethell today. We must await the RUCATSE report. Heathrow, which is the subject of the debate, cannot be looked at in isolation in any way, shape or form. It is part of the London system and the system in the South East.
I would contradict the noble Baroness. The restrictions at the moment at Heathrow, although less

217
than they were because of the removal of traffic distribution rules, means that that airport is full. Unless there is development it will remain at a plateau. Perhaps the size of planes will increase but without major development there will be restrictions. Night noise restrictions are but one. There are no night noise restrictions at Charles de Gaulle and limited ones at Schiphol.
We must learn from Europe. We must take account of the quality of life. We must take account of the environment. Let us look at what others are doing. They are utilising their major airports by providing feeder relief airports. We are lucky in this country because we can provide feeder relief airports for the South East on existing sites. That does not mean green field development. We have Northolt, which is under used at the moment, as a potential feeder relief airport for Heathrow. We have Redhill as a potential feeder relief airport for Gatwick, which is very full at peak times.
1 hope that the Government, in their assessment of RUCATSE, will not ignore that option. It is a modern option to a modern problem because of the environmental and quality of life considerations. But we have another inbuilt advantage. Both Redhill and Northolt have extremely good infrastructure. Not only are they existing airports, but they are next door to motorways and dual carriageways. It is not beyond the wit of man to adapt the existing rail services, particularly to Northolt. There is an existing service close to Redhill which could benefit the South East and allow passengers to continue to travel from where they want to travel at the times they want to travel.
Of course it is easy to say no. It is easy to put up problems. One difficulty that will be raised in response to my suggestion is air traffic control. I do not believe that to be a major problem. If the will is there, the technology is there. Any issues that arise can be solved. Far from agreeing with the noble Baroness who said that we threatened to kill the goose by allowing further development at Heathrow, I believe that unless further development is allowed in the South East—I take an area wider than Heathrow—we will kill the goose that is laying the golden egg for this country. Business will go elsewhere; people will travel elsewhere; there is no question of that. There is proof already from the travelling patterns that are changing.
I say to my noble friend Lord Bethell, whom I know will be re-elected with an increased majority, that he should bash the heads together of some of our friends in Europe about air traffic control, to make sure that the Euro control system works better. Whereas they are dragging their feet, we are not. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethall. I hope that the Government will not say anything tonight but will look at the whole of the RUCATSE problem and the South East, and look at new alternatives to solve the difficulties.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell for raising this question this evening. I declare an interest in BAA, of which I think many of your Lordships are aware. It is also a
218
great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Caithness on aviation matters once again. He followed me and I now follow him.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis;, I am slightly puzzled by the debate this evening. As the noble Lord said, the House is aware that the public inquiry process has now begun into the matter of Terminal 5 at Heathrow. The planning application was made last year; the application was called in; an inspector has been appointed; the preliminaries have begun and a full public inquiry will take place before too long. All the issues that have been and will be raised this evening will be extensively aired during what is expected to be a fairly long public inquiry. I only wish that the public inquiry would take about an hour, the same time as tonight's debate is going to take.
However, I have no doubt that a fifth terminal is required at Heathrow and that it can easily be justified without any requirement for a third runway. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Bethell said, BAA stated formally only yesterday that it did not wish to see a third runway built at Heathrow. I hope that that helps my noble friend with at least the first part of his Question this evening.
Why do we need a fifth terminal at Heathrow? It is simply because passenger numbers are rising every year, and if Heathrow is to maintain its place as part of the United Kingdom's great success story of aviation, then capacity must be increased. As has been said, aviation provides tens of thousands of jobs and contributes some £500 million a year to the balance of payments.
The proposals for Terminal 5 envisage only, I believe, 5 per cent. more aircraft using the airport, which can be handled on the existing runways, and with no need for extra night flights. Quite simply, aircraft are getting bigger and carry more passengers. The total annual movement figures produced by BAA for the number of terminal passengers at Heathrow rose by 6·1 per cent. in the past 12 months as against an increase in air transport movements of only 2·5 per cent. I am told that the average load factor for British Airways has risen from 55 per cent. to 66 per cent. in recent years. On the Paris route the type of aircraft used by BA has changed from Boeing 737s a few years ago to 757s into 767s, with a near doubling in the capacity of seats available for the same number of aircraft movements. I believe that that trend is set to continue.
Why develop at Heathrow? I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who spoke about develop-ment east of London, that the main reason for the demand for Heathrow comes from the west of London and from the nearby Home Counties, in particular, Surrey. The last thing we want from the transport policy point of view is a great number of people travelling from the west of London and Surrey around the M.25 to some airport which might or might not be built on the mudflats in the Thames estuary. That would be simply ridiculous. I also point out, as noble Lords will be aware, that construction of the Heathrow Express is now well underway. It is estimated that by early next century nearly 45 per cent. of passengers using Heathrow will be travelling by public transport as against 36 per cent. today.

219
It is not as though the development proposals for Heathrow are going to detract from the business of the regional airports. For example, Manchester is already expanding. It has built a second terminal and it has plans for a second runway. That is in order to satisfy its own demand and has nothing to do—as all the studies have shown—with the demand for airport capacity in the South East. I was not sure whether the noble Baroness was against the development of Terminal 5. I understood her points about the RUCATSE report which dealt with runway capacity, but not terminal capacity. I see that the noble Baroness is nodding her head. She is against the development of Terminal 5. That would be to the disadvantage of people to the west of London who need to use Heathrow.
I have spoken longer than I should. One cannot possibly do justice to Heathrow in the time available this evening. If the country is to do justice to itself then it must allow one of its greatest assets to grow and prosper.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, earlier this afternoon this debate promised to demonstrate the House of Lords at its worst. I believe that what we are having is a demonstration, I hope, of the House of Lords at its best. Before I start I must also pay tribute to Members of this House on all sides who have made me welcome after my difficult period. I thank the House and its Members for that welcome. We are all sympathetic to Members of our House who face difficulties. I am sure that we are all sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, at the imminent loss of his position as a Member of the European Parliament. We feel great anxiety for that. If that were the only reason for the debate then we could dispense with it fairly quickly.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord for raising this subject. It is not just a parochial issue that affects his European Parliamentary constituency, but it is a subject which affects the whole of the United Kingdom. This House is one of the Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom and it is right that we should discuss this subject with all seriousness.
