Sitting of 18 May 1994

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

    European Commission
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what environmental issues Her Majesty's Government are in dispute with the European Commission.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): There are no outstanding cases.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that some of us find that answer quite amazing? It is known that the Government have been tardy in implementing the water directives, with the consequence that the Commission brought us before the European Court. Can he assure us that the nitrogen oxide directives will be implemented in full, especially in the east Thames corridor, which does not have the air quality monitoring units that exist elsewhere? They are desperately needed because of the high and rising incidence of asthma in the south-east of England.
    Mr. Gummer: The United Kingdom has an extremely good record in implementing and enforcing European Community law. Between 1988 and 1992, a number of environmental complaints against the UK were examined by the Commission, but they resulted in only 2 per cent. of the European Court of Justice environmental judgments against member states. That makes our record very much better than that of most other member states.
    The hon. Gentleman was surprised by my answer only because he has been taken in by the publicity of his own Front Bench, which always runs down Britain instead of supporting its very fine environmental record.
    Mr. Sykes: Is not it wrong for the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—a constituency that is not exactly everyone's idea of an environmentally sensitive area—to trump up charges and create divisions in a week when his party is daily beset by divisions, left, right and centre?
    Mr. Mackinlay: At least the hotels do not fall in the sea.
    Mr. Gummer: The House will accept that in these matters it is better to keep to the relevant fact, which is that there are no outstanding cases against the United Kingdom.
    794
    That shows that we are doing our best to meet the very high standards that we set ourselves and which other countries do not meet to the same degree.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more open with the House and admit that there are areas in which the European Community has said that we should do things, but where the British Government and people have not. The obvious example is the one that he admitted to the House just over a week ago: that we have only 80 per cent.—not 100 per cent.—compliance with the bathing water directive and the need for clean beaches.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman now introduce a package that will allow us to obey European law and comply with the directive? Will he work out, across the parties, if necessary, and with local authorities and other agencies how the money can be found to implement that?
    Mr. Skinner: Go on: tell him he's a two-faced Liberal.
    Mr. Gummer: I always try not to state the obvious from the Dispatch Box.
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) must accept that we are meeting the requirements of the European Community to which we are signatories. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should do so faster than we have agreed. He will remember that he has not suggested that we should spend even more than the £3,000 million a year that we currently spend. As usual, he wants us to do more than the EC wants, but he is not prepared to pay the bill. Whenever he is offered the bill, he tells his constituents that someone else will pay.
    Mr. George Howarth: Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite his protestations to the contrary, the problem is seriously growing? How does he explain that, in coastal towns, 40 per cent. of the raw sewage goes straight into the sea? How can he explain or defend the fact that, on the urban waste water directive—another thing to which the Government have signed up—there is no programme in place to meet the compliance which is expected by 2005? The Secretary of State is finding excuses not to do things. When will we have a Secretary of State who tells us how he will meet the directives in the time expected of him?
    Mr. Gummer: We are committed to meeting our requirements and obligations and we are spending £3,000 million a year. The hon. Gentleman can hardly say that. When challenged last week, the Labour party produced no figures or facts and no policy on water at all.
    The hon. Gentleman should remember that, in terms of European Court of Justice judgments, Italy, Belgium, Germany, France, Greece, Netherlands and Luxembourg all have worse records than the United Kingdom. We have one judgment against us, which shows how very much better we are doing than most other EC countries.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in many Select Committee reports associated with the environment, it was clear that much of the evidence which the Commission brought forward in relation to the directives was faulty? The Commission is now modifying considerably the criteria on which these directives are based. Again and again it was shown that the British Government are well ahead of the game, compared with many other member states of the European Community.
    Mr. Gummer: I have had further discussions with the Commission and its view—it is also the view of the United Kingdom—is that we have to base matters on the best available science. It seems to me that the only place where people think we are not meeting the requirements and are not seeking to take the lead on the environment is in the House of Commons—on the basis of what are, I think, party political arguments rather than facts.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to alter the qualifying date for council tax transitional relief or introduce an exemption from the date in extenuating circumstances.
    The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): None, Madam.
    Mr. Illsley: Is not it incumbent on the Government to bring in some measure for people who have been prejudiced by the qualifying date for transitional relief? The Minister will be aware of a couple in my constituency who, on the qualifying date, had living with them temporarily their daughter and son-in-law. Because the following year the same date was carried forward, they will never be able to take advantage of transitional relief.
    Should we be looking at a better use of transitional relief, bearing in mind the fact that Barnsley claimed about £345,000 whereas Wandsworth claimed an incredible £22 million? That works out at £4 per household in my constituency, compared with £195 per household in Wandsworth.
    Mr. Curry: If transitional relief was to be a permanent system, where there had been anomalies one would have to put them right. But by its very definition, it is transitional. We had to have a simple and clear system and we took the last day of the community charge and the first day of the council tax, which was the obvious comparison. It was inevitable that a handful of people would be disadvantaged by that, but, no matter where we had taken that particular point, some people would have been disadvantaged.
    I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but the fact that the scheme is transitional and that we set up as simple a scheme as possible means that it is unrealistic to try to make more complications. As for Wandsworth, it must be clear from an arithmetical point of view that starting with a community charge of zero and moving to a different system will cause a much steeper transition than for councils that started from a lot more than zero. It is arithmetic, not a deception.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that Liberal-controlled Richmond-upon-Thames borough council increased the council tax, with or without transitional relief, by more than any of the other 32 London boroughs? There were no extenuating circumstances for them and, on 5 May, they lost six council seats.
    Mr. Curry: I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend says. Where the level of taxation and the level of performance of local councils was a strong issue in the elections, Conservative councils, with their record of low taxation, did very well. I have no doubt that people who voted otherwise last week will soon discover what they voted for. They may have their revenge in a few years' time.

    Housing
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to use Government-owned housing to assist housing associations and councils to meet housing need.
    The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): Government Departments are urged to make best use of their empty residential property, through disposal where possible, or by leasing to local housing providers. We encourage local authorities and housing associations to consider the scope for using empty Government-owned homes to meet housing need.
    Mr. Soley: Is not it time to stop the nonsense whereby the Government dump thousands of empty Government-owned properties on to the private market and therefore depress house prices, which is bad for the economy? Through leaseback or other schemes, the Government could transfer those houses to housing associations and councils in areas such as Bromley, where there are empty Air Force homes at Biggin Hill, or Slough, where former Army and Air Force homes are empty. Two local authority areas could get people out of bed and breakfast, save money and help restore the economy.
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that only last month 119 Ministry of Defence properties in Finningley were sold to the South Yorkshire housing association and that more than 1,000 MOD properties are on lease to local authorities or housing associations. It must be right for the MOD to put on the market those properties that it does not need and to give first-time home buyers the opportunity to acquire them. I see nothing wrong with that policy.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that housing need would be less if local authorities had fewer empty council homes? He will remember his visit to Hackney, where 9 per cent. of local authority housing stock is empty.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. There are 71,000 empty local authority homes. That is more than the total number of families in temporary accommodation. The main culprits are Labour-controlled local authorities. It would be in the interests of meeting those housing needs if we could make better use of the potential.

    Homelessness
    Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to bring forward proposals to change the current homelessness legislation.
    Sir George Young: I hope to announce the Government's conclusions before the summer recess.
    Ms Coffey: Will the Minister confirm that, of the 9,500 responses to his Green Paper, an overwhelming number criticised the Government's proposal to remove the homelessness safety net? Will he listen to the advice that has been given to him by housing and care professionals and withdraw his proposals?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Lady will know that the consultation document contained not one but a range of proposals and that some of those proposals—for example,

    797
    putting more emphasis on prevention and making better use of the private rented sector—commanded support. The Government will of course reflect on the weight of the representations. When we announce our decisions, I hope before the summer recess, I trust that some of the more alarmist propaganda that has been flying around will be put to rest.
    Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend go some way towards dispelling some of the alarmist comments that have been made? Does he accept that the consultation paper keeps a safety net for the most vulnerable members of society and that it prevents queue-jumping, which causes so much misery to those who are pushed down the list because of queue-jumpers?
    Sir George Young: As I said in the debate on 26 January, there is no question of vulnerable people, including families with children, not having a home or not having any suitable accommodation. I agree with what my hon. Friend said at the end of his question. It is right to have a fair approach to the allocation of rented housing and to allocate on the basis of need, not on the basis of whether, at some time in the past, people acquired the label of being statutorily homeless.
    Mr. Battle: Given the number of adverse responses and the tone that the Minister has now adopted on the Government's consultation paper on access to housing, will he confirm that he believes that a better way to approach the matter is to consider the code of guidance given to local authorities about allocation, rather than to change the laws by repealing good homelessness legislation, which ensures that the homeless have a statutory right to a secure home?
    Sir George Young: No, it would be wrong at this stage to rule out primary legislation. Some of the proposals in the Green Paper need primary legislation and at this stage I am not disposed to rule that out.

    Private Rented Accommodation
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to increase the availability of private rented accommodation.
    Sir George Young: The private rented sector has expanded considerably since deregulation in 1989. A number of initiatives have been developed to revive the sector and increase the availability of rented accommodation.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Harborough district local draft plan, which requires the building of several thousand houses in the villages of Billesdon, Great Glen, Kibworth Beauchamp and Kibworth Harcourt, will do nothing whatever to increase the availability of rented private housing? Does he also accept that what it will achieve is to destroy those villages in particular and rural south-east Leicestershire in general?
    Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend will know, the Harborough plan is in draft form at present. Proposals will be formally placed on deposit for objections to be made later this year and my hon. Friend has rehearsed a number of those objections. They can then be examined at a public inquiry.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister will recognise that there would be little private rented sector housing if it were left purely to market forces and that rent allowances are absolutely crucial to underpinning the private rented sector. Does he recognise the difficulties that have been caused to local authorities because of the increased portion of the rent allowance that they must meet, which is causing problems to many local authorities at present?
    Sir George Young: There would be even less private rented accommodation if we had listened to the Labour party over the past 20 or 30 years. The factor that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the percentage of housing benefit that falls on local ratepayers—is taken into account each year.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the provision of more private sector accommodation is central to the idea of providing diverse solutions to the problems of homelessness, but that that should not distract us from the central point that he made earlier: that we must continue to have a unified list with genuine flexibility for local authorities if they are to be free to tackle homelessness in the way they wish to do?
    Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that all hon. Members will welcome the increase in the number of households renting from private sector landlords. The figure has increased from 1.6 million in 1988 to just under 2 million in 1993. If one is genuinely trying to increase the supply of good-quality accommodation to help those in housing need, that increased supply is something that all of us who share an interest in housing should applaud.

    Water Disconnections
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning disconnections of domestic water supply.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): My right hon. Friend receives representations regularly.
    Mr. Foulkes: The Minister will agree that it is a disgrace that, at the end of the 20th century in England and Wales, nearly 250 families have their water supply cut off every week. Does he agree that as it will continue to be illegal in Scotland for water to be disconnected, it would be sensible to apply that to England and Wales as well?
    Mr. Atkins: I cannot comment on what happens in Scotland—that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Disconnections have been available since the Water Act 1945, so they are hardly new, but the number of disconnections is going down regularly each year.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that a "no disconnect" policy would be a "no pay" policy, that most disconnections are reconnected within 48 hours while the remainder occur in empty properties and that water boards give people many options to pay? What on earth are we talking about?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend will be delighted to know, as I am, that the area that supplies water to our constituents

    799
    had a survey in November last year among well over 1,000 representative householders, 82 per cent. of whom said that they wanted the disconnection policy maintained.
    Mr. Chris Smith: However, is not it a demonstration of peculiar incompetence even for this Government that the Minister tells us that disconnection is essential in England and Wales, while on 14 April the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland not only said that disconnections should remain illegal in Scotland, but placed a clause in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill specifically to that effect? Should not the Government be saying the same thing everywhere in Britain: that the disconnection of domestic water supplies—the removal of the means to life and health—has no place in a civilised society?
    Mr. Atkins: I am an Englishman and I can speak only for England. In England, for which I have responsibility, the number of disconnections is going down. According to the regional company responsible for water supplies in the north-west, the vast majority of its customers want the disconnection policy to be maintained. I must remind the House that the policy to allow for disconnections was included in the Water Act 1945, so nothing has changed.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree with my experience of dealing with constituents who need to be disconnected that the water companies generally deal with them very sympathetically? Does he also agree that if people do not pay, the water companies have to increase their charges for everyone else to make up for the shortfall?
    Mr. Atkins: In the present circumstances, a court judgment must be made and only if the arrears are still outstanding is there the possibility of a disconnection order being made. That is an exhaustive procedure and, as I have already told the House, the number of disconnections is decreasing annually. That policy is, apparently, supported by water users and consumers, who wish it to be maintained.

    Standard Spending Assessments
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise the present standard spending assessments system.
    Mr. Curry: We intend to discuss with the local authority associations a number of possible changes in standard spending assessments.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that, in view of the corruption in Westminster city council, revealed by the BBC "Panorama" programme on Monday night, and the apparent connivance of Ministers to rig grant to Westminster, perhaps the only worthwhile revision would be to remove the grant allocation system from the hands of Ministers and put it in the hands of an independent grant commission?
    Mr. Curry: I do not agree with that for one minute. The Select Committee on the Environment examined the way in which SSAs were distributed and concluded that it was done entirely objectively. I have no doubt that the Labour party ran over the system with a fine-toothed comb, but it has not managed to discover any bias in the system—
    800
    because it is not there. For a member of the Labour party, which spends its life talking about quangos, to propose setting up another one is slightly curious.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the area cost adjustment, which applies only in the south-east of England, has absolutely no basis in fact or logic and that the sooner it is done away with the better? Once that happens, areas such as Dorset will start to benefit from the real costs of providing services rather than working under a fudge factor, which was introduced to stop the high-spending Labour councils in London going bankrupt.
    Mr. Curry: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The area cost adjustment would not exist if there were no objective reason for it. We examined it carefully. We must, however, consider the way in which it tapers as it leaves central London. I have made it clear to the local authority associations that it will be one of the focuses for the continued review of SSA systems.
    Mr. Snape: Has the Minister seen the Department of Environment's "Index of Social Deprivation", which reveals that Sandwell is the ninth poorest borough in England? Many other black country boroughs feature in that list of deprivation. Is he aware that, today, the Tory leader of Walsall council said that the Government must face the fact that the shire counties have been treated much better than inner-city areas? Does not that sort of national corruption of local government finance deserve a "Panorama" programme of its own? Is not it about time that the Government recognised the fact that local authorities, particularly Labour-controlled ones, are being held back from what they are trying to do by the financial rigging of the Government?
    Mr. Curry: That is completely untrue. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the councils that receive the largest grant, he will see that they are all in the inner cities and Labour controlled. If he reads further from the "Index of Social Deprivation", he will discover that Westminster comes 26th and St. Helens comes 54th. That justifies the differential, does it not?
    Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a recent report of the Select Committee on Education it was proposed that the education element of the SSA should be removed and that it should be calculated under an alternative common funding formula? Will he consider that report and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education?
    Mr. Curry: I am perfectly willing to discuss improvements in the system. At the moment, the system is formula-driven. What matters in that case is to ensure that the formula picks up real needs as sensitively as it can and distributes them to where the need is. Therefore, we shall have to continue to review some elements, especially of social need, and we shall do so. People try to make out special cases for this, that or the other. It is always possible to argue that it would be nice to have more money here or more money there, but there is an absolutely equitable system of distribution and no one has been able to prove to the contrary. They cannot prove it because it is not true.
    Mr. Straw: In the new spirit of rationality that has broken out between the Front Benches, the Minister must surely recognise that one of the reasons why the Conservative party had its worst results for more than 50

    801
    years in the local elections and the Labour party its best results for 13 years, is a lack of confidence in the impartiality of the SSA grant system. There was overwhelming criticism of that system not only from the Labour party but from council tax payers, who simply could not understand the fairness of the system. As the Environment Select Committee made many criticisms of the SSA system, and as the Audit Commission recommended an independent grant commission, why does the Minister continue in his refusal to consider that and to begin discussions across the Chamber about that sensible proposal?
    Mr. Curry: I did quite a lot of knocking on doors during the local election campaign—[Interruption.]—especially in Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington, and I was not engaged in spontaneous discussion about the SSA system at many of them. We have an objective system and the local authority associations co-operate with it fully. We are committed to ensuring that we make that system as finely tuned as possible without its becoming so complex as to be incomprehensible. We have set out on a good course. A further review is under way and I see no reason to change that.

    Mineral Planning Guidance
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make clear in his revision of MPG3 that environmental acceptability is in the national interest in relation to opencast applications.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The draft revised guidelines withdraw the strong presumption in favour of opencast development which existed previously and replace it with a test of whether a proposed opencast application is environmentally acceptable. Those guidelines are now up for consultation and we are considering all comments carefully, with a view to publishing final guidelines in the summer.
    Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Minister for that reply. Local people, however—especially in West Yorkshire—are so used to losing appeals against opencast applications that they will need to see the policy worked out in practice. Will he make it clear to planning inspectors in the future that national interests for coal must not be pitted against the environment, and that the quality of the environment matters and is in the national interest?
    Mr. Baldry: In Leeds, only two opencast applications have been lost on appeal. The system is extremely fair in that regard. As I have made clear to the House on many occasions, the revised guidance will impose a test of whether an application is environmentally acceptable. I should have thought that the whole House would recognise that as an advance on the current situation.
    Mr. Oppenheim: With cheap coal readily available on world markets, is it not madness to rip up the countryside of our crowded island? However, bearing in mind the fact that we are meant not to be being nasty to each other at the moment, will my hon. Friend gently remind Opposition Members that decisions on opencast mining used to be made by the Department of Energy, which habitually passed applications on the nod, before a Conservative
    802
    Government devolved that power to county councils? Can we now continue with that fine record of tightening controls on opencast mining?
    Mr. Baldry: That is exactly what the draft planning guidance does. It imposes a tough environmental test. If there were an application for opencast mining on a green-field site, the local mineral planning authority would have to bear in mind the fact that it is a green-field site when deciding whether to allow that planning application. Obviously, different criteria would apply if it were considering a derelict land site.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister accept that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has hit the nail on the head? People in the north and the midlands where opencast mining is proposed are overwhelmingly opposed to opencast developments. If opencast opportunities arose in Suffolk, Coastal or Oxfordshire, the Minister and his boss would find that public opinion there was the same. In conducting the review, will the Minister accept that public opinion does not believe that environmental acceptability is a sufficiently strong test because of the amount of judgment involved and that the need for coal should also be demonstrated before approval is given?
    Mr. Baldry: No, it is not the purpose of the planning system to determine whether there is a requirement for a specific mineral. Rather, it must strike a balance. In this instance, the planning system must strike a balance between economic need and environmental acceptability. That is what this planning guidance does, and I believe that it will do it extremely well.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: My hon. Friend will be aware that local communities dislike the prospect of opencasting. Three such proposals affect my constituency. Will he assure me that his new MPG3 guidelines will take fully into account the environmental impact of opencasting, including the consequence of increased heavy traffic on the road network in surrounding towns and villages?
    Mr. Baldry: If hon. Members look at the draft guidance they will see, set into it in considerable detail, the factors that local planning authorities must take into account: visual impact, noise, transport movements—exactly the concerns mentioned by my hon. Friend—dust, and water pollution. The mineral planning authorities will have to bear in mind a range of environmental considerations in determining whether a planning application is environmentally acceptable. I am therefore more than willing to give my hon. Friend the assurance that she requests.