I rise to make a very serious plea to the Government. They should consider their attitude to the development of airports and the encouragement and determination of airline routes—which is largely in the hands of the Government—to benefit the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. Following the Prime Minister's remarks of about 18 months to two years ago when he realised the importance of manufacturing industry, I hope that the Government's policies can be aimed at developing and promoting those regions of the United Kingdom which are primarily manufacturing.
I make a plea to the Government to give all the assistance and help which they can to the major regional conurbations of this country. I refer to the conurbation of Strathclyde—and of Glasgow, effectively—as the major conurbation in Scotland. I make a plea to them for support of Manchester as the centre of the conurbation in the North-West, and for Birmingham which is the manufacturing heartland of the Midlands.
220
If the Government and we as a nation can develop an airports policy and an airline routes policy which enables those major regional conurbations and urban centres to have made proper provision of airports and airline routes, which they surely need and deserve, that will benefit not only the overcrowded skies around London and relieve the immense pressure on Heathrow, but will benefit the whole nation in ways which one hopes the Government can actually see and have a vision about. I am sure that we on this side of the House do have a vision about such policies because inherently we speak for the people of this nation. We do not speak for vested interests, for market forces, airports or airlines or for particular factions or groups.
We seek to speak for the people of this country as a whole. We speak not only for the 10 million-plus people of London but for the 3 million-plus people of the Birmingham conurbation; for the 3 million people who live in the North-West, for the 3 million people who live in Scotland, and also for those who live in other parts of the United Kingdom. I make a plea to the Government to lift their eyes to the prospect of Great Britain and benefiting the people of this land by developing an airports policy and an airline routes policy which will benefit all our inhabitants and not just some of the vested interests.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, at the outset, I must declare, as I often do on these occasions, an interest in tourism. As has been mentioned, tourism contributes enormously to the economy. My erstwhile colleagues in the British Tourist Authority have as one of their objectives maximising the revenue for British carriers, including the airlines, thus enabling those carriers to play their part in achieving our tourism success story.
Furthermore, BTA looks to carriers to support its work by contributing to its promotional activity, and greatly appreciates the financial and in kind support that it receives. Therefore, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships to hear that the authority is definitely moving towards supporting Terminal 5, because it sees the great role that the terminal can play in our continuing aviation success story.
When my noble friend Lord Bethell tabled this Unstarred Question, I contacted many of my carrier friends to find out exactly what their attitudes were. I shall not talk about the third runway because to a certain extent that issue has been taken out of tonight's debate. Foreign carriers make the point that terminal capacity at Heathrow is a constraint. Anyone who has been through Terminal 1—I appreciate that that is largely a British Airways and domestic terminal—on a Sunday lunchtime or at another off-peak period will realise that the congestion that can occur makes the case for Terminal 5 in a way that can hardly be beaten. It seems to me that Heathrow's problem is no longer runway capacity, but terminal capacity. By creating additional capacity, Terminal 5 would benefit all the other terminals by releasing capacity elsewhere. I believe that that is a powerful argument for pushing on with Terminal 5.

221
Another important reason for supporting Terminal 5 —although I have some difficulty in making this case —is that my noble friend Lord Bethell is a victim of his own success. None of us who has worked in the aviation scene, if I can put it so crudely, in this House over the years will forget the very strong contribution that he made to achieving the liberalisation of aviation in Europe or the many battles that he has fought to achieve that liberalisation. However, liberalisation, more customer choice and more traffic mean that we need more terminal capacity.
Noise has been mentioned. We have to be very careful on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, mentioned an airports policy and an aviation routing policy but possibly left out some other matters. One of the policies that not only this Government but other governments have been pushing is that of noise abatement, involving the so-called Chapter 3 planes. It seems extremely bad policy for us suddenly to say to all those airlines which have invested heavily in modern aircraft that meet the Chapter 3 requirements, "Terribly sorry, we are most grateful that you have done that, but we are now going to move the goalposts". Those companies have invested in modern aircraft and I believe that we must give them the airport capacity and particularly the terminal capacity to enable them to utilise the investment that they have made.
There has been some talk of RUCATSE. I do not want to talk about that, but I should like to talk about HASQAD in the context of Terminal 5, and to refer to surface access. Having fought for it, I am delighted that the Heathrow Express is going ahead. I hope that it is not a little item in isolation, but that in the fullness of time we shall have a Heathrow to the west tangent so that we open up access to the West of England and Wales through Heathrow Express.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon referred to the switch in traffic from road to public transport which Heathrow Express will generate. I was amazed to hear from my friends at British Rail this afternoon that they estimate that: within a year of Heathrow Express starting to run, it will be moving 70,000 passengers a day out of Paddington. I believe that that is very important. I am not seeking as others have done to pre-empt the planning inquiry, but I also believe that if Terminal 5 goes ahead, there will be some planning gain for the local communities, particularly in terms of roads. There might also be other benefits in terms of other rail routes, such as the theory that has been canvassed about a Croydon-Wimbledon-Heathrow link in the fullness of time. It is a fact of life that the European airports that are most successful have rail access.
The question of noise reminds me of something else. We tend to think tonight of the noise of landing aircraft. Because I live in Portland Place, I tend to think also of the 24-hour-a-day noise that the Bakerloo Line makes, but I have to admit that I have grown accustomed to it. I remind your Lordships of some research that was carried out in the 1980s in west London when people were asked what types of noise they found most intrusive. As I remember correctly, the most intrusive noise was that made by the lorry or juggernaut on the roads. The second was also road-related; it was that
222
caused by the motorcycle and particularly by what was in those days the emerging motorcycle courier business. It is only when we come to the third equal source of noise pollution that we come to the noise made by our neighbour's pets and by aircraft.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the noise made by aircraft will affect certain people very substantially? I refer to those who live under the approaches to the runways and near to the runway routes. In other words, certain people are very badly affected by aircraft noise. Therefore, that was not a question that could sensibly be asked of the population at large—or rather, if asked of the population at large, a rather different answer would be elicited.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I accept that. I mentioned that I suffer from different types of noise. I live rather further away from the airport, but I am aware of the aircraft. I am aware also of the Bakerloo Line and the Jubilee Line only 25 yards away. I live in London's widest street, which has traffic implications.
To return to a point I made earlier, we should not be satisfied with the Chapter 3 aircraft. Indeed, I hope that we are not satisfied. We must try to push on to a Chapter 4 aircraft. However, I must point out to the noble Baroness that the research was conducted in the vicinity of the airport. It was not carried out at random, as I think that she half accepted.
When we debated aviation five or six years ago, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter remarked that we appeared to have not only the world's favourite airline, but also the world's favourite airport. I believe that if we seek to constrain the development of the world's favourite airport and if we forget its importance—and, in the context of tonight's debate, if we forget the importance of Terminal 5 and surface access—we are potentially doing ourselves very great harm.
9.7 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I shall use these valuable moments to put on the record some facts about why London needs to ensure that its major international airport continues to be a top quality, top class airport capable of coping with an ever-increasing number of people with ever-higher expectations about efficiency, comfort, levels of punctuality of aircraft arrivals and departures, and the speed of processing for both embarkation and disembarkation. I must declare an interest. I am a director of British Airways, but it is not in that capacity that I am milking the greater part of my remarks tonight.
The City of London is the major player in the international financial markets. An analysis of the activity of the London financial market compared with the activities of the New York, Tokyo, Paris and Frankfurt markets shows that London has; the largest share of the foreign exchange markets at 27 per cent. of the combined markets; the largest share in external lending at 15·9 per cent.; the largest share in foreign equities trading at 58·3 per cent.; and the largest share in international bond markets (the primary market at 60

223
per cent. and the secondary market at 75 per cent.). Those are impressive figures, as I am sure your Lordships will agree.
Much of that activity is undertaken by foreign banks. In fact, the City of London is home to more foreign banks than any other financial centre. Why? Research has shown that there are six main reasons: first, unrivalled international transport advantages, especially when one takes into account that one can be in New York in just over three hours by Concorde; secondly, swift worldwide telecommunications; thirdly, the right financial and physical structure; fourthly, English as the lingua franca; fifthly, a magnificent working environ-ment; and, sixthly, a dedicated and expert local authority which helps them. Here I must declared another interest as an officer of the City of London Corporation.
Although a great deal of business in those markets is done by fax and telephone, we all know that there is really no substitute for face-to-face negotiations. Much of the groundwork in those huge transactions can be done sitting at desks in London, Tokyo, New York, Paris or Frankfurt, but one-to-one meetings to iron out misunderstandings; meetings abroad to sew up deals; missions abroad to clinch new business, are part and parcel of the daily activity of many who operate in those special markets. They demand, and must be supplied with, top class facilities and speedy check in—in effect, to use modern terminology, hassle-free journeys. The airlines are constantly uprating their services to passengers. The airports must do the same.
At the risk of appearing unconcerned about noise and traffic in the neighbourhood of Heathrow, we must remember that Heathrow did not spring up overnight, and that a great many of the people who live in the Heathrow area live there by choice, because they work at the airport. More than 56,000 people work at Heathrow Airport.
Terminal 1 at Heathrow is ghastly at the moment for those who work there. I do not know whether anyone around here is a frequent flyer. It is rather like a building site. But even during that building and refurbishment, the activity is being undertaken in such a way as to minimise passenger disruption. All of us who travel frequently must come to the conclusion that the airport complex as a whole is severely congested, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, told us, and must be extended.
So far, I have referred only to business travel. The same requirements of course apply to tourism, as the noble Lord said. Standards have been edging up and will continue to do so. Every passenger's expectations will continue to increase. We cannot allow our major international airport to succumb to falling standards because of a lack of additional handling facilities.
Despite the recent worldwide recession in air transport, passenger numbers are now increasing again. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, confirmed that and warned that there will be an increase in the number of people coming to Heathrow. As has been pointed out, his attitude seemed to be a contradiction to his well known stance in fighting like a terrier within the European Union for a liberalisation of air traffic with the
224
aim of making air transport available to many millions more than now. Has he had a change of heart, or is he, by any remote chance, thinking about a hopeful re-election to the European Parliament?
Lord Bethell: My Lords, will the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? I take the point that she has made. Does she understand that it is of course possible to have mass air travel not from Heathrow airport but from other airports around London, that a large number of people fly from Stansted, Gatwick, Luton and other airports around London, and that that could help to advance the cause that I have espoused in the past?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, but the fact remains that people who want to come to London, want to come to Heathrow. Stansted and Luton are new airports. There is a wonderful new airport at Stansted which is hardly used. Why is it hardly used? Because it is not convenient and is not regarded as convenient, especially by those business people who want to come to London.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the noble Baroness has kindly given way. She said that people coming to London want to come to Heathrow. Is she aware that there are vast numbers of people who do not want to come anywhere near Heathrow? They want to go elsewhere, but they are forced to come to Heathrow because of airline traffic plans.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in order to counteract that argument, I would say that there are services to many of the main European cities from the other airports, in particular Gatwick. There are also intercontinental services from Gatwick but still the people want to travel from Heathrow and to Heathrow. That is a fact. Perhaps in another 20 years people will be convinced that they ought to travel to Stansted—
LordMonkswell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I was not talking about people travelling to and from London; I was talking about people travelling from other parts of the United Kingdom. People from Scotland, the North West and the Midlands are effectively forced to go from Heathrow before they can catch a plane elsewhere. They would love to take a plane from their local international airport rather than from Heathrow.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, at the beginning of my few words I said that I was speaking about London as a city and a financial centre and about people coming to and from London. So far as I know, there are good services intercontinentally and continentally from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester and Birmingham. People there are well-served—it is the people in London who are suffering from congestion.