    Inner Cities
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss inner cities.
    Mr. Gummer: I met Jeremy Beacham on Monday 9 May.
    Mr. Mudie: The Minister will be aware that local authorities fear and believe that the single regeneration budget is a device for disguising spending cuts. Why did the urban programme—the main policy and vehicle for combating deprivation in inner cities—spend £236 million

    803
    two years ago, whereas this year it is spending £85 million, which is a cut of £151 million? Does that not confirm that the fears of local authorities are correct?
    Mr. Gummer: No, it confirms that the urban programme has been superseded by a number of other programmes that we are using to deal with the problems of our inner cities. The hon. Gentleman will note that in the past we used to go to the United States and other countries to see how they did things and to learn from them, but now they come to see what we are doing. For example, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited President Clinton, Mayor Murphy of Pittsburgh drew attention to the success and model provided by our urban policy. It is now the United States experts who come to the United Kingdom to learn, rather than the other way round, and the Germans and Australians are following suit.
    Mr. Devlin: Is it not encouraging how Labour-controlled authorities such as Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees and Middlesbrough have taken a leaf from the partnership ethic expounded by the Teesside development corporation and other development corporations and have put forward successful city challenge bids, enabling them to use budgets provided by the Government and the private sector to rebuild inner city areas?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The establishment of the integrated regional offices and the single regeneration budget has been widely welcomed even by people who are politically opposed to us, because they see that we can approach the problems of the inner city in an integrated and holistic way instead of in a partial manner. I therefore hope that the Opposition will continue their support, as they do in the countryside.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, far from solving the enormous problems faced by urban areas, the single regeneration budget will make life much more difficult for the people who run our major towns and cities? Will he assure us that the shortfall in urban aid which the introduction of the single regeneration budget has created will be made up in full by the Government as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not want to transgress the delicate feeling in the House at the moment, but when we announced the single regeneration budget the hon. Gentleman said that it was a cover for a cut and that there would be less than £1.4 billion in 1994–95. In fact, we announced £1.4 billion—precisely the figure that we had given—so the hon. Gentleman has asked a question about something that does not exist. We are putting very significant amounts of money into the inner cities. This is working extremely well and is very widely welcomed. What is more, it is over and above the substantial main programme of investment. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate his fire on reality and stop trying to pretend that things are going wrong in areas where we are doing extremely well.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to revive inner cities is to give the people who live in them a direct investment in the making of decisions that affect their lives? Does he agree that housing action trusts, local management of schools and grant-maintained schools do precisely that? Is it not
    804
    somewhat hypocritical for the Labour party to argue for greater local decision-making while opposing each and every such measure?
    Mr. Gummer: I am very much in favour of the subsidiarity to which my hon. Friend refers. Speaking to an audience that included a very large number of Labour councillors, I noticed that when I said that I wanted more subsidiarity from national to local government they cheered, but when I said that I thought that there ought to be more subsidiarity from local government to schools and other organisations they booed. For them, subsidiarity seems to stop at a particular level; I believe in reaching down to the smallest possible unit in running the government of the country.

    Local Government
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to restore powers and functions removed from local government during the past 15 years.
    Mr. Curry: The functions of local government have always been subject to change. The Government believe that responsibility should be delegated to the level most consistent with competence, practicality and cost-effectiveness.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister realise that millions of people, of all parties and of none, deplore the fact that local authorities have been denuded of so many of their powers and functions since the Conservative Government came to power? Local self-government has been replaced by a vast quangocracy stuffed with Tory placemen and placewomen who are accountable to no one other than the most highly centralising Government in all Europe. Does that not amount to disfranchisement of the electors at local level?
    Mr. Curry: I never quite understand why the hon. Gentleman is so attached to the impenetrable bureaucracy of Whitehall, county hall and town hall. What we are concerned about is the delivery of services closer to the people. It is the people who count—not the bureaucrats or, for that matter, the councils. The hon. Gentleman will know that, for example, in Merseyside there is an urban development corporation, on the board of which there are three councillors, spending £156 million; a city challenge programme with provision of £131 million; a task force; and an objective 1 programme of £354 million. If he takes such exception to all of those, I am sure that we can arrange to cancel the funding.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Representing, as I do, a part of the borough of Macclesfield in Cheshire, which has one of only two councils in the whole north-west region that still have overall Conservative control, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he accepts that among some Conservative Members there is a strong feeling that if local government is to continue to exist it must have a range of reasonable and sensible responsibilities? Otherwise, we shall not get people of the right calibre to serve on councils. Will my hon. Friend ensure that local authorities continue to have proper, full and meaningful responsibilities so that we may continue to have that level of government in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Curry: Of course—that is precisely why, for example, care in the community and the administration of housing benefit have recently been passed back to local government. What matters is the quality of the service to the person who is receiving it. That is what government at all levels is about. It does not matter so much who delivers a service; what matters is that it should be provided efficiently. The obsession with county hall, city hall or Whitehall seems to me to be forgetting the essential ingredient—the person on the receiving end, whom government is there to benefit.
    Mr. Janner: When considering restoring powers to local authorities, will the Minister do so in the light of the 1991 "Index of Local Conditions", which shows relative deprivation in our cities and which the Minister slid into the Library this morning without even providing copies for the parliamentary press? Will he look at what has happened since he took powers away from local authorities such as Leicester which, instead of being one of the wealthiest cities in Europe, is now among the 10 per cent. most deprived areas in this country?
    Mr. Curry: If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that that is a function of local government powers, he is rather more imaginative than I had credited him. Local government has a remarkable opportunity in the shape of the single regeneration budget and programmes such as city challenge. Local government can act as an assembler of all the resources of the community to tackle particular problems. That is a new and much more exciting challenge than it has had in the past. The single regeneration budget, working with the private sector and public authorities, can make this work. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman should spend his time telling Leicester to get stuck into all that, instead of complaining about its powers.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: While my hon. Friend discusses the possibility of returning powers to councils, especially in Merseyside, will he give me an assurance today that my constituents in Southport will have the chance to have returned to them the powers associated with unitary authority status which they enjoyed before 1974? Will he assure me that the Local Government Commission will listen to their pleas as early as 1995, so that we can get out of Sefton and get back on our own again? Sandgrounders rightly deserve that opportunity.
    Mr. Curry: We have made it clear that when the Local Government Commission has completed its review of shire England we shall direct it to look at the boundaries of metropolitan areas where there is a strong case for its doing so.
    Mr. Straw: Nothing better confirms the degree to which current Ministers and the party in Government have become infected with the virus of centralisation than the threat that the whole House heard the Minister issue to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)—the threat that the funding for various bodies in Liverpool would be cancelled if my hon. Friend did not like what was going on. Does the Minister not understand that it is exactly that kind of arbitrary and capricious exercise of power that voters object to?
    If the Minister is seriously concerned to return power to the people, why has he been a member of an Administration who have has passed more than 144
    806
    separate Acts centralising more and more power over local authorities and taking away from locally elected people the control of more than £24 billion of public spending?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman does not want power to the people—he wants power to the councils, which is not always the same thing. That is the fundamental difference between us. We have passed power to the people. We have passed power to school governors, to parents and to people who live on council estates. That is what passing power to the people means. Why is the hon. Gentleman obsessed with passing power to councillors, which is by no means the same thing or the most efficient way of doing things?
    Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the deplorable reply given to my question by the Minister, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Lester: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial savings could accrue to the council tax payers of Broxtowe if the joint districts proposal for the introduction of single-tier local government in Nottinghamshire were implemented.
    Mr. Baldry: As the review is still in progress, all aspects of local government reorganisation in Nottinghamshire are a matter for the Local Government Commission, including the costing of options for structural change.
    Mr. Lester: Is it not important, in the interim, that local constituents understand that the principal element in their new council tax bills is the amount levied on behalf of the Labour county council and not the proportion levied by their district council?
    Mr. Baldry: Yes, one of the strong arguments in favour of unitary authorities is the straightforward idea of accountability. Having two local authorities can often confuse people and it is not always clear which is rendering a particular service. As my hon. Friend says, this can present particular difficulties in relation to council tax bills, since the lion's share—that rendered by the county council —has to be collected by the district council.
    Mr. Heppell: Is the Minister aware that the figures range from about £600 million to more than £1 billion for the transitional changes? Those changes will have to be met by cuts in services as the Government do not plan to put in any other money to meet their cost. Was there a delay in Nottinghamshire because the commission now recognises that no one in Nottinghamshire either wants the change or wishes to pay for it?
    Mr. Baldry: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's last comment is accurate. I suggest that he reads the comments of his Front-Bench colleagues in our local government debates.
    Mr. Atkins: He should not bother.
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend says that the hon. Gentleman should not bother, but it might be helpful for him to see that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen purport to be in favour of unitary authorities. As to savings, some of the figures that have been bandied around are grossly exaggerated. Certainly each of the reorganisations agreed so far by the Local Government Commission estimates that the savings and receipts at the outset will well outweigh the

    807
    initial costs and that thereafter the savings will be continuous year on year. We have made it clear that we expect substantial long-term savings to follow the Local Government Commission recommendations.

    Environmental Protection Agency
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with his ministerial colleague in Northern Ireland concerning the establishment of an environmental protection agency.
    Mr. Atkins: My officials are in contact with their opposite numbers in Northern Ireland, where my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's approach reflects the differing circumstances there.
    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am not sure that I understand what he means by the differing circumstances. He must be aware that some four years have passed since 1990, when the Select Committee on the Environment recommended strongly that such a board be set up in Northern Ireland. Since then, the Government have commissioned a thermal oxide reprocessing plant which, with the regulations attached to it, can allow a 900 per cent. increase in toxic atmospheric discharge and a 1,100 per cent. increase in the toxic discharge into the Irish sea. Is the Minister aware that people living on the eastern coast of Northern Ireland are concerned that the Department is both poacher and gamekeeper in environmental protection and that such an agency is urgently needed as an independent assessor?
    Mr. Atkins: I am only too well aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns as I was the Minister who took the decision, in the face of the Environment Select Committee, which came to interview me at Stormont on exactly the answers that were given. I recall that the answer was simply that I had a commitment to set up an environment agency in due course, that in Northern Ireland, where the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland has different responsibilities, there was no need for it at that stage, but that the Department of the Environment, represented by me as its Minister, was by no means opposed to such an agency.

    Water Industry
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of investment in the water industry in 1978–79; and what is the expected level in 1992–93 expressed in constant prices.
    Mr. Gummer: On a comparable basis at constant prices, water industry capital expenditure in 1978–79 was about £1.1 billion. By 1992–93, it had almost trebled to some £3.2 billion.
    Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about three weeks ago I opened phase 1 of a new sewage treatment plant in Kinmel bay in my constituency costing £23 million? Will my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends now come to sunny Rhyl for their summer holidays, so that they can swim in the beautiful clean sea and enjoy the wonderful amenities there for family holidays?
    Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that Rhyl and the rest of that particularly beautiful north Wales coast is a fine place for a holiday and I am looking forward very much to doing some canvassing in the European elections in that area.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the cost of this investment has been borne by many people who cannot afford to pay—that is, water rate payers and even those on low incomes? Is he further aware that this is leading to a very high rate of water disconnections in my constituency—the third highest in the country? Is it not time he stopped this extortion by water companies from people who cannot afford to pay?
    Mr. Gummer: It is difficult to put the hon. Lady's question alongside the constant demands of Labour Members for even more spending. Where do they think the money comes from? In the end, it comes from the consumers of water. There is no other way of delivering these very large sums of money. As the hon. Lady is concerned about the situation, I hope that she will support the very careful and cost-effective way in which we are ensuring that we spend what is necessary without overspending. I am sure that her electors in Cambridge will want her to affirm her support, even though she may have to vote against her own Front Bench.
    Mr. Nicholls: Although that may be jolly good news in Wales, the standards imposed by the European Commission on the west country mean that people in that region face an intolerable burden, with some 650,000 water charge payers being responsible for cleaning up one third of the nation's coast. While I accept that that is an obligation imposed by the EC and not Her Majesty's Government, will my right hon. Friend tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that the intolerable burden imposed by Europe will be ameliorated?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend who, with his colleagues, has been consistent in pressing on me the very serious matter that he has raised here. We have looked at the way in which the burden falls upon all consumers so that it is as cost-effective as possible. I know that Mr. Ian Byatt is completing his discussions with the water companies and that we should have some direct figures very soon. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises how closely we have been watching the situation. I know that he has pressed hard on behalf of his constituents and others on this matter.

    Local Referendums
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of increasing the use of local referendums.
    Mr. Baldry: I have made no assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of increasing the use of local referendums.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister appreciate that referendums are commonplace in Europe and are one way of enriching and revitalising public debate? After 15 years

    809
    of Conservative Government during which local authorities have lost powers, functions and relevance, would not the increased use of local referendums be one way to re-involve people in civic debate?
    Mr. Baldry: That is absolute twaddle.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Will my hon. Friend not dismiss the idea of referendums too easily? Will he also consider doing away with rate capping so that we can then expose those councils which spend wildly and a referendum can be held at the subsequent local government elections?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. If it were not for council tax capping, large numbers of Labour authorities would be only too keen to spend council tax payers' money like confetti.

    Ozone Layer
    Mr. Deva: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the United Kingdom is taking to phase out the production of substances damaging the ozone layer.
    Mr. Gummer: The production of halons has already ceased, CFCs and carbon tetrachloride will cease by the end of this year, and methyl chloroform by the end of next year.
    Mr. Deva: Does my right hon. Friend agree that congratulations are in order on the Government's achievement of those achievable targets? Does it not vindicate my view and that of the Government that it is far better to set targets which are easily achievable than to set targets which cannot be attained and which other countries have no intention of attaining?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I think that where we can raise the standards we ought to do so. I am pleased to say that the European Community as a whole is moving faster than the Montreal protocol requires with regard to chlorofluorocarbons, carbon tetrachloride and hydrochlorofluorocarbons. We have shown that, wherever we can, we will move faster than we are required to do.

    Local Government Commission
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the progress being made by the Local Government Commission.
    Mr. Curry: The Local Government Commission has submitted final recommendations for 10 shire county areas. It is due to announce initial recommendations for a further group of shire counties, including Cumbria, in June.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he give me an assurance that, before any final proposals for Cumbria are made by the Local Government
    810
    Commission, there will be full and wide public consultation with my constituents and those elsewhere in the county so that the final shape of local government in the county of Cumbria can enjoy widespread and continuing public support?
    Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the commission must make initial recommendations and then a final recommendation. Up to that point, there is no role for the Government. When the commission makes its recommendation, we shall consult widely before we lay an order before the House. I expect that the hon. Gentleman will want to make representations at that time, and we will of course listen to him.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the commission, which is charged with reviewing parish and town council representation in local government areas, points out to Opposition Members that under existing legislation it is possible to call a poll? If local authorities want a poll, they can already have one if they are enparished—rather than listen to the first cuckoos of spring on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend, who has the advantage of representing an area that is about to be reorganised, speaks from great experience. I defer to his judgment.