It would be foolhardy to think or to hope that passenger numbers will not continue to increase. The younger generation thinks nothing of flitting around the globe. For a huge number of young people, an airline ticket is not just a once-a-year purchase; it is a passport to excitement, education and a broadening of their

225
horizons. The next generations will be even more travel-happy. We have to ensure that London does not lose out as regards this enormously beneficial business.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I would like to comment on one aspect of my noble friend's Question; that is, Terminal 5. With an unsurpassed range of destinations, the legacy of Britain's historical role in world affairs, Heathrow is a vital force in the national economy. However, I believe that there is a significant risk that it will lose its position as a pre-eminent gateway for Europe if Terminal 5 is not built. Airlines will be introducing bigger aircraft to cater for passenger demand that will ourstrip capacity at Heathrow's already congested terminals by the year 2002.
If we cannot process these people through terminals and accommodate the next generation of 600 to 800-seat aircraft with much wider wing span, rival European airports will seize the advantage. That was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Caithness. Those airports are already planning to expand; for instance, Paris four-fold to 80 million passengers per year and Amsterdam and Brussels three-fold. Paris and Amsterdam are planning new runways and Frankfurt will have another runway when the US base goes. Many passengers already interline Schiphol from regional airports such as Newcastle and Norwich in order to avoid terminal congestion at Heathrow.
Will a fifth terminal inevitably mean more noise and disruption for those living near Heathrow? All the evidence suggests that it will not, as my noble friend Lord Mountevans said. During the past 10 years there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of people adversely affected by aircraft noise as older, noisier jets are phased out. DC9s, older jumbo jets and 737s have all started disappearing. This trend will continue, encouraged in no small part by the airport authorities themselves. There is already a surcharge for the noisiest aircraft using Heathrow and a system of fines was introduced last year for aircraft reaching the current noise limits at night.
The proportion of older, noisier Chapter 2 aircraft using the airport fell from 48 per cent. in 1988 to 16 per cent. last winter. By the time that Terminal 5 opens, Chapter 2 aircraft will have disappeared altogether. Their replacement will climb more steeply because of better wing design and engine technology with high bypass ratios. Arriving aircraft will come in with much less power applied.
It is against that background—the need to keep Heathrow competitive internationally and with aircraft noise reducing significantly—that the Terminal 5 decision should be made.
The public inquiry process is now underway. I hope that the Government and this House will give BAA every encouragement to press ahead without delay with this vital investment in an industry where Britain still leads the world.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bethell has given me a spendid opportunity to bring to your Lordships' attention the fact that in the next 25 years, the number of passengers is expected to increase from some 70 million passengers per annum to
226
perhaps 175 million to 195 million passengers per annum, and possibly more, just in the three main London airports.
Additional runway capacity is almost certain to be needed in the South East to deal with that. I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention the fact that there is a perfectly good solution to all the resulting honors caused by further onslaughts which most of your Lordships seem quite happy to condone in one form or another; namely, the Thames estuary airport known as Marinair.
I must declare an interest. I am chairman of the Thames Estuary Airport Company, commonly known as TEACO. Nobody in the whole debate has mentioned it except my noble friend Lord Brabazon, who referred to it as ridiculous. I know that he does not mean that personally but I did find that slightly worrying. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, gave a tremendous boost to Terminal 5 and explained why that had to be. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, gave us a wonderful speech about Heathrow, and no other place. She gave us the impression that Heathrow was the bible from the word "go" to the word "stop". When the noble Lady, Lady Hamwee, referred to noise, she said that that was to be taken with a pinch of salt and that we should not worry too much about it.
Noble Lords: No, no.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, well it came out like that. I have declared my interest as chairman. I must declare also that at present the company has all the solutions in the bag except the final solution: we do not have quite the financial support that we need. The company will be an inward investment company. By inward investment, I mean inward investment from foreigners who bring enormous sums of money into this country. If your Lordships think that that is not useful to this country, then I believe that your Lordships should think again.
When I was first made a junior member of the government some 24 years ago, I was at the Department of the Environment. My then right honourable friend Mr. Peter Walker had appointed Sir Frank Marshall to look into Maplin, which was a land airport round the corner from Southend. Unfortunately, it was forgotten that Shoeburyness military range was there as well, so that was turned down. Of course, the road situation there was not right.
It is very difficult to speak in a debate like this when at one minute one is told one has three minutes in which to speak and then one is told that one is liberated. I do not wish to be a bore and go on for too long, but I am pleased to be liberated. All this talk assumes that something must be done at Gatwick, Heathrow or Stansted. Of course, Heathrow is the main airport; Gatwick is the second; and Stansted is a very bad third. The Thames Estuary Airport Company proposes that it would be far better to have a totally new concept and to move into the 21st century. It is incredible that we are all talking about what is there and what has. been there.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I thought that I should do so since he rather mangled my comments on airport noise.
However, I wish to set the record straight with regard to developments in the east of London. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept that when I commented that developing Heathrow was against government strategy for redressing the imbalance, I was not referring necessarily only to Stansted. The South East Regional Planning Conference, of which I am a member, has commented on the Marinair proposals and considers that the feasibility of them should be investigated because a development in the Thames estuary would help to redress that balance. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept that in trying to use shorthand for some of the points that I was raising, I was by no means casting aside the Marinair proposals.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. As she says—and I happen to have a note on this—Marinair is totally in line with the East Thames corridor policy and will greatly improve the economy of North Kent and South Essex.
If we were to develop the South East policy of an airport in the estuary—and we have chosen a part of the estuary 31 kilometres east of Tilbury where we would have our first terminal—one would travel there by way of the A.13, which is to be improved, and we would build a joint road to accompany it. So the Marinair terminal is no further east than the Heathrow one is west. We would then have our island estuary which would not be a small island; indeed, it would be over five kilometres long, nearly three kilometres wide and would consist of 4,000 acres situated about eight kilometres north of Whitstable. There would eventually be three runways, two terminals and two cargo berths for liners or cargo. It would not require the destruction of one house. However, if Terminal 5 is built at Heathrow, what happens? Well, 4,000 houses will be destroyed. Of course, one may argue it one way or the other but I believe that to be the case—
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend says that 4,000 houses would be destroyed if Terminal 5 is built. I really think that my noble friend should get his facts straight.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, with all the extensions that Heathrow requires, that would be the total number.
At any rate, there are many more problems as regards noise. If one was to go to our plans in the next century, instead of going to one of the most concentrated areas of traffic and noise as regards aeroplanes, one would have a new concept where one could land as many planes as one wanted without noise affecting any housing.
Let us just think about it. It is not a silly concept; indeed, it is a good concept. No houses would be destroyed and we would add 4,000 acres to the land mass of Great Britain because that part of the Thames is only 4 metres deep. It makes a good deal of sense. We shall bring people from Tilbury and Kent in fast
228
underground trains through tunnels under the Thames to the airport in 12 minutes. It is not to be sneezed at. There will be no noise pollution and no demolition of property.
It cannot be said that there is no noise pollution or demolition of property as regards any other of the airports. I do not mind to whom I address those remarks. Noble Lords know that to be a fact. Moreover, because we are so far into the estuary, and with the help of modern technology, we would have the ability to operate 24 hours a day without causing anyone any upset. We could be phased to meet the demand: in the short term, one runway; in the medium term, two runways; and, in the long term, three runways. Therefore, we are able to accept the title of a mega airport. It is not pie in the sky.
There seems to be a kind of getting together of the ends because they are already in with Heathrow and Gatwick, which means that they do not want to think of anything new at the present. But the people of this country are not with the airlines on this. The people of this country do not want to have their environment and their lives spoilt. One can make airports more efficient by enlarging them and by having bigger planes which land more often. However, that will cause more noise in the long run. But if one goes for our solution there will be no increased level of noise and the whole thing will be paid for by inward investment. Are we to turn down inward investment just for the sake of having to pay, through our taxes, for all the other expensive alterations that have been suggested, be they at Stansted, be they at Gatwick or be they at Heathrow, and which will cause the people of this country great discontent?
Sometimes I am told that I am old fashioned, but I think on this matter I am probably more in touch with the feelings of the people who live round the airports than most other people. By adopting my proposition all the environmental and planning objections as regards Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted would be obviated. There would be no greater problem as regards access. The estuary island would be 5 x 2·75 kilometres and would cover 1,375 hectares. The average depth of water in the estuary at that point is four metres. Everything is looked after. The flooding projection has been based, I am told, on a 1,000 year period. I find that hard to believe but it is what I am told.
What are we worrying about? Why is no one considering my proposal, as I think it is the sanest solution? It offers no risk of flooding and it is just as convenient to reach as any other airport, with the extensions to the A.13. Noble Lords are all talking about the vested interests of airlines whereas I am trying to suggest that there is an alternative. I should add that I am chairman of a shell company; I am not drawing any money from that. I believe my proposal will offer a much better service in the future for Britain. Years ago Peter Walker thought the South East was the right area for airport expansion although he chose the wrong place in which to do it. I have spoken for more than long enough.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord in that last remark of his. He has added a new dimension to our debate tonight. His three-minute speech lasted 14 minutes. How much better this debate would have been if we had all spoken for three minutes! I have to declare an interest, in that I am very fond of flying and I hate airports. Therefore I am undoubtedly prejudiced. I am not at all sure why we have to join in this party political broadcast for the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, but it is on the agenda and therefore we must speak to it. I have to sum up from these Benches.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, there is absolutely no necessity for the noble Lord to speak if he does not wish to do so. He is perfectly at liberty to end his speech now if he wishes.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I must say it is a huge temptation but I have to say something from these Benches on behalf of my party. I was going to say that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, will get his agent's imprint on to Hansard when it appears in the morning and he will set the cost of this debate against his expenses in the European election. However, this is an important subject although I am not sure that it is the right time to be debating it. I think the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has already put his finger on it. There are a number of matters in process at the moment which ought to reach a conclusion before your Lordships' House has a full debate on this subject, which is only part of something much wider.
I have said many times in this House in the past that I appreciate the need for the airports in the South East of this country to perform the function they do for the economy of the country. It is an important function, as a number of noble Lords have said. What has always worried me is the question of the infrastructure on the ground. The argument in relation to noise can be put one way or the other. There is no doubt that aircraft are not as noisy as they were, and the impact on people living near the airports is not as great as it was, despite the increase in passengers. However, there comes a point when we have to say that enough is enough. I believe that we are now fairly close to that point.
The Heathrow Express will be in operation before very long. It is a great pity that CrossRail has been sabotaged. That might have helped the situation. I also regret that when the Heathrow rail express was built it did not have a link to the west, because a great many people who work at Heathrow live to the west of the airport. For a minor investment compared with the principal investment, that could have had a major effect on relieving congestion.
There must come a point when we say that enough is enough. We cannot expand our major airports for ever. There must be a finite limit to the number of passengers who can pass through the airport. The current throughput at the existing terminals is 42 million passengers and that will rise to 50 million when they reach full capacity. With the building of a fifth terminal, that would rise to 80 million passengers per annum. That is almost double the current throughput. Do we
230
really believe that the infrastructure of west London is capable of dealing with that number of passengers? I believe that it is doubtful, despite the improvements that have been made and the widening of the M.25, which will create its own problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is right to raise the matter, but perhaps not in these terms and perhaps not tonight. There is a serious problem in dealing with the free operation of market forces in relation to passengers coming to London. Of course people want to go to Heathrow. However, are we to say that they can continue to do so as often as they want for ever?