    Water Meters
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to monitor the installation of pre-payment water meters in council properties.
    Mr. Atkins: A number of water companies are currently conducting trials of pre-payment water devices. The Director General of Water Services is monitoring the progress of these trials.
    Mr. Burden: Will the Minister consider the case of Severn Trent Water, which installed some 700 prepayment devices? That has already led to about 400 disconnections. As the Water Act 1989 lays down clear guidelines under which water supplies can be disconnected, and as pre-payment devices do not appear to comply with those guidelines, does the Minister believe that water companies are acting lawfully or unlawfully?
    Mr. Atkins: I am convinced that the companies are acting lawfully. If that were not the case, it would be a matter for the Director General of Water Services. Metering, which is largely the subject of the hon. Gentleman's question, is still being discussed throughout the length and breadth of the country and there remain differing views.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, to seek your guidance. I have just been given what appears to be the wholly authentic information that, overnight, what has been described as a stack of amendments will be tabled to the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [Lords] for consideration this Friday. I am informed also that the express purpose of the amendments is to delay still further the Report stage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was subjected to such odious treatment here on 6 May. If that is so, it must be a gross and contemptuous affront to this House.
I have been asked by disabled people to express again their deep anguish and anger at the tactics being used to deny them full citizenship. It must be, at the very least, discourteous to the House to table, overnight, numerous amendments whose purpose, I am told, is to wreck the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, when many right hon. and hon. Members will be leaving the House tonight to attend the funeral on Friday of our late and beloved colleague, John Smith, and will not even have seen the amendments before they leave.
Madam Speaker: I cannot comment on what is at the moment a hypothetical situation. Friday's proceedings will be regulated by the Chair when the time comes.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed that the Minister of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) that if he persists in asking questions of the nature that he did, funds given to organisations in my hon. Friend's constituency would be at risk. [Interruption.] Oh yes—let there be no doubt about what we heard. The Minister should be asked to withdraw his remark. When something similar happened in 1981, I complained to the Privileges Committee, because Ian MacGregor, then chairman of the British Steel Corporation, was involved. The Privileges Committee held a number of sittings to adjudicate on whether that incident took place, because it was seen as a threat. On that occasion, the threat was that funds would be cut off from my own constituency, for investment in the British Steel Corporation. Will you, Madam Speaker, ask the Minister to withdraw his comments?
Madam Speaker: Order. Nothing that I heard was out of order. However, I compliment the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) because he is dealing with the matter in precisely the right manner.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order. Madam Speaker. I apologise for my voice, but I am sure that it will soon come back. [Interruption] Well, I would not wish to take a vote on that.
Will you, Madam Speaker, give further consideration to the point that was raised by my right hon. Friend? I wonder whether you understand—I am sure that you do, but I put it in that way—the feeling of anger that exists among disabled people at the way in which the Bill, which is aimed to help them, is being obstructed and frustrated at every turn by the Government. Is there any way that you
812
can try to ensure that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is allowed to be debated again on the Floor of the House, instead of the obstruction that the Government—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not within my authority, and the hon. Gentleman and the House know that it is not.
Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given the Minister concerned prior notice.
In a written reply to me on 25 April, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) stated that the Government intended to make an order under section 22 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to lift a layer of protection from three species of birds of prey. He said that the Department of the Environment had consulted some 7,000 organisations, including, I might add, the British Association of Tortoise Keepers, and the British Cactus and Succulent Society, though I have never seen a bird of prey seize either a tortoise or a cactus.
However, it appears that the Government sent the consultation paper to the wrong branches of the Government's advisory bodies: the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and English Nature, with the result that the latter's ornithologists were never properly consulted.
In a further reply to me on 3 May, the same Minister stated—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entering into a debate. What is the point or order for me? What would he like me to do about it?
Mr. Banks: What I should like you to do about it is get some justice back into this place, when a Minister has, perhaps inadvertently, misled the House, because he said that the Association of Chief Police Officers had been in favour of lifting protection from birds of prey. ACPO—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing a case. He must not argue a case across the Floor of the House. What he is saying to me is that he does not believe that the information that was provided to him is correct.
Mr. Banks: No, the organisation concerned has stated publicly that the Minister has misled the House.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who knows his way around the House and how to put matters right, will use the procedures of the House to do so.
Mr. Banks: That is precisely what I am trying to do, because I want the House to know exactly what has happened—
Madam Speaker: Order. On points of order, it is not a question of the House knowing. Points of order are something that I have to deal with. If the hon. Gentleman wishes the House to know, he must use the Order Paper, through either questions or early-day motions. That is the way to inform the House, and not to use points of order, which is an abuse of our system.
Mr. Banks rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is the end of it. I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman knows how to use the Order Paper to correct something. If he uses that method, the whole House will know what the position is.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Question Time, when I asked a question about water disconnections in England and Wales in relation to the position in Scotland, where disconnections are illegal, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) said, "I am an Englishman and I can only speak for England." I ask, therefore, whether you will disqualify him and people who think like him from voting tonight on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, because he has no right to do so. That Bill is not wanted in Scotland.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has high hopes, which will not be fulfilled.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your help in ensuring that an issue of public debate is reflected in the House? Like everyone else, I heard on all the news bulletins this morning, including interviews with the President of the Board of Trade, about plans to privatise the Post Office. There were also the lead stories in a number of national newspapers. You will know that the duty of the House is to reflect the debate, concerns and interests that are being voiced in the country.
Has there been a request from the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House on that privatisation, not least because if it goes ahead for a sale of £1 billion, which is the figure being quoted, my constituents' property will be sold against their will, without a vote? I want to know when the £1.5 million per constituency, which, pro rata we should receive—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether a Minister is coming to the House to make a statement on that matter. No Minister has informed me that he or she is seeking to make a statement today.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is related to, but separate from, that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on a matter concerning the procedures of the House—and, indeed, the responsibility of the House and its Members. I understand that one of your roles is to protect the rights of hon. Members—and, in so doing, to protect the rights of the House and to uphold the House's dignity, and respect for the House and its decisions. I raise this matter not only to seek clarification for myself and colleagues—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]
The matter on which I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, is the authority of decisions made by the House. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) moved a motion that was carried by the House; what I—like members of the public—cannot understand is the fact that the Government have chosen to ignore decisions reached by the House. I believe that, as a result of that, the House has been brought into disrepute. I wonder what remedy there is in the House to ensure that a decision made by the House can be put into effect.
Madam Speaker: There is nothing mandatory about the House's decision. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend our procedures in any way, he may wish to make some reference to the Procedure Committee. I think that he already knows that references have been made to the Committee in relation to private Members' Bills.
Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since entering the House in 1987, I have been repeatedly reminded that this is a unitary Parliament governing a unitary state, and that every citizen in that unitary state is entitled to the same protection under the laws passed by the House. Can you explain how it is possible that disconnecting consumers from the water supply can be illegal in Scotland, while consumers are being disconnected from the supply in England and Wales?
Madam Speaker: The answer is no.
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek clarification on a matter that arose in your exchanges with my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? You told my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby that the matter of the threat issued by the Minister might be dealt with by way of an Adjournment debate. Do you accept, however, that Opposition Members feel the utmost concern about the fact that a threat to withdraw funding was made? We feel that such a threat must not be a matter only for the individual Member involved; it may be a matter for the whole House. Potentially, the issue of such a threat could be a breach of privilege which ought to be dealt with by means of the proper procedures.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman believes that it may be a breach of privilege, he should write to me. I think that I have answered correctly, and that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has taken the right action—in proposing to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.
Sir Michael Neubert: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I revert to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)? I do not know the nature, number or sponsors of the amendments tabled to the Bill that is to be considered on Friday. May I point out to you and to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I served on the Standing Committee? It was unexpectedly controversial—there were a number of Divisions—and hon. Members could well have taken the opportunity to table amendments on Report. Can you confirm, therefore, that that does not necessarily bear the interpretation that the right hon. Gentleman has placed on it?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. That was not a point of order but an explanation; all the same, it was helpful. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I make a similarly helpful comment in relation to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill?
Madam Speaker: Order. No. I have taken points of order about that, and I understand the feeling of the House. We must now wait and see what happens on Friday.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 17 JUNE
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mrs. Jacqui Lait

Mr. Martyn Jones

Ms Rachel Squire

BILL PRESENTED
  PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. John Hume, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Alex Salmond, Sir David Steel, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Paul Flynn, presented a Bill to provide for the granting of pardons to soldiers of the British Empire Forces executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 following conviction for offences of cowardice, desertion or attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms or striking a superior officer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 1 July, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

  Education (Admission to Higher Education)
  3.43 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the admission procedure to United Kingdom institutions of higher education for all school leavers by holding the relevant public examinations in mid April to mid May; to allow applicants to more than one institution to disclose to each institution the application relevant to that institution alone and to offer to applicants the right to see references given on their behalf to higher education institutions; and for connected purposes.
  My Bill proposes a modest change in the dates during which the main public examinations leading to admission to higher education take place in the United Kingdom. This year, exams have already commenced in Scotland; they began on 3 May and will end on 8 June. In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, there are eight examining boards, and the first examinations will take place this Friday, 20 May, and finish on 1 July. Hundreds of thousands of pupils are taking those exams, and I know that we all wish them every success.
  The benefits of holding the entrance exams between mid-April and mid-May would be as follows. Such a change would remove pupils' anxiety about the subjective nature of the higher education admissions system. It would also widen access to higher education, improve freedom of information for pupils and enable them to make a more informed choice between areas of higher education study, from a more up-to-date list of courses.
  Moreover, the change would enable pupils to seek to gain admission on the basis of work done and results achieved, rather than of inaccurate predictions of performance. Higher education selectors could make full use of the completed record of achievement of the young person concerned, and the need for the tactical process—that is, pupils attempting to second guess what the selectors want, fearing that alternative choices may be held against them—would be eliminated. Above all, my Bill would end what has been described as the bear garden of the clearing process each September. Most of those desirable objectives could be achieved by an admissions system operating after A-level results are known.
  The current system and the timetable for admission to higher education were designed specifically to admit 18-year-old school leavers to higher education as it was 30 years ago. At that time, the participation rate of 18-year-olds was 7 per cent; now, I am pleased to say, it is more than 30 per cent., and in Scotland it is more than 36 per cent.
  The theory is that effectively all decisions about places in higher education are taken before the examinations. At one time, that may have worked in practice. However, it is unfair and creates much anxiety among pupils and their families.
  What is wrong with the present system? I shall touch on four or five of the problems. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service—UCAS—operates the admissions system on behalf of nearly 200 institutions of higher education, which run more than 20,000 courses. The application cycle takes about a year to complete. That means that a pupil is required to make a choice about higher education almost a year before he or she starts the

  817
  course. Why should pupils have to commit themselves so early in their post-16 development? That is much too soon to settle early career patterns.
  A pupil may well be undecided a year in advance about the subject area that he or she wants to study, and may have listed completely different subject choices on the application form. Listing different choices can, and does, cause some admissions tutors to take the view that the applicant is uncertain and therefore not committed to that particular application. I do not believe that pupils should have to second guess what admissions tutors want. Research shows that nearly 30 per cent. of final year undergraduates would not choose the same course if they had their time over again.
  When choices are made, the course information is out of date. The lead time for the cycle means that the course information material for pupils due to enter higher education in October 1995 had to be at the UCAS printers by January 1994.
  The most serious defect of the present admissions system is the use of A-level predictions, made seven or nine months before the examinations, to determine offers of places. Offers are based on teachers' predictions of exam grades, which are made months before the exams take place. Because they are made so far in advance, those predictions are inaccurate. No fewer than 65 per cent. of them are wrong. More than 50 per cent. of teachers' predictions forecast A-level grades too high; a quarter of them predict results two grades or more too high.
  How can we continue to run a system with a 65 per cent. failure rate? That is no part of a modern education system. The failure rate applies almost equally to comprehensive schools, independent schools, grammar schools, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges. In FE colleges, A-levels are often completed in one year, which makes the problem far more acute. Lecturers have only a few weeks' experience of their students before they are required to submit A-level grade predictions.
  The national closing date for applications is in December, and it is even earlier for Oxbridge. Higher education admissions tutors do not wait until the closing date to begin their assessments, and that can lead to discrimination against pupils who go right up to the closing date before making up their minds.
  At present, any changes as a result of Higher Education Funding Council decisions come slap bang in the middle of the applications process, which can cause havoc for pupils forced to make an early choice of courses in advance of examination results. The present timetable also means that full use cannot be made of a pupil's record of achievement when applying to enter higher education.
  If we ever move to modular A-levels, the predictions of results so far in advance will become impossible, as the exams to be taken to build up credits for the modular A-level will not be known in time for the present long application cycle. Finding a modern solution is not a simple matter and we need to take account of the fact that we have different school year in England and Scotland, but a United Kingdom-wide admission system to higher education.
  I believe that in the short time available to me, I have set out a fair summary of the chief defects of the admissions system. Any objective assessment must conclude that it is
  818
  old-fashioned, ill-informed and complex—just the factors needed to limit access. The question is how we can run the admissions system on the basis of results rather than inaccurate predictions. One answer must be to run the examination timetable earlier. Instead of running from late May to late June in England, we should bring the process forward by about five weeks to mid-April to mid-May. That would ensure that results were available in early to mid-July.
  There could still be a three-month application period, there would still be time to carry out the interviews, and the choices expressed by pupils would be fewer because they would base them on the results achieved. Preparatory work, with a computer programme for applicants, can be done well before exams are taken. Nothing in such a change need affect those who apply to higher education with qualifications other than A-level. In fact, BTEC assessments will be completed assessments because of the extra time available.
  Scotland, which does not have A-levels, already has an earlier period for the examinations—as I said, they have already started—so the change would be absolutely minimal. A not unimportant aspect of such a change is that the exam timetable will avoid the peak of the hay fever season which runs from May to July.
  Pupils psych themselves up for exams, so any change must be carefully managed. It must not affect anyone on a current programme of study. My Bill proposes privacy for the applicant to higher education, as each institution would not be allowed to see the applications made by the pupil to other institutions. It also proposes that pupils should have access to references given on their behalf.
  To have an admissions system based on equity, we owe our young people flexibility and informed choice, and the modest change in the school year would be justified to bring that about. My proposal does not interfere with quality standards, but is something with which only the House can deal effectively. I have not—and I have never been able to say this before—been able to identify any financial costs relating to the Bill.
  I have identified support across the House and in the world of education for the principle of the change, which is all that I am proposing today. The changes would enable us, on behalf of hundreds of thousands of young people, to move from a system based upon secrecy and fiction to one based on open facts.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeff Rooker, Ms Estelle Morris, Dr. Robert Spink, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Bill Walker and Mr. David Trimble.

  EDUCATION (ADMISSION TO HIGHER EDUCATION)
  Mr. Jeff Rooker accordingly presented a Bill to reform the admission procedure to United Kingdom institutions of higher education for all school leavers by holding the relevant public examinations in mid April to mid May; to allow applicants to more than one institution to disclose to each institution the application relevant to that institution alone and to offer to applicants the right to see references given on their behalf to higher education institutions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

  Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  3.53 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker said last night that you would consider the position of starred amendments Nos. 302 and 303 which relate to South Queensferry. Do you have a statement to make on the matter?
  Madam Speaker: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has some indication of what I am about to tell him. He knows that the amendments were starred, and it was therefore not possible to debate them with the relevant group. The House has already passed that group of amendments, and therefore the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot allow a Division on amendments that have not been debated.

New Clause 4

  NON-DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS
  'After section 22D of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Further provisions relating to non-denominational schools
  22E.—(1) An education authority shall submit to the Secretary of State for his consent any proposal of theirs to which this section applies and shall not implement such a proposal without his consent.

  (2) A proposal to which this section applies is one—

  (a) to—

  (i) discontinue the school or a part of it;

  (ii) amalgamate the school or a part of it with another school;

  (iii) change the site of the school;

  (iv) change the arrangements for admission to the school.

  (b) in relation to which the Secretary of State, having consulted any education authority affected by it, is satisfied, upon written representations made, that, if implemented, it will have any of the results specified in subsection (3) below.

  (3) The results referred to in subsection (2)(b) above are—

  (a) a significant deterioration for pupils belonging to the area of the education authority submitting the proposal under subsection (1) above; or

  (b) a significant deterioration for pupils belonging to the area of any other education authority; or

  (c) where neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) above applies, such a deterioration for pupils as mentioned in the said paragraph (a) and pupils of any other authority as mentioned in the said paragraph (b) as, taken together, amounts to a significant deterioration,

  in the provision, or availability of school education in a particular school compared with such provision, or availability in other schools managed by the education authority mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, where paragraph (b) or (c) above applies, any other education authority as mentioned in the said paragraph (b).

  (4) Any question which may arise—

  (a) whether a proposal is one to which this section applies;

  (b) as to the implementation of a proposal to which the Secretary of State has consented under this section shall be determined by the Secretary of State and the education authority shall perform their duties under this Act in accordance with any such determination.".'.—[Mr. McLeish]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. McLeish.]
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments. Nos 99 to 102.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: We have debated on previous occasions the boundaries and the costs of local government reform. When we look at particular
  820
  services, it is extremely clear that the reorganisation is boundary-led, rather than service-led. When we look at the education service, we see clearly that the reorganisation will have a considerably adverse affect on the education service.
  There will be substantial cuts in education budgets as a result of the reorganisation, which will absorb a substantial amount of money that otherwise would have gone on service provision. Non-statutory services will be placed at risk. Opposition Members argued in Committee that pre-five services and community education should be made statutory provisions to protect them, but the Government refused to accept that.
  It is also perfectly clear that many new local authorities will be too small to provide the complete range of education services which the pupils and the adults in the community deserve. They will be forced to have multiple layers of organisation—joint boards, structures for buying-in and combinations of authorities for particular services. It is perfectly clear that many of the existing provisions will be placed at risk as a result of the reorganisation.
  One particular ground for concern is the way in which the new local authority boundaries will cut across existing school catchment areas. I recognise that the Government have made a number of concessions as a result of pressure from Opposition Members and from interested bodies in education. They have been prepared to concede that all existing school catchment areas would not be changed by the passing of the legislation itself, but would require subsequent action.
  The Government have guaranteed that the existing legal provision for school transport to be provided for distances of two or three miles for youngsters of a relevant age will be maintained, and we welcome that. There will be a substantial deterioration in the existing provision of school transport for the majority of people living in Strathclyde and elsewhere because authorities—Strathclyde in particular—make a provision of school transport beyond the legal minimum. It is highly unlikely that those authorities will be able to do so when their budgets are under the severe pressure that reorganisation will place on them.
  The loss of free transport facilities for a substantial number of youngsters will undoubtedly have a consequential impact on school rolls in areas that are affected by the boundaries of local authorities cutting across school catchment areas. We must take into account the position in which those schools and authorities will find themselves.
  Without doubt, the new local authorities will find themselves under tremendous financial pressure. There will have to be cuts in education services, and schools will be closed for financial reasons. It is a question then of how many schools and which boundaries are affected.
  The Government have conceded that Roman Catholic schools have special protection, as they are able to take cases to which the Church and parents object to the Secretary of State for clarification. It will be for him to identify whether the schools and parents involved are experiencing significant deterioration, compared with other schools run by that authority.
  Unfortunately, as the legislation stands, no similar provision is being made for non-denominational schools. The purpose of new clause 4 is to place an equivalent responsibility on the Government to ensure that there is

  821
  equity between the sectors and to ensure that non-denominational schools, and particular individual non-denominational schools, are not dealt with adversely by the local authority.
  It is particularly important that parents who do not have a say through elected representatives have the opportunity to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. If one authority decides to close a school in its area, the parents of the children who attend that school and who reside in another local authority will have no democratic mechanism by which to express their view. The Government have reasonably bowed to pressure from Labour Members and the Catholic Church on the issue of denominational schools. They have recognised that something has to be done and they have conceded that the matter can be referred to the Secretary of State.
  I envisage that a similar position will apply in some circumstances to non-denominational schools that are under severe financial pressure. It is reasonable, therefore, that the Government should also take into account those equivalent circumstances.
  I have reservations about asking the House to pass a new clause which will give the Secretary of State more powers because, throughout the passage of the Bill, he has taken unto himself more powers, which he should not necessarily have. But that should not blind us to the fact that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate for matters to be referred to the Secretary of State and this is one of them. As the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church have both said that they want equivalent treatment of non-denominational and Catholic schools, I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept the new clause.
  4 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I raised on Second Reading the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) referred. It is one of the many problems that arise from this divisive Bill. Many children and many schools will face difficulties because the proposed new local education authority boundaries cut across the boundaries of many school catchment areas throughout Scotland.
  As the Minister knows, I instanced the case of St. Modan's high school, which, although not in my constituency, serves the children of many of my constituents from Denny, Dennyloanhead, Dunipace and Banknock. The Minister may recall that I said to him that if the catchment area of a particular school were confined to the local education authority area in which that school was located, the very viability of many schools would be threatened. Certainly, the viability of maintaining the number of children in some upper school courses would be threatened. In some extreme cases, the very existence of schools could be threatened.
  In a sense, the situation at St. Modan's high school in Stirling has been exacerbated by the Government's latest amendment. Under the original proposals, St. Modan's would have taken in children from two local education authority areas. Now, if Clackmannan is to be a local education authority in its own right, however, St. Modan's will take in children from three local education authority areas. As the Minister knows, there was initially a storm of protest from the rector of the school, the parent-teacher association and many individual parents. They were joined by parents of children in many other schools throughout
  822
  Scotland, particularly but, I emphasise, not exclusively, parents who chose to send their children to Catholic schools. Some non-denominational schools were also affected because their catchment areas would straddle the new local education authority boundaries.
  The Minister will recall that lobby groups came down to Westminster and that parents, schools, the Scottish Catholic hierarchy and Scottish Catholic Education Commission sent a flood of correspondence to the Scottish Office about the matter. There was a general welcome, and relief, that there was at least some response from the Government in Committee, and the Bill has been amended to meet some of the concerns that were expressed by parents.
  However, people are not exactly dancing in the streets about the amendments that were passed in Committee. There is certainly no complacency. We will still have to be vigilant to see how the arrangements work in practice with regard to statutory consultation between authorities, referral to the Secretary of State, the provision of school transport, and so on. There is certainly a general welcome for the Government's response in Committee, but it remains to be seen how the arrangements will work in practice.
  The Catholic Church representatives to whom I spoke were not concerned simply about children whose parents choose to send them to Catholic schools. Obviously, they have had discussions on the matter with their counterparts in the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Episcopalian Church and churches of other denominations.
  Certainly, the Catholic Church spokespersons who communicated with me were at pains to point out that they were not demanding any special privileges; they simply wanted statutory protection of the rights that they already have. They do not want special privileges to be given to Catholic schools or any other denominational schools in Scotland. They believe that there should be statutory protection for the rights of all children and parents, regardless of the school to which parents choose to send their children in Scotland. New clause 4 seems to be an attempt to extend that protection of rights to parents who choose to send their children to non-denominational schools, as well as to those whose children go to denominational schools.
  I should like some specific answers from the Minister to some questions. How many schools are there in Scotland whose catchment areas will straddle the new local education authority boundaries? How many of them are denominational schools? What denominations are they? How many of them are non-denominational? How many are high schools or secondary schools, how many are primary schools and how many are special schools?
  I conclude by referring to special education and the needs of children who attend special schools. The school that I mentioned earlier—St. Modan's high school—is unique among Central region secondary schools with regard to this boundary problem. But within Central region, there are cases of children with special educational needs who travel from one part of the region to another. If the Government have their way on the carve-up of the Central region, it may well mean that children with special educational needs will have to be bussed from one local education authority area to another.
  What can the Minister tell us about the safeguards with regard to the number of schools in Scotland that will be affected and the number of pupils who will be affected?

  823
  What will be the practical implications of those safeguards which, I hope, will be provided in the Bill? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on those matters.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: The Bill is yet another example of the Government's failure to think about local authorities and the needs of the people of Scotland. It was introduced for one particular reason, but the people of Scotland must now face its consequences.
  Because of the Government's proposals on education, some catchment areas will be irrelevant or a nuisance to the new local authorities, while others will be created. As my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said, currently, there are no catchment areas for those receiving special education, but, by heck, there will be in the future. Those children who crop up in penny packets with their own particular special needs will not be catered for by the small local authorities of the future.
  The present Strathclyde authority provides Middlefield school for the education of aphasic children. I cannot imagine that the new authorities of Dumbarton or Clydebank will be that concerned about aphasic children, because they may not come across such a child within 10 years. It is essential, however, that someone accepts responsibility for them.
  From the Minister's letters to me it is extraordinary to note his touching faith in co-operation and his urge to offer goodness and light to people. Despite that, we have the most conflict-ridden Government I have ever known, who do not believe in any kind co-operation. It will, therefore, be difficult for people to heed the Government's call to co-operate.
  The new clause is important because, although the consequences of the new boundaries may cause problems for primary schools, those created for secondary education will be enormous. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West has already asked how many schools will be affected by the new boundaries.
  In my constituency, I can think of two particular problems that will arise. Some time ago, secondary schools in Drumchapel had to shut down because of overcapacity. The loss of those schools was a painful process for the citizens of Drumchapel. Schools in Clydebank were asked to take the Catholic children of Drumchapel. St. Columba's and St. Andrew's schools in my constituency went through careful preparations to ensure that the difficult integration—in community terms—of the Drumchapel children with those of Clydebank went ahead successfully. That integration has worked extremely well.
  What will happen in the future as a result of the boundary proposals? Will the children within the boundaries of the City of Glasgow council be told that will be expected to go to a Glasgow school and be taken away from the Clydebank school into which they had been integrated? I am sure that the Minister has not even thought of that. Will a future Glasgow corporation or council look happily on the fact that, although it has space in its schools, it must pay Clydebank or Dumbarton authority for the education of the children in those authorities' schools? I cannot see such an arrangement lasting for long.
  The problems that I have described affect just one constituency on the boundary of the Glasgow, but I am sure that they are replicated everywhere. In the Milngavie end
  824
  of my constituency, Catholic children from St. Joseph's currently go on to John Paul academy in Glasgow. In future, those children will be part of another authority, so will they be expected to go to Kirkintilloch for their education? In future, a cash transaction will take place—all because a Government wanted to gerrymander boundaries. That is all. That is why the disruption will occur.
  I have regrets about supporting a further centralisation of power to the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) intimated, I think that all Opposition Members regret that. Nevertheless, there is an anomaly.
  The Government have responded to the pressure of the Catholic Church by introducing special measures to provide an extra assurance for Catholic children in Scotland. When the first school closure takes place, that will obviously cause sectarian tension. People will ask why Catholic children in Catholic schools have a built-in extra safeguard when there is no safeguard for nondenominational children.
  Therefore, overcoming my squeamishness about further centralisation of power, I support the new clause.
  4.15 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall briefly comment on the amendment, which I and my colleagues obviously support. It is especially appropriate that I follow the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), because he and I both taught at St. Modan's. In that previous existence, he was my boss at one stage. I eventually had responsibility in that school for children with special needs and I taught as a non-Roman Catholic in a Catholic school. I think that we wish to retain in our educational system the type of friendship and organisation that existed there.
  I represent a constituency which is far removed from the central belt and the issue of non-denominational schools does not arise to the same extent. In my district, although there are primary schools that represent the Roman Catholic community, there is no Roman Catholic secondary school and the children move on directly to schools that do not have that religious attitude. That works extremely well. However, I recognise the importance that the Roman Catholic Church attaches to the continuation of its schools and of their ethos.
  As someone who is trained in looking after the special needs of youngsters, I hope that the Government recognise the anxieties that are expressed by many people who believe that children's special needs should be met in their districts and communities. The problems that are created for the families of such children are exacerbated if they have to move far from their original communities.
  Therefore, I hope that the Minister—I believe that he shares our worries—will ensure that the Bill makes it clear that children's special needs will be recognised in all areas of Scotland, thereby preventing the problem of children being sent vast distances to meet their educational needs.
  Mr. John McAllion: As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) said, it is important to place the problem of the new local government boundaries cutting across the catchment areas of exiting schools against the background of the financial pressures from the Government under which the new single-tier authorities will find themselves—there is no doubt anywhere in Scotland about that.

  825
  The Minister in the Scottish Office with responsibility for education and housing sent me a copy of the letter that he sent to Archbishop O'Brien on 4 February, in which he said:
  "the existing arrangements for distributing resources between authorities should continue to apply after"
  local government
  "re-organisation, although the distribution will of course be driven by assessments of need in each area derived by The Scottish Office".
  Everyone knows that the Scottish Office assessment of the need for secondary school places in different parts of Scotland is that there is an excess of places in secondary schools throughout Scotland and that it expects the move to single-tier authorities to result in a decrease in secondary school places and, thus, school closures throughout Scotland. That is no secret.
  Dundee will be left with 12 secondary schools within the city boundaries, to be supported by a population of just 150,000. The Government obviously expect the new authority in Dundee, whoever happens to control it, to make savings by closing a number of places currently available to kids in Dundee. Of those 12 secondary schools, at one end of the spectrum we have the Harris academy, the Morgan academy and Menzieshill high school, which have a high number of pupils. At the other end of the spectrum, we have schools such as Linlathen and Rockwell, with only 352 and 533 pupils respectively. Pressure will be placed on the new authority to close schools that are sometimes two thirds empty. In those circumstances, the authority will look for any way in which to make savings.
  In Committee, the Minister said that funding for individual pupils will follow those pupils wherever they happen to go. If, in addition to the pressure already on the new authority to close schools in Dundee, the authority is then expected to save the money that would have funded pupils attending schools in its area and to fund pupils who cross the boundary to attend schools in a neighbouring area, it may find the position intolerable.
  The Minister knows that I am referring to Monifieth academy, one of whose main feeder primary schools will remain in the Dundee area while Monifieth academy will be in the Angus area. Will the new education authority in Dundee council be obliged to allow pupils who currently attend Barnhill primary school in Dundee to cross the boundary into Angus and be educated at Monifieth academy, or could it say that it is not prepared to fund pupils to attend a school in another area? Could it simply redraw the catchment area for the local Grove academy in Dundee and insist that children who have attended Barnhill primary school must attend Grove rather than Monifieth academy? That is a critical consideration.
  What obligations will be placed on the council in those circumstances? Could the council simply say, "Kids from Dundee can no longer attend the school in Angus. We are not prepared to fund it. We shall keep all the resources available to us within the Dundee boundaries and insist that Dundee children attend Dundee secondary schools"? If the council does not have the power to do that, in addition to closing its own schools, it will have to fund some of the children to attend schools across the boundary in another authority area. if the council can insist that children stay within Dundee, the future of Monifieth academy will not be good because it will lose a substantial number of its present school population.
  826
  I want the Minister to be absolutely clear about the position between the two authorities, Angus and Dundee, and about attendance at the school in Angus by pupils currently living in Dundee, whose catchment areas may be redesignated to focus on schools in the Dundee area.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I hope to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss special education. There is a much larger debate to be had on that subject, given the Government's failure to respond to the concerns of Enable and other organisations that deal with those with special educational needs, which were raised in Committee.
  People in central Scotland face considerable problems now that the Government have been silly enough to proceed with the three council solution, with Stirling, Clackmannan and Falkirk as separate districts. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), I have spoken to the headmasters of St. Modan's school in Stirling, Mr. John Oates, and of St. Mungo's academy in Falkirk, Mr. Hugh Lynch. The academy is in my constituency. The result of the Government's proposal is that 60 per cent. of pupils who now attend St. Modan's will not live within the catchment area of the new local authority, which will be a major problem.
  The people of Falkirk district, who are keen to have their own unitary authority to look after their citizens, will be asked to levy taxation locally to maintain the infrastructure of a school in a neighbouring local authority. Given the substantial cost of the reorganisation, they will doubtless be pressed to find the resources to look after the infrastructure of their own schools. Clearly, that will not work, cannot be sustained in the long term and cannot be justified. It is the disease within the Bill, which is driven by boundary considerations and the Government's malice. Eventually, it will weaken the educational provision within St. Modan's, cause cancerous growths in the education system within Falkirk district and kill the educational provision that the people deserve. The Government should have thought of that when they introduced the Bill. They are out to wreck education—maybe unknowingly. As I said in Committee,
  "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
  In the case of this Minister, that may be true.
  Dr. John Reid: I am not an expert on the Bill. Indeed, in the best traditions of Parliament, it was brought to my attention by constituents. Ministers and the Conservative party in Scotland grossly underestimate the feeling among ordinary men and women about the provisions in this part of the Bill.
  I shall first refer to the main problem—the slicing in half of catchment areas. The two most important educational institutions in Scotland—the secondary schools and the primary schools—were physically, geographically and demographically put in place over a period of 25 years, on the basis of existing catchment areas. They were built and structured to service those catchment areas, which are suddenly being slashed, sliced or cut away. I am glad that the Government made their concession, particularly with regard to Roman Catholic schools, but stopping at half the truth is often like telling a whole lie. Half measures are often worse than nothing at all.
  I fear that, by trying to go halfway towards meeting the problem of catchment areas and the concern of parents —particularly because of circumstances among Roman

  827
  Catholics—the Government have left to simmer a potential cause of resentment among people whose children go to non-denominational schools. There will come a time when, because of a school closure, because a particular school is full or because of a lack of parental choice, people who want their sons and daughters to go to a nondenominational school will be filled with resentment. They will blame the Government and ask the simple question, "Why have safeguards given to one section of the community not been delivered to the rest?"
  Concern about the issue was expressed to me in my constituency on a bright Friday night when most reasonable people would have wanted to do something other than attend a meeting in a public hall and listen to their Member of Parliament. On that occasion, more than 400 parents turned up because they were concerned that, after decades, their children would no longer be able to go to Uddingston grammar school. The three feeder schools that have traditionally looked to that grammar school, which is only three miles away, will find themselves, as a result of the Government's proposals, split from it. The children will have to go to another school.
  Although that school is only slightly further away, traditionally, those parents would want their children to go to it. When the practical effects of the Bill are felt, the parents of the children going to those three nondenominational schools and wishing to go to Uddingston grammar will demand to know why they do not enjoy the concessions that were given to other parents.
  Two brief points arise from that situation. The parents will not only resent the move in the long term but take action now to redirect their children from one feeder primary to another. It is well known that Bellshill academy, which is one of the alternatives to Uddingston grammar, will not be able to cope with the intake from all three primary schools. In other words, the children from one or two of them will be able, even after the introduction of the new catchment areas, to go to the traditional school.
  I predict that, over the next year or so, parents will move their children from the primary school that they anticipate will feed Bellshill to one that they anticipate will continue to feed Uddingston grammar. As a result, one of the primary schools will appear on the records as having children disappearing from its roll like snow off a dike. The head teacher will be blameless, and the school will be blameless. I know that it is a marvellous school, but the head teacher and the school's board will find that, because of the insecurity created by the changes and because they are anticipating how to get round them, people will move their children away.
  I ask the Minister even at this late stage to do what we have been asking him to do all along—preserve the catchment areas that already exist for all schools and all parents. If he does not, the freedom of choice that he likes to speak about will be theoretical, not practical. He knows that, although a theoretical freedom will obtain, the practical compulsion of a lack of finance for local authorities will mean that they fill first their own schools, not the schools that have traditionally been in their catchment areas, which will be separated from them by the new boundaries.
  4.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am glad to respond to the debate, and especially to the important points about special educational needs. I am glad to confirm that the Secretary of State has the powers to ensure that the necessary duties in this connection are carried out by education authorities. Those duties are set out in section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which requires every education authority to ensure that there is made for its area adequate and efficient provision of school education and further education. That obviously covers all special educational needs.
  A failure to fulfil that duty could bring about complaints under section 70 of the 1980 Act: the default provisions. They provide a mechanism by which the Secretary of State can, by order, require an authority to discharge the necessary duty. Accordingly, section 70 provides an opportunity, in extremis, for the Secretary of State to intervene where and when he considers that an authority has failed to discharge the necessary duty under the Act.
  Mrs. Ewing: Is the Minister satisfied that records of needs are being dealt with adequately and within the necessary time in the education system?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady asks a relevant question. Each new education authority, under the 1980 Act, will have responsibility for identifying and assessing children who require records of needs and for providing for their special educational needs as identified and recorded. I can confirm that no record of needs will be affected by the reform and the terms and obligations that the Act places on education authorities will continue in full force.
  Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 relate to clause 140. As we have said, it is not the intention of the Scottish Office to diminish or change the statutory provisions governing Catholic education in Scotland. The purpose of clause 140, which was introduced in Committee, is to clarify the arrangements under which certain changes proposed by an authority which would affect denominational schools would have to be referred to the Secretary of State for his consent. It was intended to ensure that the interests of all the children affected by a relevant proposal were taken into account.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) referred to equity. With that thought in mind when reflecting on the terms of clause 140, we came to the view that changes were necessary to the original wording. The intention was to move from a comparison between the denominational and non-denominational schools provided by a given authority to a comparison between the denominational and non-denominational education available for pupils belonging to a given authority's area, regardless of which authority managed the schools.
  In layman's language, that means that if a school's catchment area is proposed for a change, it can be compared with all available schools nearby, thus widening the interpretation. I believe that that meets the point made in this regard in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) asked a question to which I should like to reply next. Where there are proposals for catchment areas, those catchment areas will remain in place unless and until authorities seek to change them. Before that can happen,