I listened with interest to the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, in relation to an island in the Thames estuary. In the long term that may produce a sensible solution to the problem. However, the fact is that all these issues need to be taken into account in a general strategy for air transport, not just in relation to Heathrow and the South-East but for the country as a whole.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I regret the fact that this debate has taken place, except for the fact that the House was genuinely pleased to see and to hear the contributions from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lord Monkswell after their absence from the House. I personally was very pleased that we heard from my previous sparring partner. It is good to have him back.
We have also had the benefit of hearing about TEACO. I could not catch the acronym, and was not sure whether it was TEACO or TEACUP. Since I am told that it is the former that spoils my little joke. I thought that TEACUP was an acronym for Thames Estuary Airport Consortium for a Universal Palliative. I would not wish to throw the proposal out of the window quite like that. Everything is worth considera-tion in a situation where there has to be a finite position in relation to Heathrow, whether it is a fifth terminal or an eighth terminal—which seemed to me to be the logical conclusion of some of the arguments deployed in this debate.
We heard one or two interesting views that were not germane to the specific issue. For example, my noble friend Lord Monkswell put forward the idea of expanding the role of regional airports. I am all in favour of that. I fought for that with the support of Her Majesty's Government when I was a commissioner in Europe. But it will not solve the problem of the South East. That is self evident. Indeed, that was the position that I took when I was the Minister responsible for aviation some years ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, stated that he would not speak about Terminal 5 but then spoke about nothing else, which was rather strange. Then we heard the eloquent pleas, implicit and explicit, for that terminal. With the greatest respect in the world, I think that the debate has not helped those who seek to propose the case for Terminal 5 or for those who speak against it. There is an inquiry; it is an ongoing situation. With

231
the greatest respect in the world there is a case for reticence; and that has not been deployed by a number of noble Lords in the debate tonight.
Only 18 days ago this topic was ventilated in another place by Mr. Terry Dicks in a debate which was not wholly disconnected, I suspect, from the impending local elections. It gave him a chance to ventilate what he hoped his constituents might like to hear on that occasion. It was evident then that the Minister could say little of substance because the application for planning permission for the fifth terminal had already been called in, and now it has been opened. As I said in a previous intervention, the Secretary of State is under considerable constraint because he occupies a quasi judicial position.
It is not reasonable for the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to say that he would be grateful for the Government's comments. He knows very well that the Minister is under that constraint. I have a great deal of sympathy for the noble Lord who will reply to the debate for that reason. I speak as an Opposition spokesman. I do not expect him to go beyond that which it is proper to do in the debate.
What has actually changed since that debate 18 days ago? What definitive pronouncements are expected tonight? What is the purpose of the debate other than to link it with the forthcoming Euro-election campaign of the noble Lord? Others have been equally uncharitable. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is a candidate. He did not refer to that factor when he disclosed his interest. But he is a candidate and is presumably looking for some coverage of the contribution that he has made tonight in his local press. I do not blame him; he is fighting an election campaign. But let us be quite open about it. That is what the debate is about tonight.
Lord Bethell: I hope that the noble Lord will admit that points raised in the debate this evening have been of extreme interest to a great number of people in this country, whether they live in the Heathrow area, are passengers or are in the industry. Is the debate not of interest? Is it not useful that the Minister should hear the views of noble Lords? Does the noble Lord really dismiss everything that has been said this evening as a nonsense? Will he be as uncharitable, as he put it, as that?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, there is a time and place for debates and this is not one of them because virtually every single argument, with one or two exceptions, will be deployed at considerable length by counsel and witnesses in that inquiry. There has to be a purpose to a debate. What is the end product of this debate? Is it to influence the Minister? He will not be in charge of the inquiry at this stage. His colleague has to make a quasi judicial determination of the matter. I would not wish to embarrass the noble Lord, but the noble Lord has chosen so to do.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. He says all that, but if there is a big public demand, a
232
groundswell complaining about how people's environ-mental happiness is being made wretched by the Government's judicial process, surely that will have an influence.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have never known an inquiry where groundswells do not arise, particularly over airport development. So I take that for granted.
There are a number of common denominators which I should have thought will not be seriously disputed. There is a great significance about Heathrow; it is a major international airport and jobs are involved, directly and indirectly. It is important to London. It is all those things. The question we are considering tonight is not now that of an additional runway but the matter before the inquiry in relation to the terminal. There is no doubt that night restrictions have been applied to Heathrow for many years—over 32 years. There has never been a total ban on aircraft movements from Heathrow. I well remember as a Minister being woken at night when I was in bed—with my wife, I hasten to add, which is somewhat unusual these days. At three o'clock in the morning a lady telephoned me saying that she was from Ealing. She said, "Are you the Minister for aviation?" I said that I was and my wife said: "Be nice to her in all circumstances". The lady said: "Listen to this!" I could distinctly hear the noise of an aircraft flying over her head. She asked what I was going to do about it. I should have had the presence of mind to say: "Thank God, it's one of ours", but at three o'clock in the morning I could not. There is clearly another common denominator—the need for quieter aircraft. There will be those, but they will still be a nuisance.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the noble Lord let the House know what he replied?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I was under great constraints to be nice to the lady and that is all I will say. A balance has to be struck in all these matters between the competitive advantages of Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle, as we have heard, and all the environmental considerations as well as questions of access. All that is common ground and did not need to be said tonight.
What I think is important is the note on which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, ended his speech. I see nothing but "ad hocery" at the moment. There needs to be a clear, integrated transport policy in London, as elsewhere. There has to be a clear and skilful review of the need for a policy in relation to the terminal buildings that we require and it should not simply be limited to the inquiry. There are wider airport considerations involved.
In 1978 we had a White Paper on airport policy. I hope that it will be reviewed. The other day, I noticed that the Minister had changed the goalposts almost overnight on night flights. I do not object to him coming to a conclusion, but I think that the situation was to some extent rather mischievously conveyed.