  829
  certain statutory procedures have to be gone through, including extensive consultation with parents and others. In certain cases, the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland must be obtained. Incidentally, the 80 per cent. rule means that any school that is more than 80 per cent. full will automatically be referred.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr.McAllion) asked about the parents' choice provisions. Where a school has room to take the pupils, under the parents' choice legislation, it is obliged to do so. In certain cases, where a school is 15 per cent. full or mostly empty, there may be a case for rationalisation. That will be the same in future as it has been in the past, but full consultation would have to take place.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) asked for the numbers of schools. The Department does not at present have details on record of all school catchment areas or similar arrangements with particular secondary schools. Central Government involvement in the maps and schemes of educational provision ended 15 years ago; those are now the responsibility of local authorities. However, where the Department requires details—for example where particular issues are raised with it, or for school inspection purposes—it can establish them with the help of the education authorities.
  Mr. Canavan: That is a disgraceful admission by the Minister. He has known of the existence of the problem for six months or more. Enormous pressure has been put on the Government through letter writing, parliamentary representations, lobbies of Parliament and meetings with the Minister and he is telling us now that not only is the solution very conditional, but he does not even know the magnitude of the problem. Only the Government have the responsibility for the problem and the resources to quantify it by contacting all the local education authorities in Scotland. The Minister is now admitting that he has not even bothered do his homework before replying to the House. It is a disgrace.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I explained fully in Standing Committee that the reason for it was the non-co-operation of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. If the hon. Gentleman wants that information provided more readily, he should encourage local authorities to co-operate with the provision of information. Of course, if necessary, the Scottish Office will do it, but it is better that a job should be done by the local authorities as arranged under the 1980 Act, and that the information should be forthcoming. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular request in relation to a particular school, that matter can be followed up.
  Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister give way?
  Lord James Douglas Hamilton: No. I have answered the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Canavan: It is on the same point.
  Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I have answered the hon. Gentleman. He may not be satisfied with the answer, but that is the answer.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
  Mr. Canavan: If I tabled a parliamentary question, would the Minister reply to it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the Chair requests order, both sides should resume their seats.
  Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I shall provide the information within my possession, but I have answered the hon. Gentleman. If I have to give a rough and ready estimate without confirmation, I shall say that I believe that the number will be under 100. Some have suggested that it will be 600, but I do not believe that it will anything like as large as that. That is a rough and ready estimate; if the hon. Gentleman's tables a question I shall give as much information as I have available.
  My first concern is that new clause 4 would result in almost any proposed change to a catchment area or almost any proposal by an authority to rationalise or reorganise its position having to be referred to the Secretary of State to assess whether his consent is necessary. Apparently, under the new clause as drafted, anyone at all can trigger that process by making representation. I find it hard to believe that Opposition Members really intend that local authorities should be so constrained. The whole thrust of the Bill is to give authorities greater flexibility, as I have made clear on a number of occasions. Indeed, in certain cases they may have to rationalise.
  My second point relates to the fact that Opposition Members may claim that new clause 4 is intended to give some non-denominational schools more protection; but that would be to misunderstand the current position. I repeat that nothing in the Bill introduces new safeguards for denominational education.
  Clauses 140 and 141 clarify the existing position. Clause 140 does not introduce a new safeguard. The intention behind it is to make certain that the interests of all the children affected by any relevant proposal will be taken into account in relation to denominational education. Clause 141 removes any doubt about whether an education authority would still have a duty under section 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Non-denominational schools will be no worse off as a result of the boundary changes. The safeguards that exist at present will continue to apply—I have already mentioned the 80 per cent. rule.
  Thirdly, because the new clause would apply to all schools—both denominational and non-denominational—it would directly cut across existing safeguards for denominational schools. So the impact of new clause 4 would be to limit section 22D only to a proposal to change a denominational school into a non-denominational school. It would remove the right of the denominational body to be consulted about a proposed change in, for example, the catchment area of a denominational school.
  The new clause takes no account of the arrangements to be made for the religious instruction of pupils in denominational schools which are currently set out in section 22D. It would require the consent of the Secretary of State, even if the denominational body agreed to the proposal. New clause 4 would be a substantial weakening of the existing safeguards and, for that reason, I cannot support it.
  Mr. George Robertson: The Minister brings to the Dispatch Box the old skill that I remember from my trade union official days: if one cannot convince, then confuse. He deploys that tactic with great skill, and has brought it to the debate today. However, he is unique

  831
  in that he usually manages to confuse himself. His distance from officials today has meant that there has not been a constant stream of answers to questions.
  The Minister said that clause 140 offers no new protection to denominational schools, but the reality is that it widens protection for denominational schools where their catchment areas are affected by the boundaries that have been created through the unnecessary reorganisation. That concession was obtained as a result of a massive public campaign by the churches in Scotland, especially the Roman Catholic Church.
  I do not for a minute take away from the Roman Catholic Church's success in bringing its problems to the notice of hon. Members, but it was only one message that the Government received. In making the concession that is enshrined in clause 180, the Government have ignored the fact that all the churches in Scotland—the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland and the rest—gave the Government a united message about the danger to education as a whole posed by the reorganisation.
  The Churches warned us about what would happen. They warned us about the fragmentation of existing local authorities in Scotland, and they were right to do so. They warned that there were implications for the standards of education in Scotland and that funding difficulties would follow, as day follows night, the fragmentation of local authorities that would occur as a result of the reorganisation. They warned us that there would be an inevitable reduction in the breadth and scale of education provision for people in Scotland as a result of creating small and, in many cases, non-viable local authorities. They said that those who would suffer most as a consequence were those who presently rely on the provision of special needs education across Scotland.
  New clause 4 has nothing to do with sectarianism or creating difficulties for non-denominational or denominational schools. It is about equity; it is about providing protection for non-denominational schools, which will find their catchment areas sliced up arbitrarily by the reorganisation, in the same way as protection has been found for the denominational schools that brought their case to Parliament.
  Rather than being enhanced by the reorganisation, education in Scotland will be endangered. The new clause is one way of drawing that fact to the attention of the Scottish people. Now is not the time to divide the House about the issue or the new clause, but the issue will remain because the concerns about Scottish education are alive and real. They are shared by the churches and the wider Scottish population. Nothing that the Minister says either to convince or to confuse will reassure people who have a genuine and well-justified fear that education is in danger.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

  JOINT CHILDREN'S PANELS
  '123.-In Schedule 3 to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (Children's Panels), after paragraph 1 there shall be inserted—

  "1A-(1) Two or more local authorities may make arrangements to form a joint Children's Panel for their areas.

  832

  (2) A joint Children's Panel shall not be formed in pursuance of the arrangements made under sub-paragraph (1) above unless the authorities have obtained the consent in writing of the Secretary of State.

  (3) The Secretary of State may give a direction to two or more local authorities requiring them to form a joint Children's Panel; and the local authorities shall comply with any such direction.

  (4) The provisions of this Act shall apply, subject to any necessary modification, to a joint Children's Panel as they apply to a Children's Panel formed under paragraph 1 of this Schedule.".'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith rose—
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe rose
  Mr. John Home Robertson: She is in charge.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that was a very helpful remark from the hon. Gentleman.
  4.45 pm
  Mrs. Fyfe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: New clause 6—Reporters' Service—

  '.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the functions of existing local authorities immediately before 1st April 1996 to provide suitable accommodation and facilities for children's hearings under section 34 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and to appoint a reporter under section 36 of the said Act shall be carried out on and after that date by the councils established in terms of Part 1 of this Act.

  (2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that the functions referred to in subsection (1) of this section of two or more authorities should be discharged jointly by those authorities, he may by order establish a joint board in accordance with this section.

  (3) The provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of section 62A of the 1973 Act shall apply to a joint board established under this section as they apply to a joint board established under this section with the substitution of a reference to subsection (2) of this section for the reference to subsection (1) of that section.

  (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding subsection, the membership of the joint boards established under this section shall consist wholly of councillors elected to the authorities established under Part 1 of this Act within the areas of the joint boards.'.

  New clause 7—Children's Panel Training—
  '124.-In Schedule 3 to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (Children's Panels), in paragraph 7, after "Each local authority", for "may" there shall be substituted "shall"; and after "panel members" there shall be inserted "in accordance with such requirements as the Secretary of State may by order establish.".'.
  New clause 8—Reporter's Service Charter—
  '122.-In section 36 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (the Reporter), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
  "(4) Each Reporter will produce a Charter relating to such issues as the Secretary of State may by order define, including statements of the standards of service and hearings accommodation which are to be provided, and implementing an effective complaints procedure to ensure these standards are met.".'
  Government amendments Nos. 131 to 134 and 153.
  Mrs. Fyfe: In supporting new clause 5, I begin by saying that in part III we have yet another example of the Government heeding no one and listening to nobody. The Government's proposals are opposed by the regional children's panels and the children's panel advisory group —there cannot be more authoritative bodies than those. They have pointed out that the proposals will lead to a loss

  833
  of accountability, the use of non-local reporters, and the consequent loss of local knowledge which has been rightly valued ever since the Social Work (Scotland) Act came into force in 1968.
  Families will have to travel to more remote centres for hearings. Reporters will have less influence over resources than they have had previously, yet if the same standards are to be maintained the service will inevitably cost more. In The Herald of today Mr. Alan Finlayson, no less, asked two key questions: how do we ensure that reporters remain attached to local communities; and how will reporters continue to play an effective role with regard to the allocation of resources? Those questions remain unanswered.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State denied that this is a centralising Government and said that plans for water were an exception to the general principle. But here we have another piece of centralisation in the same Bill. He must have forgotten about it—although that is rather strange because it is part III of his own Bill, not some minor detail hidden in a sub-paragraph.
  Let us remember the alleged reasons behind part III of the Bill. This reminds me of one of the lighter moments that I witnessed when I sat in on the deliberations of the Standing Committee. The Minister said that it was all to do with consistency of professional practice and the promotion of staff training and development. He said that the principal reporter would provide a clear focus of leadership and management. But the Minister did not even know what qualifications would be required of the first person to be appointed to that post by the Secretary of State.
  One might think that, if these were the Government's intentions, they had plenty of time to consider how to implement them. The Bill was presented to Parliament last year. Under pressure from my hon. Friends and after a lot of paper passing, the Minister finally revealed that the principal reporter's qualifications would include
  "a knowledge of child-care law and child development"
  and specific details would be worked out after consultation. The first point is hardly a startling revelation and the second betrays how little thought has gone into a major part of this Bill.
  It is clear that the only reason for breaking up the reporter system and the fragmentation of the children's panels is that the current well-tried, highly regarded arrangements have to be broken up as a consequence of the Local Government Bill becoming an Act. If the Government were not fixated on breaking up local authorities, there would be no such plans.
  It is worth reminding the House that in the summer of 1993, the Government published a White Paper, "Scotland's Children", and stated that they regarded its implementation as a priority. In the autumn of 1993, not a word about it was uttered in the Queen's Speech—not a word about a Bill that we all want. Instead, we received a forewarning of this completely unwanted legislation, which has soaked up 40 sittings in Committee and hours and hours more in the Chamber and in the other place. Meanwhile, the needs of children in Scotland continue to be neglected.
  The Government put their need to gerrymander local government before the needs of children in trouble. That calculated act of neglect will be neither forgiven nor forgotten. With only six months until the next Queen's Speech, the possibility of a comprehensive Bill introducing
  834
  for Scotland legislation such as that which England and Wales have enjoyed for five years will be included. There can be no excuse for further delay—otherwise the Government's mention of priority loses all meaning. We demand no further delay in presenting a children's Bill for Scotland. Let us get that long-awaited legislation on the statute book.
  If the Government say that they mean to introduce such a Bill this autumn, why press ahead with part III of this Bill, which cannot come into force until 1996—long after we could be finished with a children's Bill that could speed through the House? Much of its likely content is not in dispute between parties, and we agree on much in the White Paper.
  I remind the House why legislation for children is needed. If this mother of Parliaments were a real mother, the neighbours would all be talking about her. Parliament consistently neglects the needs of children. There have been a number of major inquiries resulting in massive tomes of crucial recommendations, Law Commission reports, and recommendations from the United Nations and European Union—but Parliament always finds more important things to talk about.
  Ministers display a lack of interest in our nation's children, which makes me wonder whether they realise that children are part of the human race. In Scotland alone in 1992, 40 children lost their lives in road accidents, 857 suffered serious accidents, and there were more than 4,000 casualties. What a carnage. What a sad and sickening waste of young lives. When the Minister, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), was asked the total cost to the NHS and ambulance services that year of accidents involving children, he replied that such information was not available.
  That is not the only thing that the Minister does not know. What percentage of children with severe disabilities have access to respite care? He does not know. What is the Minister's estimate of the number of children in Scotland who go hungry every day? He does not have one. What is his estimate of the number of 17 to 20–year-old offenders who were in care before the age of 16? What is his estimate of the number of children with mental health problems? How many children are the principal carers of sick or disabled parents or close relatives? To all those questions, the hon. Member for Eastwood replied, "This information is not held centrally."
  The Minister can tell us how many girls in Scotland are named Mary and how many boys are named Jack. Is not it time that the Minister stopped wasting the time of civil servants discovering the most popular boys' and girls' names, if civil servants cannot devote some of their time to researching the scale of sheer misery that is needlessly endured by too many of our nation's children?
  In Inverness, the Prime Minister said:
  "We must focus attention once more on the essential concerns of the people we represent."
  This Parliament could do nothing more essential than focus on the needs of our young. We will not vote on the new clause because it is our firm belief that the Government themselves must deal with matters with proper seriousness, in a comprehensive Bill presented without delay. Part III of the Bill should be withdrawn.
  Full discussion about the reporter service and children's panels should take place where it belongs—in debate on a

  835
  comprehensive children's Bill for children in difficulties, not on a Bill that was created by and for a Government in difficulties.
  Mr. Galbraith: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for any confusion that I may have caused at the start of the debate.
  I support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) in respect of the new clause and children's panels. It is inappropriate to have introduced that provision while we still await a proper children's Bill. Only in the context of such a Bill can we consider the future and structure of children's panels.
  In Committee, the Minister made great play of the reasons for centralising children's panels, in respect of general and national standards and training. The Secretary of State gave the real reason away in the White Paper, "Scotland's Children". Paragraph 6.13 states:
  "Reporters. The plans for local government reorganisation will create an increased number of local authorities. If the reporter service remained a local authority service, this would lead to a significant increase in the number of reporter's departments, including the number of small departments."
  That is the reason for creating a central reporter. The Government are damned by their own Bill.
  Any reasonable person might say that as local government reorganisation will upset children's panels, there should be no reorganisation. Instead, the Government are going ahead with reorganising children's panels on the basis not of what is good for the care of children but of what is good for the Conservative party. That is at the heart of the problem. It will do the children of this country no good to suffer a deterioration in services to them for the benefit of Government gerrymandering.
  I argue for the retention of children's services at local level not just because I am generally opposed to centralisation but because existing children's legislation has a severe legal deficit. Large parts of it infringe justice, not only for children and parents but others. That deficit can partly be redressed because the existing system of local representatives and regional councils are under the direct authority of those involved and are answerable to local people. Once the service in centralised, it will be more difficult to redress the legal and justice deficit.
  The Government acknowledge that problem. Paragraph 5.11 of the White Paper deals with child protection orders and paragraph 5.16 states that
  "justice is the right of children and parents to appeal in a court with legal representation …Justice is reinforced by the European Convention of Human Rights, which emphasises rights through legal process. It is clearly necessary to ensure that any changes in legislation would satisfy the standards of both Conventions."
  The Government recognise that justice deficit in respect of not only children but their parents. I remind the Minister that others are involved. Grandparents are one example. They have no legal redress once accusations are made against them.
  Children's cases are difficult. The burden of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt, for the sheriff. As the law stands, the child's welfare is paramount—but we must not allow that to blackmail us into removing justice. Although the current system does not redress the imbalance of justice, it goes some way to allowing people to speak up on behalf of others.
  Decisions of fact are made by the sheriff. In that case, parents have a right of appeal, but others who are the
  836
  subject of allegations have no rights. The case may go to the reporter. He can make exclusion and other orders against individuals against whom allegations have been made, but those individuals have no rights to present their case to the children's panel. In other words, accusations and allegations can be made, and there is no redress whatever under any part of the legislation. That cannot be an acceptable position within our current legal constraints, and it definitely is an infringement of the European convention on human rights. The Government are aware of that, but until they address it and introduce legislation to deal with it, the only means through which those involved have any source of redress is by the children's panels being local, with their local representatives being able to get involved and to speak to the children's panel and the social work department. Let us get some equity in the Bill.
  5 pm
  There are suggestions in the White Paper on how that might be dealt with, in the section that deals with the exclusion of abusers. The orders will have to be made by a sheriff, not just the children's panel. If that is the case, I hope that those involved, if they are not parents, could have some access at that stage. It is premature of the Government to go ahead at this stage and form a national system with a chief reporter—a system that will withdraw the last vestiges of justice for many. The children have rights of justice, as does everyone else involved. Until the Government address that, and given the relationship of the Bill to the White Paper, they should withdraw their amendments and plans to introduce a centralised children's reporter system.
  Mr. Dalyell: May I, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say a word quite legitimately to those of our colleagues who did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee, and improperly to the Members of the House of Lords who will have to take up the questions that we ask? We really did try in an honest way to elicit answers to urgent questions, which were asked long before the Bill went to Committee, from the Association of Directors of Social Work, and many experts in the field, of all parties and none. A really serious attempt was made to do that. I have to say that, having been around here for a very long time, I have never served on a Committee considering a Bill where there have been so few answers. Having combed through what was done in Committee, I should like to put, as is my wont—my colleagues know it only too well and will soon be relieved—
  Mr. George Foulkes: How many?
  Mr. Dalyell: Eleven this time. Eleven unanswered questions. First, why are the Government making these ad hoc changes and not implementing the Finlayson report? The Finlayson committee worked absolutely seriously on the issue. No attempt has been made to implement its report. I try again. Why not?
  Secondly, what specific evidence can the Government produce to justify the reporters' service becoming non-accountable at a local level? The truth is that it is becoming unaccountable.
  Thirdly, why are the Government ignoring the advice of the regional councils, children's panels and the directors of social work and proceeding to establish a centralised reporters' service? My hon. Friend the Member for