The summer quota is to be increased from 2,750 night flights a year to 3,250. That case has to be argued, not simply stated. The definition of "night" has been reduced; it was from 11·30 p.m. to 6·30 a.m., it is now from 11·30 p.m. to 6 a.m. That is a factor which should

233
not simply be disclosed in a press statement or in answer to a Written Question. We may find that in those night movements some of the biggest and noisiest aircraft could be flying into and out of Heathrow.
I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I hope that he will have the opportunity to make many more contributions on other topics, and indeed on the question of aviation, for which he is renowned, after 9th June.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure, given some of the remarks that have been made, whether I should—but I certainly do—begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for raising a subject, which is clearly of great importance to air travellers, to local people, and to the economy of London and indeed of the whole country.
Perhaps before I start I should say that I very much welcome the return to our debates of my noble friend Lord Caithness. He has a welcome knowledge on this and on many other subjects. I know that we are all delighted to see him back in our debates and look forward to many contributions to come. I thought that my noble friend's assessment of the economic importance of aviation in general terms to our economy, to jobs in our economy, and to the wealth that we can produce as an economy and then use for health, education and social services was absolutely spot on. In addition, analysis from my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, was indeed all in sharp contrast to what I thought was the rather dismissive attitude of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to the importance of aviation in our economic growth and her dismissive attitude to the importance of the City and its need for good worldwide air communications. All three noble Lords whom I mentioned made the point that if people who wish to use aviation do not find it in this country, then there are certainly easy opportunities for them just to cross the Channel to some of the continental airports that were mentioned.
Heathrow is currently the busiest international airport in the world. The latest figures show that over the past 12 months it handled some 48·5 million passengers on some 395,000 air traffic movements. The airport itself is a major source of employment, with something like 50,000 people working either for the company itself or for one of the many other businesses that are located there. The business activity there acts as a powerful motor for the surrounding area and creates employment outside the boundaries of the airport. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, very rightly pointed to those economic motors when he made a case for regional airports. The regional airports, to which I shall turn in a moment, know exactly the importance of aviation to their economy and to the chances of their economic growth.
My noble friend raised three particular aspects which the debate has in fact covered. I wish to take them one at a time. First, there is RUCATSE. There is, of course, no definite proposal on the table for the construction of a third runway at Heathrow airport. The RUCATSE
234
working group was asked to address a number of runway options at various sites. One of those sites was Heathrow. In order to get as wide a view as possible, the RUCATSE working group included not only represen-tatives of government, but of airports, airlines and also local interest groups from areas which might be affected by the various options. As we all know, the group reported in July last year. In that report was included —may I say to my noble friend Lord Mowbray?—a chapter on the very Marinair project which he so eloquently placed before us this evening.
Our aim in asking for the RUCATSE review was to gather as much information as possible to enable the most appropriate strategy to be decided. RLFCATSE fully acknowledges the effects that the runway option being examined would have on the villages that were mentioned by my noble friend at Harmondsworth, Harlington, at Sipson and at Longford. Indeed, just at the beginning of this week BAA said that it does not wish to proceed with a third runway at Heathrow. Obviously that view will be taken into account in the consultations that are currently underway on the RUCATSE review and the consultations that will end on 31st May. After that we will produce our own response before the end of the year.
I turn to the second issue; namely, Terminal 5. But first let me say a few words about the background. In general, passenger forecasts indicate strong continuing growth of demand for air travel. It is clearly appropriate for airport operators to address those forecasts. Failure to do so would cause huge inconvenience to consumers and could lead to airline operators relocating to other countries.
Over the past few years, the proportion of UK passengers travelling from London has decreased as a proportion of total UK passengers. That reflects the ability of regional airports to attract viable direct services and is entirely a good thing. It enables regional travellers to achieve shorter journey times and it frees up capacity in the London area. Also, as I mentioned, it helps the economies of the areas. The three airports mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell— Glasgow, Birmingham and Manchester—have all either just completed or are currently in the midst of major expansions. In the case of Glasgow, which I pass through just about every week, I certainly know the size of the project that is taking place there. Clearly an assessment has to be made about the future needs at Heathrow and whether and how the demands could be addressed.
Following consultation with local authorities, BAA submitted its planning application for a fifth terminal in the spring of last year. That application was called in by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The proposal will now go to a public inquiry where all the issues of both national and local significance will be discussed and assessed. It will then be jointly a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a decision on the application based on the inspector's report.
I know that some people have expressed the view —I believe that my noble friend Lord Brabazon

235
mentioned it—that the inquiry is likely to take a fair length of time. We have recently attempted to tighten up the procedures on such inquiries, but I believe that it is only right that this and other major projects should have inquiries to which everyone can come and give their views in an open and transparent way.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, rightly pointed out, both in his intervention and in his contribution, it would not be right, because of the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial position in relation to the final decision, for me to comment on the application in any way, except to say that we retain an open mind.
I have noted the interesting debate. I should quite like to get involved in it. But I also noticed that some people have a fairly closed mind. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara teased out from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that she is opposed to Terminal 5. I hear it said that she did not need to have it teased out. I am delighted to have that confirmation. Recently I read an interesting document which came from the party to which she belongs. It is called Getting Britain To Work: Ending the Hiatus in Public Transport Infrastructure Investment. In it I find a piece on London, which I shall
quote:
"Liberal Democrats would release funds to enable London underground to deliver their programme by 2003. Apart from modernising the existing system, this would include some additions to the core network, including"—
my Lords, my eyes could hardly believe it—
"… Heathrow Terminal 5".
Unless the Liberal Democrat Party intends to build an underground link to Terminal 5 and then not see Terminal 5 built, I am not entirely sure how the noble Baroness squares her opposition to Terminal 5 with that statement in the Liberal Democrat Party's recently published document.
Before the noble Baroness is tempted to intervene, perhaps I may say that my eyes dropped down a line and I saw that the document is entirely in favour of CrossRail. Yet, was it not the Liberal Democrats in Tower Hamlets who played such a major part in the opposition to that project? I suggest to the noble Baroness that she should not be tempted, because I have the document here. I can assure her that it is genuine and comes from her party.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, there is plenty to say about that. Given the hour, I shall not do so. However, I must remind the noble Lord that my colleagues in Tower Hamlets, making perfectly proper comments about protecting the environment for their own residents, could not have done what the Members of other parties did in sabotaging CrossRail in another place last week.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am interested in that answer because we dodged entirely the question of Terminal 5 and the underground link which is to be built to a totally imaginary terminal. Perhaps that is par for the course.
I turn to the question of surface access. I take this opportunity to clarify one area which relates to Heathrow and which is the day-to-day responsibility of my department. There has been some confusion that the
236
motorway proposals for access indicate that the Government have already made up their mind about the planning inquiry. As I have already said, that is not the case. The Highways Agency is promoting motorway schemes to provide adequate access, involving a dual carriageway spur road of motorway standard to the proposed M.25 link roads and improvements to the M.4 between Junctions 3 and 4B. The spur and M.4 improvements will only be necessary if Terminal 5 receives planning consent. Because those schemes are contingent on development of Terminal 5, BAA would, if those schemes go ahead, be making a substantial contribution to the costs. That is standard practice where a road scheme is being promoted to provide access.
The public inquiry into the planning application for Terminal 5 itself, will consider the access proposals. It is only right that they should be put forward for consideration and debate at the same time. We should also not forget the substantial investment in public transport access that is already under way. Work is now proceeding apace on the Heathrow Express, as anyone who uses Heathrow can see from the works already started. I understand it is on course to open by the end of 1997. Similarly, I am glad to note that London Underground has programmed £92 million for a contract to refurbish all 87 trains on the Piccadilly Line.
Another question which is worth mentioning is that of noise. I doubt that a discussion on Heathrow Airport would be complete without the issue of the airport and its impact on those who live around it and on the incoming and outgoing airline tracks. Undeniably a large airport can be a difficult neighbour. It is in all our interests that those concerns should be thoroughly examined. Noise, of course, is the major concern. I mentioned the substantial economic and social benefits that Heathrow brings. Unfortunately, in this as in other fields we cannot have benefits without some disbenefits; the disbenefit here is aircraft noise. As my noble friends Lord Mountevans and Lord Astor of Hever and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned, the design and technology of aircraft have so improved over recent years that aircraft themselves are quieter. I shall not go so far as to pretend that there is a totally quiet aircraft, but they are markedly quieter. As my noble friend Lord Astor pointed out, the noisiest jets are being phased out. Indeed, some of the noisiest jets have not been allowed to land in the night period for some time.
Noise abatement measures are also important. Preferential routes for aircraft and the use of procedures which improve the noise on take-off and landing should be considered. Heathrow introduced a noise and track-keeping system which is used for monitoring the performance of airlines. Infringements of the noise limits at night and at certain times of the day are now penalised by fines.
This has been a useful and interesting debate. I am slightly sorry, being a fairly combative chap, that I was not able to get into it properly because of the quasi judicial problems and the point that on the RUCATSE issue we are awaiting the conclusion of the consultative period before we start what I know will be an extremely interesting exercise of seeing how we move in the future in that regard.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it may be useful if the noble Lord could give the House an estimate—one cannot ask for more than that—of the likely period that the inquiry will take. It would be useful to have that information if it is available.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the answer to that question is another question: how long is a piece of string? Most people who give any kind of prediction about the length of time planning inquiries take usually prove to be hugely wrong. I hope that it will not take too long and that the inspector will be able to conduct it in a way that everybody thinks is fair, without using up vast amounts of time and indeed money, much of which will be of those who wish to have their views heard at the inquiry. It is not only taxpayers' money that is used. In this case it will not be taxpayers' money, aside from the cost of setting up the inquiry itself. It will come from BAA, the airlines and local authorities. From the local authority point of view it will be taxpayers' money. Huge amounts can be spent if planning inquiries take too long.
I cannot help the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It
238
would be extremely rash of me to do so. Probably we shall have to return to the subject of Heathrow and the wider issue of aviation on a later date.
In conclusion, Heathrow is undoubtedly a national asset and a major success story. Any business of that size and importance inevitably brings with it problems which have to be addressed, not swept under the carpet or pretended that they can be wished away by banning aircraft from coming into Heathrow. We cannot do that. We have to try to find sensible solutions. I hope that what I have said tonight gives confidence that we are seeking those solutions for all the problems associated with that airport.

Greater Manchester Light Rapid Transit System Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes past ten o'clock.

  EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION, PROTOCOL No. 7
  EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION, PROTOCOL No. 7
  UK/SOUTH KOREA FOREIGN MINISTERS' MEETING
  UK/SOUTH KOREA FOREIGN MINISTERS' MEETING
  URANIUM: US PURCHASES FROM RUSSIA
  URANIUM: US PURCHASES FROM RUSSIA
  ARMS TRADE CONTROL:UN ROLE
  ARMS TRADE CONTROL:UN ROLE
  LONDON HOSPITALS
  LONDON HOSPITALS
  SAND EELS: DANISH FISHERY
  SAND EELS: DANISH FISHERY
  LIVE ANIMAL EXPORTS
  LIVE ANIMAL EXPORTS
  CEMFUEL
  CEMFUEL
  THE BRITISH MEDIA: FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
  THE BRITISH MEDIA: FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
  BARROW-IN-FURNESS
  BARROW-IN-FURNESS
  BIRDS OF PREY AND RACING PIGEONS
  BIRDS OF PREY AND RACING PIGEONS
  TIMBER-FRAMED BUILDINGS
  TIMBER-FRAMED BUILDINGS
  DISABLED PEOPLE: ACCESS TO DWELLINGS
  DISABLED PEOPLE: ACCESS TO DWELLINGS
  DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WATER SERVICES
  DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WATER SERVICES