  837
  Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and others tried hard in this area to get some rational reply. We failed. No kind of answer was given to that.
  Fourthly, how much autonomy will "local" reporters have in giving time to "corporate" local government child care matters?
  Fifthly, who will determine how much time a "local" reporter gives to a local area? That is left entirely in the air. It is a very practical issue.
  Sixthly, who will determine the length of time that a reporter remains in a particular area, and on what basis will that be decided?
  Seventhly, in what areas of policy, practice, resources and finance will local reporters be prescribed by instructions from the principal reporter? That has not been replied to.
  Eighthly, how will the Government ensure, in the new system, that sufficient panel numbers are recruited for each area? Will that happen by alchemy, by magic? How will proper training be provided for all panel members? How will there be consistency across all panel areas? That has not been answered at all.
  Ninthly, what is the role and position of the children's panel advisory committee in the present system?
  Tenthly, why is there no provision in the Bill to enable the creation of a joint panel to cover a number of local authority areas?
  Eleventhly, how do the Government intend to secure the public accountability of a national reporters' service? If such accountability is to be through the Scottish children's reporter administration, how is the independence of the principal reporter in operational matters to be maintained? If it is not, to whom will the administration be accountable?
  If we do not get answers this afternoon, I hope that the other place will take up those questions, and many others, in detail about this wretched, pernicious and, indeed, wicked Bill.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not intend to speak for long, as my voice is a bit croaky, as hon. Members can hear.
  I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I had the immense privilege, when a councillor, to be around when the children's panels were first set up. Indeed, I was one of the first members of the Children's Panel Advisory Committee and we set up the training and selection procedures for people who were to work on the children's panels. There may have been criticism from time to time about particular areas, but by and large that system has been accepted as one of the best systems of justice for children that there has been in Scotland for many years. The system has been looked at by people from all over the world, and looked at to learn lessons from. It is strange that we should alter a system without any clear guidelines and without any real reasons.
  I have been approached in the city of Aberdeen by councillors, of all political parties, who normally would not cross the road to speak to me, but they have come to see me in my surgery. They have written to me to say that they are utterly appalled at the effects of the establishment of a centralised reporting system. They just do not know what will replace it, or how the individual local input will be brought about.
  838
  One of the tragedies of the Bill is that, having decided to break up the regional council system—let us leave aside the party argument about whether we were all in favour of unitary authorities; for or against the regions, and the rest —the Government had not thought of the consequences on all the different areas of policy. Then they woke up afterwards and said, "We are breaking up the system, which had been working very well. We will have to find some way of replacing it. We shall have a centralised reporting system." It makes my blood run cold when I hear Ministers at the Dispatch Box say that it will all be done in the name of efficiency; that there will be savings; that it will be done better; and that there will be greater productivity.
  In the children's panel system, we cannot put productivity, or so-called "efficiency", before the needs of children and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said, before the needs of parents and grandparents. Therefore, there may be some local authority areas—it is not our fault—which cannot sustain a full reporting service on their own. If one breaks things up, one ends up with fragments of a jigsaw that are not the right size and perhapss have to be shaped and fitted to suit, but these new clauses would allow local control, local accountability and local service. I ask the Government not to be blinkered by previous decisions, to look at the practical realities of what we need and accept the new clauses.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, let me tell the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) that we recognise the strong case for legislation on the care of children. Many of the points that he raised would be relevant to a Bill on that subject and we shall consider introducing legislation when time is available.
  We think it extremely important for high standards and continuity to be followed in the reporter service. One reason why we wanted to proceed on this basis was the lack of viability of some authorities under the 32-authority structure that had been proposed. The Finlayson report highlighted the great limitations on the resources of small departments, and on their ability to keep up to date with wider information on the progress of child care cases.
  I was asked about closer working relationships. It will be for the principal reporter to determine the location and disposition of staff, starting from their present location and assessing local demands and conditions. The reporter staff will be based locally, but in some cases they will operate between several local authority areas. The principal reporter will regard as a major priority the maintenance of links with children's panels and with local authorities, to progress the best interests of children.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked me about qualifications. The principal reporter will have a degree or equivalent qualifications in relevant subjects; he will have knowledge of child care law and child development in general and he will have knowledge and experience of deciding on referrals of children who may need compulsory care measures.
  Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 are technical. They are designed to clarify the scope of the Secretary of State's power under section 36 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to make rules in relation to the duties of reporters. The amendments will ensure that that power will cover all the functions of the principal reporter—that is, his powers

  839
  as well as his duties. They also clarify the functions of the principal reporter as those to be conferred on him by the 1968 Act and the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
  Let me deal next with amendments Nos. 133, 134 and 153. A little later, I shall discuss our reaction to new clause 7, which is similar, but in the meantime the House may wish to note the details of the amendments. They seek to place an inescapable duty on local authorities, in place of the existing discretion under the 1968 Act, to make such arrangements as they consider appropriate to enable the Children's Panel Advisory Committee to obtain names of possible panel members for submission to the Secretary of State, and also to train panel members—or possible panel members. A consequential amendment is made to the title of the Bill. The amendments will ensure that local authorities make appropriate arrangements following restructure.
  From the time of the introduction of the hearings system in 1971 until the introduction of regional authorities, the previous smaller authorities are not recorded as having had any major difficulty in recruiting panel members. I suspect that new clause 5 was tabled primarily as a result of the concern expressed by some that currently in certain areas in the larger regional authorities it is difficult to recruit new members. The new authorities in those areas will be unable to maintain the required number of members.
  It is important to remember that the new unitary authorities will restore local identity in many ways and will have a sharper focus on panel membership, which should help to overcome any perceived problems.
  I ask the House to resist the new clause. We are, of course, investing in appropriate recruitment programmes for panels in the new areas.
  Mr. Dalyell: What exactly does the Minister mean by smaller authorities having a "sharper focus"? How is it possible to have a "sharper focus" on such matters?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I mean that we expect local authorities in future, because of their size and disposition, to be more responsive to local circumstances. As I just said, we shall be investing considerably in appropriate recruitment programmes for panels in the new areas and we believe that that will be of assistance.
  New clause 6 is directly opposed to the changes envisaged in the Bill. It would continue the reporter service within local authorities, but with one change—provision for authorities to create joint boards to administer the reporter service. That is a step towards overcoming the acknowledged limitations of small reporters' departments based on local councils, but we regard it as not nearly sufficient to ensure what we consider to be the necessary high standards of efficiency and effectiveness in the reporter service, which children and their families have a right to expect. In our view, those standards can best be obtained centrally through the new administration and the principal reporter. I ask the House to reject the new clause.
  That brings me to new clause 7. Local authorities play a vital part in supporting children's panel advisory committees in their task of recruiting local panel members; they also play a crucial role in arranging training for panels, complementing the strong support that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gives to panel member training. I have no difficulty in accepting the thinking
  840
  behind the first part of the new clause, which replaces the existing discretion of a local authority with a duty to make arrangements that it thinks appropriate for the support of the CPAC and the training of panel members; that intention is met by Government amendment No. 134.
  5.15 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the proposals include the establishment of a national advisory committee in connection with the role played by the chief reporter? Can the decisions of a chief reporter be appealed against and, if so, to whom should people appeal? The Secretary of State?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I know of no such proposals, but I will make inquiries and inform the hon. Gentleman of the outcome.
  Overall, new clause 7 strikes us as too restrictive and ultimately inconsistent in qualifying the local authority's discretion by empowering the Secretary of State to lay down by a formal order requirements for the authority to observe in exercising its discretion. We therefore cannot accept the latter part of the amendment. As I have said, if there is any default in duty the Secretary of State can take action under the necessary provisions laid down in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
  New clause 8 seeks to insert a new provision to require each reporter to produce a charter relating to such issues as the Secretary of State may define, including standards of service, the accommodation of hearings and a complaints procedure. The new clause is cast on the assumption that reporters will continue to be appointed by local authorities and is opposed to the provision for a new reporter administration in part III. For that reason alone, I must reject the new clause and I ask the House to resist it.
  Mr. McLeish: I think that it is the common view of the Opposition that that was a disgraceful speech on a very serious issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, we need a children's Bill: it is ridiculous beyond extreme that we should be faced with the nonsense in this Bill without such legislation.
  The Minister may differ from the official line that he has given us, but in a Scottish Office context this is a humiliation for those who care deeply about the service. It is a kick in the teeth for those who pioneered the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, developing it into a unique system to deal with children. Now the Government are not only walking away from their responsibilities, but destroying the spirit and fabric of what some people took decades to build up.
  Out of the mouths of babes and Ministers! We do hear some fascinating comments. We now know that the new councils lack viability. We have small departments, and of course we are concerned about child care. We are discussing some of the most sensitive issues in social policy—the future and sensitive care of children. The Minister has accepted that there are concerns about child care; how on earth can he then set up a council the size of Clackmannan, covering 47,000 people? What are the Government up to? It beggars belief. I should like to be charitable and say that they are confused, but I cannot be charitable—[HoN. MEMBERS: "They are malicious.") Yes, malicious is the word, because there is a deep intention to undermine the fabric of an excellent service. Instead of

  841
  introducing the Bill and the investment that are needed, the utter nonsense that we have heard is paraded as a reply to serious questions and to the serious initiatives in the new clauses.
  I warn the Minister that we shall continue to return to the issue. It is important that eventually some organisation and some groups in the House start to take the future of Scottish children seriously. Even if the Government will not do that, Scottish children can rest assured that in the hands of a Labour Government they will have the investment and the concern that they deserve. I do not intend to divide the House on the matter, but I ask the Government to believe our warning. They are an absolute disgrace and everything that they have said on the subject serves only to reinforce our deep suspicion that, for them, everything is market oriented, and that the needs of children in Scotland are going by default.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 9

  JOINT PASSENGER TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State may, on an application in that regard by two or more local authorities, by order establish a passenger transport authority for the purposes of Part II of the Transport Act 1968 for such part of their areas as he considers appropriate.
  (2) The provisions of sections 40 and 41 of, and Schedule 5 to, this Act shall apply with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit to a passenger transport authority established under this section as they apply to the Authority established by the said section 40.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall not unreasonably refuse any application made under subsection (1) above.
  (4) Any passenger transport authority established under this section shall have the same powers as a local authority under section 138 of the Transport Act 1968 (travel concessions).'.—[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 take the following: New clause 12—Regional concessionary travel schemes—

  '.—(1) The groups of local authorities listed in subsection (3) below shall establish joint boards for the purpose of operating travel concession schemes under Section 93 of the Transport Act 1985.

  (2) The costs of concessionary travel schemes operated under this section shall be distributed between the member authorities of each joint board proportionately on the basis of population.

  (3) The groups of authorities to establish joint boards under this section are:—

  (a) City of Edinburgh Council, East and Midlothian Council, and West Lothian Council;

  (b) City of Dundee Council; Angus Council and Perthshire and Kinross Council;

  (c) City of Aberdeen Council; Aberdeenshire Council; and Moray Council; and

  (d) Stirling Council and Clackmannan and Falkirk Council.'.

  Amendment No. 167, in clause 40, page 38, line 29, at end insert—
  '(1A) The passenger transport area of the Authority shall consist of the local government areas of Argyll and Bute, City of Glasgow, Dumbarton and Clydebank, East Dunbartonshire, Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire, East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire.'.
  Amendment No. 168, in page 38, leave out line 37.
  842
  Government amendments Nos. 183, 286, 298, 299, 228, 212, 232 and 192.
  Mr. Canavan: I shall begin by reading a joint statement made at a meeting held in Edinburgh on 11 April between representatives of Central, Grampian, Lothian and Tayside regional councils:
  "We believe that there is a danger that the reorganisation of Scottish local government will jeopardise the existing concessionary travel schemes.
  We are extremely concerned about the effect that this could have on older people and people with disabilities who rely on these schemes.
  We call on the Government to act to ensure that statutory provision is made to safeguard the present concessionary travel arrangements following the proposed reorganisation of local government."
  Representatives of voluntary organisations that care for elderly and disabled people—the main beneficiaries of concessionary travel schemes—were also present at the meeting.
  New clauses 9 and 12 would help to implement the demands of that joint statement, by introducing a statutory provision to assist with the continuation of the existing concessionary travel schemes.
  I am sure that when the Minister replies he will refer us to section 93 of the Transport Act 1985, which is about travel concession schemes. That section says, inter alia:
  "Any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, may establish a travel concession scheme".
  The important word is "may". The 1985 Act says not "shall" but "may". However, subsection (1) of new clause 12 says:
  "The groups of local authorities listed in subsection (3) below shall establish joint boards".
  The word there is "shall". In other words, a permissive power is given to local authorities under the Transport Act 1985, but new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friends, is much stronger and would place a statutory duty on local authorities to act jointly in setting up joint boards to continue the travel concession schemes operating under section 93 of the 1985 Act.
  It is significant that the four groups of authorities listed in the new clause make up exactly the areas of the four regional councils that sent representatives to the meeting on 11 April. The authorities in the first group cover the area of Lothian regional council, those in the second group cover Tayside, and those in the third group cover Grampian. The fourth group covers the area of what is now Central regional council.
  I shall deal in detail with Central region. As the House knows, if the Government have their way that region will be split into three parts—Clackmannan, Falkirk and Stirling. I have a letter here from Councillor John Connolly, the convenor of technical services for the regional council, and on behalf of his council he reiterates the fears expressed at the meeting in Edinburgh.
  The main worry is that not all three proposed successor authorities to Central regional council may have the financial resources or, indeed, the political ability or will to maintain the full range of benefits that Central regional council now provides.
  There are already variations throughout Scotland between the exact details of the concessionary fares schemes operated by one regional council area and another. It is claimed that some are more generous than others. Central regional council has a scheme which appears to me

  843
  generous and fair, and I doubt whether the successor councils will have sufficient resources or will cover the breadth of area required, to operate such a scheme.
  Cross-boundary travel is already possible. In Central region, for example, it is possible to benefit from the concessionary fares scheme not only when making journeys within the region but when making journeys from within the region to places as far away as Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fort William and Oban. But under the Government's proposals, even a comparatively short journey between, say, Stirling and Falkirk would be a cross-boundary journey. To get from Falkirk to Alloa or vice versa one would have to travel through Kincardine, and, therefore, through the area of Fife council. That could present all sorts of problems of co-operation between the different authorities.
  As we have already said with reference to school catchment areas, it is not enough to rely on the good will of the successor authorities. We want statutory obligations to be written in. That is where new clauses 9 and 12 would help.
  The present Central regional council scheme covers rail travel, too. The authority has been able to negotiate a successful discount scheme with ScotRail, mainly because it is a comparatively large authority with the resources to negotiate such a scheme. If smaller authorities had to take the initiative, get together and thrash out their own priorities and then go to the trouble of getting together with a view to entering into a joint scheme with ScotRail, they might decide not to bother. That is why it is important that there should be a statutory obligation, as proposed in the new clause.
  Another difficulty is that transport operators will have many more travel passes with which to contend. There may already be slight difficulties when pensioners and disabled people travel from one region to another. Perhaps some of the Strathclyde bus operators are not too familiar with the sort of pass issued in Central region, but that is a small problem compared with the enormous ones the operators will face when dealing with all the different bus passes from the much larger number of council areas. That will lead to a rise in administrative costs for bus operators and, possibly, for councils.
  5.30 pm
  I want to refer to the very positive achievements of Central regional council since it was created in 1975. Previously, there were various smaller authorities that either entirely or partly formed Central region. Two of the previous authorities had no concessionary travel schemes and not one authority included rail travel in whatever schemes were operated.
  Central regional council successfully introduced rail travel concessions and was the first local authority outside London to set up a taxi concessionary scheme. As a result of the council's policy, there has been a 46 per cent. increase in the number of people using travel passes—from 28,000 in 1975 to 41,000 now. That is a significant achievement.
  I hope that the Minister will pay tribute to the positive achievements of Central regional council and that he will respond positively to our demands for a statutory obligation to be placed on the proposed new councils, if he is determined to go ahead with them, to set up joint
  844
  schemes to continue concessionary travel and, under new clause 9(2), for the Secretary of State to ensure the setting up of joint passenger transport authorities.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for what he said about the meeting in Edinburgh on 11 April, which I helped to organise, between Lothian regional council and the other east coast regional councils, with the aim of highlighting the likely impact of the Bill on the concessionary travel schemes in Scotland's east coast regions.
  As I was responsible for drafting new clauses 9 and 12, I had better speak to them. New clause 9 would enable groups of Scottish local authorities to establish passenger transport authorities to serve their areas. It gives the House and the Government an opportunity to consider the important issues that we raised in Committee on 17 March and, I hope, to reach a positive conclusion.
  If the Government are genuinely interested in letting elected local authorities take the lead in local decision making, they should accept the new clause. If they do not, people will draw the conclusion that the Scottish Office is determined to keep control of local transport initiatives in Whitehall and out of the hands of elected Scottish local authorities.
  New clause 12 provides for the protection of concessionary travel schemes for pensioners and disabled people in the regions of Lothian, Grampian, Tayside and Central. They are valuable, vital schemes which could be destroyed by the Government's decision to dismantle those four east coast regions.
  I have very strong feelings about transport. First, I represent a semi-rural constituency where people need good public transport to get to and from work and for access to shops, doctors, friends and most other things in life. Secondly, I am sponsored by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, which represents the interests of staff in the transport industry.
  The Bill is full of discrepancies and contradictions. We dealt with boundaries yesterday and we now have 29 supposedly all-purpose authorities on the Scottish mainland, ranging from the City of Glasgow with 620,000 people to the district of Clackmannan with 48,000 people, all with identical sets of comprehensive functions. To put it mildly, the picture is confusing.
  Clause 40 relates to transport, but appears to be rather discriminatory. It re-invents Strathclyde region for the purpose of transport arrangements. I welcome that, but it is somewhat odd in a Bill which the Prime Minister, no less, said was intended to destroy the so-called monstrosity of Strathclyde. The clause makes statutory provision for continuing co-operation between the new authorities on Strathclyde that are in the Strathclyde passenger transport authority, with its commuter rail and bus services, investment programme, region-wide concessionary travel scheme and everything else. However, there is absolutely no provision for such co-ordination of services in other parts of Scotland.
  I am delighted that the Strathclyde PTA is being retained, but we are entitled to demand equal opportunities and rights for people in other parts of Scotland. That is our key point this evening. Strathclyde PTA has valuable opportunities, rights and finances. Since it was established in 1975, it has opened 42 new railway stations, its subsidies have halved rail fares for people in the region, it provides

  845
  3,400 park-and-ride spaces at stations in the region and, as a passenger transport executive, it has access to substantial funding for the development of passenger transport services under section 56 of the 1968 Transport Act. It can buy its own trains, in co-operation with ScotRail, to run on local lines. It also helps to develop bus services.
  All those measures have contributed to an increase in the use of public transport in Strathclyde—there is a similar story in a number of other regions in Scotland—while in other parts of the country the use of public transport has contracted since deregulation in 1986.
  New clause 12 would enable authorities outside Strathclyde to get together to establish PTAs that could take advantage of the same opportunities. It would not force them to do so—as the Government are quite rightly doing with Strathclyde—but it would make it possible for them to do so if they wished. For example, the conurbation around Edinburgh is the largest in the United Kingdom that does not have a passenger transport executive.
  There are significant traffic and transport problems in the Lothian area, including congestion on the Forth road bridge. The Government, for reasons that are not entirely clear—but we have our suspicions—are encouraging private developers to construct a second road bridge, with all the extra roads, traffic and environmental disruption that that would generate. Instead, the Lothian and Fife passenger transport authority might well be able to develop rail services and take other initiatives that would avoid the need for a second road bridge.
  New clause 9 would leave the door open for PTAs in other parts of Scotland besides Strathclyde. It would not commit the Government to anything and I urge the Minister to consider it positively. New clause 12 deals with concessionary travel, pensioners and disabled people.
  Again, we must charge the Government with outrageous discrimination against people in certain parts of Scotland. Happily, Fife, Highland, Borders and Dumfries and Galloway will be able to maintain their regional schemes because their boundaries remain intact. Strathclyde is okay, because the Government provided for the Strathclyde passenger transport executive to carry on its excellent work.
  We must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for an amendment in Committee, following representations from the Strathclyde Elderly Forum, to provide specifically that Strathclyde PTE is required to operate a travel concession scheme across the region. There is an excellent scheme just now, with a flat-rate fare of 25p per journey and we hope that that can be continued.
  The elderly and disabled in my constituency and throughout Lothian, Grampian, Tayside and Central regions are being left in the lurch by the legislation. Those four regions are to be broken up into small authorities, and the main cities and towns will be separated from their landward areas. There is considerable doubt about whether it will be possible to establish new concessionary schemes to let pensioners and disabled people travel across those new boundaries to and from cities at reduced fares.
  I want to concentrate on the area that I know best—Lothian region, and my constituency of East Lothian. Lothian regional council has issued 135,000 concessionary travel passes to pensioners and disabled people throughout the region. Those people can make any journey by bus or train right across the region for a maximum fare of 30p,
  846
  whether it is a short hop within the city of Edinburgh or a long haul from one of the small outlying villages in East Lothian into the city.
  The scheme is extremely popular and successful, and 33 million trips in total are made each year by card holders. The scheme is greatly appreciated, as I have been told again and again by organisations such as Age Concern Scotland, the Scottish Old Age Pensioners Association and Disability Scotland, and by hundreds of people in my constituency.
  The legislation is putting those vital travel concessions in the east coast regions in jeopardy for two reasons; the first is administrative and the second is financial. The administrative problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West said, is genuine and it has been put to me by bus operators.
  Lothian is to have four new authorities. If each of those authorities ends up with a distinct concession scheme which has separate cards, is subject to separate financial arrangements with operators and often involves journeys crossing two or more authority areas, life will be very complicated for the authorities, the bus and train conductors and—above all—for pensioners and disabled people. That is the administrative problem.
  The financial problems pose the biggest threat of all. The Minister keeps telling us that there is nothing to stop the new local authorities getting together to run joint schemes. He is wrong—there is an impossible financial hurdle. It is quite straightforward and relatively cheap to carry large numbers of people over short distances within cities, but it is far more expensive to carry small numbers of passengers over long distances in rural and semi-rural areas.
  I have been advised that the average cost of a concessionary trip within Edinburgh is 56p. After the concessionary fare of 30p has been paid, the cost of the subsidy is 26p per journey for a trip within the city. In the outlying areas of East Lothian, West Lothian and Midlothian the average cost is 80p a trip, so the subsidy is 50p per journey—almost double the subsidy which applies in cities.
  If the scheme is to be continued with the same flat-rate fare across Lothian region, either the three outer-Lothian authorities will have to budget for a far heavier share of the cost of the scheme—and so set a significantly higher council tax—or the new City of Edinburgh council will have to hand over a chunk of its budget to subsidise people from outside its boundaries. Bluntly, that is not realistic and is most unlikely to happen.
  In Committee and in meetings, the Minister insisted that the new councils will have powers under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 to run joint concessionary travel schemes. I put it to him now, as I did then, that the administrative and financial constraints which I have just described make that very unlikely.
  I asked the Minister for examples of such joint schemes in a parliamentary question on 27 April. He replied:
  "From the information we have available, there are no joint concessionary travel schemes currently operating in Scotland."—[Official Report, 27 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 219.]
  I asked identical questions to the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Wales, and those questions revealed a short list of co-operative schemes, mostly involving co-operation between counties and districts or boroughs

  847
  within those counties. There is very little evidence of cross-boundary schemes of the type that we need to preserve in Lothian, Grampian, Tayside and Central.
  The excellent concessionary travel schemes work well at present and are greatly appreciated by pensioners and disabled people who are able to travel to and from cities for shopping, to go to hospital or to visit friends. As it stands, the legislation could put all that in jeopardy in the four east coast regions of Lothian, Central, Grampian and Tayside. That is discriminatory, unjustifiable and unnecessary. I commend the new clauses to the House.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 9, which aims to safeguard the excellent concessionary travel scheme in Lothian region and, of course, there are similar schemes which need to be safeguarded throughout Scotland.
  We have heard that 135,000 passes have been issued by Lothian and that 33 million trips have been made a year, costing the regional council more than £6 million a year. The service is highly valued by pensioners and by disabled people in Lothian.
  I want to speak because many people have approached me and have come down to London to lobby Committee Members on the vital issue. They feel particularly aggrieved that protection has been given to other parts of Scotland. We all welcome the protection that has been given to Strathclyde, and one or two people may even have realised that protection was given to the whole of London by the Transport Act 1985 when the Bill that deregulated the buses in London was introduced to the House; a specific guarantee was given about concessionary travel. The people of Lothian, and other parts of Scotland, feel that they should have the same protection as people in London, Glasgow and elsewhere.
  Threats will arise if the Bill goes through as it stands. One unlikely threat would be if we were to have a Tory council out of the four in Lothian. That seems highly unlikely after 5 May, but we must remember that, until 10 years ago, there had never been a majority Labour council in Edinburgh. It is unlikely to go back to a similar situation, but there would be a threat if a Tory council were elected.
  That may be why the Government do not want to do anything. The Bill is creating flagship Tory enclaves and they want those small councils to have the freedom not to have concessionary travel schemes.
  The second threat is financial. How can small councils support those schemes? The third, and most immediate, threat is administrative and practical. The danger is that, with four councils in Lothian, the whole scheme could fragment and it will be impossible in practical terms to administer it. That point was made forcefully and in detail to me by senior officials from Lothian region.
  At present, the scheme works on the basis of an average bus journey and there is a refund by the council of the difference between the average cost of a journey on a particular route and the flat rate of 30p. It will become practically impossible to administer that scheme if journeys have to go across two or three authorities and the different authorities decide to subsidise at varying levels.
  One may imagine the scene when a bus gets to a border between East Lothian and Edinburgh, and the driver has to
  848
  stop to say that all the pensioners and disabled people must have their tickets clocked in again. It is not practically possible to administer the scheme, and that is genuinely believed by senior officials of Lothian region.
  The new clause suggests joint boards. In the long run, the setting up of a passenger transport executive would perhaps be best, but joint boards could do something to ensure that a unified scheme was installed. I know that it would be highly embarrassing for the Government to do that, but they have done it in other areas such as fire and police. The Government would, in a sense, be recognising " that we need larger authorities. Of course, I believe that we do need Lothian region and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, aspects of the legislation almost do re-invent the region. It would be politically embarrassing, but it is necessary and I hope that the Government do it.
  Some 1.2 million pensioners and disabled people in Scotland rely on the scheme, and they want a guarantee from the Government which has not been given so far. If they do not get that guarantee, they will be in an impossible position. It will be too expensive for them to stay in their homes, because of VAT on fuel, and too expensive for them to go out of their homes, because of the disintegration of the concessionary travel scheme.
  Mr. George Foulkes: I want to deal with the area of the new Strathclyde passenger transport executive after reorganisation and, in particular, with amendments Nos. 167 and 168. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is not about to leave because, unfortunately, I am sure with the best will in the world, he perpetuated a misunderstanding about the area of the new Strathclyde passenger transport authority.
  As was revealed in detail in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), it is proposed that after reorganisation the Strathclyde PTA will cover only Glasgow and the Lanarkshire conurbation and not the whole of Strathclyde.
  Mr. Home Robertson: That is not what they said in Committee.
  Mr. Foulkes: It has even come as a revelation to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Probably to the Minister as well.
  Mr. Foulkes: No. To be fair, I understand from other sources that the Minister is aware of the matter. When I went with members of the Strathclyde Elderly Forum to see the Minister, we received a polite, courteous and fruitful reception. Elderly people in the delegation argued that old people needed to get out and about and to stay fit and healthy, that that would ultimately result in savings for the Government, and that it was a false economy to cut concessionary fair schemes because old people would end up prematurely requiring hospital treatment and old folks' homes.
  There and then, the Minister agreed to table an amendment to ensure that, as well as individual councils in the Strathclyde area, the Strathclyde PTA would be given the power to organise a concessionary fair scheme. That was welcome.
  As soon as we realised, however, that the Strathclyde PTA area would cover only the Glasgow-Lanarkshire

  849
  conurbation, a number of us from Renfrewshire, Dunbartonshire and Ayrshire expressed concern that elderly people in those areas would not be able to continue to take advantage of the Strathclyde scheme if the PTA did not cover their areas.
  The issue involves not only concessionary fares but co-ordination of public transport services. The Strathclyde passenger transport executive co-ordinates public transport services extremely well. I understand that Steven Lockley, the chief executive of that organisation, has made representations to the Government and is strongly in favour of the extension, or at least the continuation, of the proposed Strathclyde PTA area so that it will cover the present Strathclyde area.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian said, the Strathclyde name and area will continue for the fire and police services. Although Strathclyde council will not exist, there will be a Strathclyde fire authority and a Strathclyde police authority. There is no reason why there should not be a Strathclyde PTA covering the whole of Strathclyde. That is why we have tabled the new clause.
  I cannot confess that I have had total success in persuading Ministers to accept our suggestions. I achieved one or two positive things in Committee. The word "chairman" will no longer be used for the head of the authority—"convener" will be used instead. The Government have tabled amendments to that effect. Those changes are welcome. Occasionally, however, it would be helpful if one or two Conservative Members supported one of my amendments.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) supports the extension of the Strathclyde PTA area to cover the whole of Ayrshire, whether it be a unitary authority or three authorities covering north, south and east Ayrshire. I hope that the Minister will find that to be a compelling argument.
  Mr. Worthington: I support my hon. Friend on this point. As a result of the use of the word "Strathclyde", there is a misunderstanding that the concessionary fare scheme will extend to the whole of Strathclyde, but it will not. It is important that the boundaries of the PTA are extended. In the Clydebank and Dumbarton authority, we shall have the absurd situation whereby Clydebank people will be able to take advantage of the concessionary fare scheme, but those in Dumbarton will not. That is a recipe for dissent. I hope that we shall not have part of a district in the PTA area and part of it outside.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for his support but for giving an excellent illustration of the anomalies that will arise. The spokesman for the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) will be pleased to hear that that has saved me from giving a number of other illustrations.
  I am sure that the Minister is aware of the anomalies and that he would not want pensioners in the Ayrshire part of Strathclyde to be discriminated against compared with pensioners in Glasgow or Lanarkshire. Even if he cannot accept—[Interruption.] As the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), realises, I am trying hard. Even if the Minister cannot accept the specific terms of amendment Nos. 167 and 168, I hope that he will accept the principle of them and consider favourably the proposal to extend the Strathclyde PTA to cover the whole of the present Strathclyde area.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) suggested that the Strathclyde PTA would be required to set up a travel concession scheme. That is not the case. Strathclyde PTA is not required to set up such a scheme, although it may do so. The powers given to the PTA are fully in accordance with the powers given to local authorities in Scotland, and travel concessions, particularly the detail of concessions, are a matter for local democracy.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) raised the important matter of the expenditure and costings involved. Other hon. Members will be concerned that travel concessions for journeys from the rural hinterland into cities and other places in Scotland, including his constituency, may be at risk if joint arrangements are not mandatory or if a joint board is not set up.
  The worry is that city authorities might not be willing to co-operate with neighbouring rural authorities in the provision of travel concessions, but there is no reason why voluntary co-operation should not work and no reason why the councils in Lothian, Tayside, Grampian and Central should not be supported at similar levels as the present combined regional and district councils.
  I confirm, and assure the House, that current expenditure will continue to be supported on an assessed needs basis. Grant-aided expenditure will include a separate GAE for concessionary travel, which will reflect the assessed needs of individual authorities. That GAE will be the subject of detailed consideration in the distribution committee of the working party on local government finance and should result in a treatment that takes account of travel patterns of different types of authorities.
  There is, therefore, no reason why the new authorities should not be in a position to enter into agreements with neighbouring authorities to establish the travel concession arrangements that they think are required for their residents. Furthermore, because local authorities will still receive central Government support for concessionary travel, there should be no question of their having to cut expenditure elsewhere to continue to provide the service for senior citizens.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: May I give the Minister a quick illustration of why concern exists on this issue? As he probably knows, last year a 10p concessionary fare was introduced for pensioners in Grampian. That scheme was hugely popular. Pensioners can go as far as Dundee and Inverness on that 10p fare.
  Under the Government's proposals, at least seven local authorities will cover the area currently covered by the 10p fare scheme. That is a matter of controversy in Grampian regional council. The Labour and Scottish National parties introduced the lop fare. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have tried to increase the charge to at least 20p and perhaps even to wreck the scheme. The seven new authorities may have different political complexions. How can the Minister expect the matter to be as simple under his arrangements as it has been under Grampian regional council?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Such matters are best left to local democracy. Voluntary co-operation will save the day. We may play the role of the devil's advocate and assume the worst possible scenario, but the Bill provides power for the Secretary of State to create joint boards for the purpose of jointly discharging functions.

  851
  Local authorities can make representations about their creations. Any request by a group of authorities to establish a joint board would be carefully considered, but, given the powers already available to local authorities to work together if they wish, we doubt whether that will be necessary for the purpose of establishing travel concession schemes.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) raised a question about the boundaries which, obviously, is material to the passenger transport authority in or bordering on his area. In Committee, I made it clear that we intended to consult widely on these matters. We recognise the many legitimate interests in the boundaries concerned. It is the Government's intention to move to consultation on these matters as soon as possible.
  When the matter was considered in Committee, I suggested that we might consult after 1 April. We have given the matter further thought. We consider that, in view of the urgency, it is probably desirable that we consult widely as soon as possible after the Bill is enacted. I simply mention to the hon. Gentleman that change in our thinking since the Bill was discussed in Committee, arising out of the concern which has been expressed.
  6 pm
  Mr. Foulkes: Can the Minister confirm that the Strathclyde Elderly Forum branches, Age Concern branches and others will be consulted, because there is strong feeling about the matter among organisations representing the elderly? They have a particular concern. Can the Minister also confirm that councillors in the existing local authorities covering the Strathclyde area will be consulted directly on the matter? Can he give an assurance that the consultation will be done fairly rapidly and a conclusion will be reached fairly rapidly, because a prolonged period of uncertainty would not be helpful?
  The Minister has been very helpful on the matter. We are moving together in the right direction, so I am not criticising the Minister in any way. But if we had an assurance on those points, it would be helpful.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can give an assurance that all the special needs groups, Age Concern, the bodies mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the Strathclyde passenger transport executive, the user groups and all the users of travel concessions will be consulted.
  I turn to new clause 9, to which the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) referred—perhaps he might like to come back in a moment. As hon. Members will be aware, clause 40 provides for the inheritance of the functions, staff, property, rights, liabilities and obligations of the regional council by a new Strathclyde passenger transport authority. The arrangement whereby a PTA and the Strathclyde passenger transport executive are responsible for public transport matters centred on Glasgow will be continued. We believe that that successful arrangement is appropriate for that area, given the scale of its public transport infrastructure and the concentration of population.
  Outside the Glasgow conurbation, our view remains that the new councils will be fully capable of co-ordinating transport requirements. I remind hon. Members that local
  852
  authorities outside the PTA exercise similar powers to those exercised by PTAs. Of course, I will not read out the terms again.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West correctly mentioned that I would be referring to section 93 of the Transport Act 1985. As he suggested, that section empowered any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, to provide concessionary travel for certain eligible categories of persons. Those powers are discretionary. From 1 April, the new councils will retain those powers. It is important that the new Strathclyde passenger transport ' authority should have those powers, which we confirmed in Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley for his remarks. I have covered the points about the consultation exercise.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I welcome the assurance given to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that there will be consultation about what action should be taken to safeguard concessionary travel in Strathclyde and the boundaries relating to that. May we have equal rights for, equal consultation with and equal consideration of, the interests of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in the Lothian region, and other people in the east coast regions?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There will not be the same doubt about boundaries with regard to local authorities as there is with regard to the PTA. We believe that local authorities have the powers to co-operate and bring in the necessary concessionary schemes, and that they will bear in mind the points raised in the debate.
  In view of what I have said, I ask hon. Members not to press amendments Nos. 167 and 168. I have already talked about the Government amendments, and I commend them to the House.
  Mr. McLeish: I feel that on the two points that we have raised on concessionary fares and the PTA, the Government are hesitatingly moving in some direction. We are not quite sure of the direction and we are certainly not sure of the pace of the movement. I sincerely hope that these matters will be considered further in another place. Obviously, the common-sense reasoning behind both of the new clauses is evident to the Government. We are simply astonished that they are reluctant to accept them. As we do not wish to divide the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 10

  SOCIAL WORK COMMITTEES
  '.—(1) Every local authority shall establish a social work committee for the purposes of their functions under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
  (2) Except as otherwise expressly provided, all matters relating to the performance of their functions under the following enactments—

  (a) this Act as read with sections 1 and 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986,

  (b) part IV of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937,

  (c) the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958

  (d) sections 10 to 12 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958, [and sections 11 and 12 of the Guardianship Act 1973]

  (e) the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984,

  853

  (f) the Adoption Act 1958,

  (g) section 101(1) of the Housing Act 1964, and

  (h) section 9(1)(b) of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977

  (i) the enactments mentioned in subsection (4) of the foregoing section,

  (j) the Children Act 1975,

  (k) the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978,

  (1) section 19 and Part X of the Children Act 1989,

  (m) sections 21 to 23 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983;

  (n) the Access to Personal Files Act 1987,

  shall stand referred to the social work committee, and before exercising any of the said functions the authority shall, unless the matter is urgent, consider a report of the social work committee with respect thereto.'.—[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 it will be convenient to discuss also the following:
  New clause 11—The director of social work—

  '.—(1) For the purposes of their functions under the enactments referred to in section 2 (2) the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, a local authority shall, in accordance with the provisions of this section, appoint an officer, to be known as the director of social work.

  (2) The qualifications of the director of social work shall be such as the Secretary of State may prescribe.

  The director of social work shall hold his office during the tenure of the local authority, but he shall not be removed therefrom, or be required to resign as an alternative thereto, except by a resolution of that authority passed by not less than two-thirds of the members present at a meeting of the authority, notice of which specifies as an item of business the consideration of the removal from office of the director of social work or his being required to resign.
  The director of social work of a local authority shall not, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, be employed by that authority in any other capacity.
  A local authority shall secure the provision of adequate staff for assisting the director of social work in the performance of his functions.
  The provisions as to remuneration and tenure of office contained in [section 64 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973], so far as these provisions are not inconsistent with any of the foregoing provisions of this section, shall apply to directors of social work and their staffs.'.
  New clause 18—Transitional Protection for Social Work Services—
  '. After section 86 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 there shall be inserted:—
  "Local Government Reorganisation—Transitional Protection.

  86A.—(1) Where a person has during the period from 1st April 1995 to 31st March 1996 received an out of area service, the local authority to whom that service is transferred shall have a duty to co-operate with the local authority for the area to which the person belongs in providing social work services to that person.

  (2) The Secretary of State may direct that local authorities enter into agreements under section 57 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 in relation to social work services where such agreements appear to him to be necessary to protect the interests of users of those services.

  (3) In the event that a direction under subsection (2) is made, and it appears to any authority affected thereby that an agreement will not be entered into within a reasonable period, that authority may refer the matter to the Secretary of State.

  (4) If a referral is made under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the respective local authorities, specify terms to be included in the agreement and direct that it be proceeded with, and the prospective parties to the proposed agreement shall comply with any such directions.

  (5) In this section:—

  "social work services" means services which a local authority are under a duty or have a power to provide, or to secure the provision of under this Act, or any of the enactments mentioned
  854
  in section 5(1B) of this Act; and "out of area service" means a social work service which is transferred by the operation of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 to a local authority outwith the local authority area to which the user of the service belongs.'.
  New clause 19—Child care plans—

  '(1) Within such period after the day appointed for the coming into force of this section as the Secretary of State may direct, and in accordance with the provisions of this section, each local authority shall prepare and publish a plan for the provision of children's services in their area.

  (2) Each local authority shall from time to time review any plan prepared by them under subsection (1) above and shall, in the light of any such review, prepare and publish:

  (a) any modifications to the plan under review; or

  (b) if the case requires, a new plan

  (3) In preparing any plan or carrying out any review under subsection (1) or, as the case may be, subsection (2) above, the authority shall consult:

  (a) any local authority with whom the authority has entered into an agreement under section 57 of this Act in relation to children's services;

  (b) any health board providing services under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 in the area of that authority;

  (c) the police force for the area of the local authority;

  (d) such voluntary organisations as appear to the authority to represent the interests of children, their families and carers within the area of the authority;

  (e) such bodies as appear to the authority to provide children's services in their area;

  (f) the children's panel for the area of the local authority; and

  (g) such other persons as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.

  (4) Plans prepared by the local authority under subsection (1) shall include details of:

  (a) the services available to children and families who live in the area of the authority;

  (b) the proposals of the authority to develop and improve children's services;

  (c) an assessment of future needs for children's services in the area of the local authority;

  (d) the arrangements for co-operation between the authority and bodies listed in subsection (3) above; and

  (e) such other matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.

  (5) In this section:

  "children's services" means services for children which a local authority are under a duty or have a power to provide under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or any of the enactments referred to in section 5(1B) of that Act.'
  Amendment No. 32, in clause 31, page 26, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert—

  'Education Committees
  124.—(1) Every education authority shall appoint a committee, which shall be known as the education committee to which (subject to any arrangement under section 127 of this Act, as read with section 56 of this Act, for the discharge by the education committee of any function) all their functions as such authority shall stand referred.
  (1A) In this subsection, 'referred' means remitted to the committee for consideration and report to the authority but without power to the committee to discharge any function on behalf of the authority.".'.
  Amendment No. 33, in page 27, line 10, at end insert—
  "'(6) The number of members of an education committee and their term of office shall be fixed by the appointing authority.
  (7) Every member of an education committee who at the time of his appointment was a member of the appointing authority shall, upon ceasing to be a member of that authority, also cease to be a member of the committee and of any subcommittee thereof; but for the purposes of this subsection a member of an education authority shall not be deemed to have ceased to be a

  855
  member of the authority by reason of retirement if he has been re-elected a member thereof not later than the day of his retirement.
  (8) Paragraphs 2, 8, 9 and 10 of Schedule 10 to this Act shall, subject to any necessary modifications, apply in relation to an education committee and to the standing reference of functions to that committee under subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to the discharge of functions by arrangements made in accordance with that Schedule.".'.
  Amendment No. 34, in schedule 13, page 193, leave out line 39.
  Amendment No. 35, in page 205, leave out lines 9 to 15.
  Amendment No. 37, in page 205, leave out lines 19 to 22.
  Amendment No. 38, in page 205, leave out lines 27 to 46.
  Amendment No. 45, in page 230, leave out lines 13 and 14.
  Amendment No. 46, in page 230, leave out lines 26 to 32.
  Amendment No. 47, in page 231, leave out lines 30 to 34.
  Amendment No. 39, in schedule 14, page 246, line 15, leave out 'Sections 2 and 3.'
  Amendment No. 40, in page 250, line 4, leave out 'definitions of "education committee"' and insert 'definition of'.
  Amendment No. 41, in page 252, leave out lines 9 to 16.
  Mr. McLeish: This is an important set of new clauses and amendments. In Committee, we had considerable debate on what we regard again as common-sense proposals merely to retain the status quo with regard to the statutory provision of directors of social work and education and their appropriate committees. It is inconceivable that the Government are still resisting both of those ideas. We are not sure why they are resisting them. Despite the nature of the issue, the Government are not concerned about the quality of services. They seem to be willing literally to tear apart the statutory framework within which education and social work will operate with the new single-tier councils. Obviously, we are concerned about that. We have two main questions for the Government. First, why are they doing that? Secondly, are they aware of the consequences of such changes?
  Once again, we are being asked to justify the status quo when the Government have put forward no case whatever to justify tearing up the statutory provision. Even in this confrontational Chamber, we are always hopeful that when the Minister rises he will simply accept the wisdom of what we are saying. However, I fear that that will not be the case this evening.
  It is important for the Minister to appreciate that Scots are proud of their education services and education achievements, and their social services and social achievements. I venture to suggest that in many respects we lead Europe in both services, and in almost all respects we lead the rest of Britain. That suggestion is not designed to embarrass or insult colleagues south of the border or in Wales.
  When we have a system which is doing well, but is in need of investment, the last thing to do is simply to tear up the statutory provision, walk away from it and suggest that 32 councils can provide the same quality of services in a new form. It is also important to note that we are not
  856
  dealing with small residual services tacked on to local authorities. For example, education takes 50 per cent. of local authority budgets. We are talking about a multi-million pound budget. However, the Government want to remove the statutory provision of directors of education and education committees. It is completely mad. We are used to that characteristic being exhibited by the Government. But how on earth can they justify it?
  Social services are another part of local government which spends hundreds of millions of pounds each year in dealing with a vital range of services. In addition, we are talking about statutory provision with regard to a wider spectrum of public policy issues and public interest. We are talking about education and training—training our work force and educating our society for the next century. That is absolutely crucial. Would any other country regard that as a residual matter and be willing to cast off such statutory provisions?
  In social services, we are dealing with some of the most important issues in the community, including some life-threatening issues in terms of child care. Of course, we are seeking to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. How on earth can the Government resist the temptation to support our new clauses? New clause 10 deals with social work, but my arguments refer to both social work and education. The Government's case is simply put.
  In Committee, the Government said that statutory provision should be removed because the councils needed flexibility and discretion. What on earth does that mean? It is absolute gobbledegook.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): It is about choice.
  Mr. McLeish: I have an idea for the Minister. Why not accept the wisdom that education and social services are vital? Let us give some choice to local authorities to do within a statutory framework what they think is right within their local communities. Is he against that type of choice? Of course he is, because the Government's thinking has nothing to do with flexibility and discretion.
  The Government have also argued that the statutory provision could be removed because most of the functions provided by education and social services have a statutory basis anyway. They claim that each of the elements for which those services are responsible, such as child care, education and school transport, have a statutory basis.
  We submit that the Government's argument is not a sensible excuse or reason for change. If one has a disparate set of functions, covered by different statutes, it is essential to accommodate the directors of both services and the appropriate committees within statutory provision.
  The other reason for the Government's embrace of this daft idea is to ensure that the management madness that permeates every health board and every trust is incorporated in local government. The Government argued in Committee that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, COSLA, submitted the daft change. I can inform the House that, in a letter of 9 May sent to the Association of Directors of Social Work, Mr. Roy MacIver of COSLA stated:
  "I recognise that as a result of that letter"—
  a previous letter sent to the Committee—
  "there is now the danger that the Convention's position will be misunderstood in the opposite direction, and I am therefore writing to confirm that while the Convention is not in a position

  857
  to argue for retention of the statutory requirement, its position is not one of support for the removal of that requirement."
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he will—
  Mr. Stewart: I know about that letter.
  Mr. McLeish: I am not concerned about that. I am only concerned that the Minister does not distort this important debate by spoon-feeding us remarks from COSLA which were based on a management inquiry into local government many months ago.
  The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives has also boosted the Government's case. I can imagine that if 30 new authorities are to be created, some chief executives, some general managers and some lawyers and solicitors may want to feather their own nests by suggesting that directors of education are unnecessary. They may argue that they can do the job from a legal perspective, but, once again, that is just mischievous nonsense. The Government should, ignore such advice.
  We can reveal the real agenda behind the proposed change. It has nothing to do with management effectiveness, flexibility or the fact that some elements of the services have a statutory basis in any event. It is all to do with the Government's obsession with marketplace public policy. Directors of education and education committees exercise power within authorities, so it is easy to see why the Government want to sweep those obstacles away. It will be much easier for the Government to introduce a marketplace policy if those obstacles are removed. That is part of the reasoning behind the Government's dangerous and divisive proposals.
  If one removes the statutory framework, where does that lead to? Child care services will be transferred to the marketplace. Will child abuse cases be subject to market testing? [Laughter.] The Minister may laugh, but this is the Government who want to privatise the Royal Mail. If they are daft enough to want to do that, a decision to transfer child care services, a sensitive issue, to the marketplace would be second nature to the kind of Scottish Office Ministers who operate every day in Scotland.
  We do not need any lectures or laughter from the Minister, because we are raising a serious issue. The Government's proposals are all to do with the marketplace and market testing. They have little to do with the quality of services that we currently enjoy in Scotland.
  Surely it is crucial that decisions governing social work are accountable to the community through a committee. If no such committee exists, how can those services be accountable? That seems elementary and I do not understand why the Government cannot grasp that. What about the courts and the children's panels? Who will be responsible for dealing with the children's hearing system? Who will be responsible when local authorities must exercise parental rights over children? Do we leave it to one of the corporate services lawyers, lurking about in the corridor, instead of a director of social work, who may know something about it? Do we leave it to some fag-end committee, which is responsible for social work, housing and everything else? Of course not. That is the kind of madness that will follow, however, if we allow the Government's proposals to go through.
  What about people with special needs? As a result of the Bill, many small councils will be created. There might be a temptation in certain Conservative councils not to provide the right amount of investment for special needs, because those councils might want to spend the money on
  858
  something more attractive. If the statutory framework governing the work of directors of social services and education and the relevant committees is removed, as well as the ring fencing that applies to much of the budget for those services, what then for special needs? Will it remain a key concern in the community?
  6.15 pm
  The Government have done some pioneering work on mental health problems, offenders and drug use. I am aware of some committees which, if they were not working within a statutory framework, might consider that the development of such work was less of a priority than other work. In some communities, the provision of homes for the homeless, rehabilitation units for drug users and help for people with mental health problems may not be very popular. If the Government remove the statutory provision governing such services, they will immediately put at risk the good work that has been done by the Scottish Office and the excellent work of local authorities that have given priority to such vulnerable groups. Why on earth do the Government want to put at risk those groups by de-prioritising them through the removal of the relevant statutory framework?
  Demographic changes reveal that in the years ahead the number of older people in the community will increase. Will they be left to the dictates of the marketplace? Is it right that the Government should abolish the post of director of social work and the relevant committees, given the responsibilities, skills and dedication that they have displayed over many years? A director of social work knows about the problems faced by the elderly. Is it the Government's wish simply to abandon older people to any committee and any director who is willing to assume responsibility for them?
  The creation of inspection teams was a Government innovation. Why will no proper safeguards be provided to ensure that the relevant committees and directors remain in post, especially given their knowledge and responsibilities?
  If the Government's proposals are accepted, there will be four consequences. First, any remaining accountability will be poor or non-existent. Secondly, we will witness an inevitable drive towards lower standards in this vital area of public provision. Thirdly, vulnerable people will be placed at much greater risk. Finally, we will see the disintegration of many services. The absence of coherent, committed leadership, either from committees or directors, will have a devastating effect on the good work that has been done.
  Since 1968, Scotland has offered social work services and complementary services in education. Those services must continue to be offered and must receive investment. We do not need to play at party politics with the lives and jobs of many people in the community who provide vital services.
  I ask the Government to think seriously about what they are doing. For the life of me, I cannot see the politics of this. I know that on many occasions the Government have demonstrated that they are greatly in favour of the market and I can see the politics of that. I simply cannot see the politics behind the Government's wish to abandon and sacrifice social work and education services that have built up over the years. Their decision is based on no consensus or support.

  859
  The Minister is always willing to joust in debate, so perhaps I can give him the real reason for the Government's kamikaze policy. The Minister has not said a word, but I think that he will be amused by the following. In the House, the Minister has referred to a councillor, Mr. Ian Hutchison. I can reveal to the House—I know that the Minister will not—that, because Ian Hutchison dared to criticise the Minister and the Conservative party, his Tory-controlled district council has removed him from the delegation to COSLA. Is not that symptomatic of the fact that the Conservative party, which criticises eastern European republics, operates a campaign of fear and witch-hunts for its members?
  I want to finish on a charitable note. [Interruption.] Well, I am a charitable man. I should like the Minister to respond positively, after the debate, to those services. Let us keep the statutory provision. Let us not put at risk the most vulnerable members of Scotland's communities.
  Mr. Connarty: I was going to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), but I shall remark that perhaps it is justice that Colonel Saunders, the former leader of the Conservatives on Central regional council, and Mrs. McNicol, the member for Bridge of Allan, stood against the Government's proposals for local government, thereby assisting the Labour party to rid Stirling conurbation of the Conservative representation in King's Park and Bridge of Allan. There is justice in democracy after all.
  I shall speak about services. I concur with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central about the structures and the Government's lack of intelligence in trying to set up systems for social work and education under the new systems of local government without statutory committees or statutory directors.
  I add a remark or two on the issue of a children's Act, because the potential role of social work and the role that social workers and the mediation services perform is made much more difficult by the lack of a children's Act in Scotland. The potential role of a social work department and the mediation services is to reduce misery to children caused, for example, by marital break-up. The services labour under a great difficulty as a result of the Scottish system.
  In spite of the work of Relate and mediation services, divorce in Scotland is still a battlefield and children are the main casualties. The definition of "custody" in Scots law, which we hope will be changed by a children's Act, is:
  "the possession of the child"
  — as though the child were a motor car or the Elvis Presley records that are divided up during the marital break-up.
  I commend the work of Children's Act (Scotland), a group of parents of all genders outwith the House with whom I went to meet the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who is in another place. Sadly, we do not have an elected representative responsible for many of the things that would relate to the Children's Act (Scotland) in this place. We have a subsidiary Member here because a non-elected Member is appointed in the Lords to look after that service.
  We went, on 6 May 1994, to present the Minister of State with a birthday cake to commemorate the second anniversary of the publication of the consultation document on the Children's Act. There has been no visible progress on that consultation since. I hear that the Government blame some of the people who are being consulted, but there seems to me a lack of credibility.
  860
  I also commend the work of the Scottish all-party group on children, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Until we pass a children's Act, the social work departments in Scotland will be forced to act as the ball-bearings in the machine of society without any ability to become the drivers of the machine—a machine that, sadly, at least in marital break-up in Scotland, grinds up the children when it should give them rights, and those rights should protect them.
  I am seriously disappointed with the Government's failure to respond to the anxieties of groups such as Enable and Children in Scotland. They were worried, during the passage of the Bill, about its results for children with special educational needs and other needs, and remain just as worried now in spite of all the discussions and correspondence.
  Opposition Members tried to help the Government during the passage of the Bill by proposing an amendment, which I paraphrase. It says that if, as a consequence of the break-up of any local authority boundary, school education for children with special educational needs belonging to the area of one education authority be provided at schools or educational establishments under the management of another educational authority, the education authority in which the child lives shall have a duty to make arrangements with the provider authority to ensure an adequate and efficient education for the child or young person with special educational needs. We emphasised the fact that that would include an appropriate level of psychological services support and, in the case of a child or young person with a record of needs, the services specified therein.
  That was a helpful amendment and the debate in Committee at the time was one of the most measured and reasonable. People were trying to tackle a real problem which they understood was critical to the individual child and the parents of that child. I, for my part, have witnessed the process many times. I was a teacher of children with learning difficulties for 15 years. The time comes when the child and the parent—especially the parent—realise that the child is not as gifted as other children, cannot cope in a mainstream school and can often, if the treatment is wrong, end up stigmatised and deprived of a proper and full life in the future. The passage through that barrier is a trauma which I, thank goodness, have never had to experience personally. I know that, for the parents who have had to go through it, it is the most traumatic experience that any of us could have.
  If one then enters the morass of a lack of provision—the morass of wondering where that provision will come from, who will provide it, whether we have statutory rights, by what mechanism we obtain those statutory rights and whether we have to end up in the courts or appeal to a higher authority—it becomes a nightmare. We tried to emphasise, by our amendment, that we should make a specific reference in the Bill—a final declaration—to who will be responsible, with no equivocation.
  The Minister's reply can be found in the report of the Standing Committee. He was saying at that time that the Government had made great advances and they were issuing guidance for consultation at this moment
  "on the issue of provision throughout Scotland, including the recording arrangements."
  I have read the document. It is entirely about recording arrangements. It is not about provision. It has nothing to

  861
  say about provision. Yet the whole debate was centred on the issue of who will provide and who will have the responsibility to provide.
  The Minister went on to say:
  "Similarly, section 62(3) of the 1980 Act lays a specific duty on an education authority to make provision for special educational needs of recorded children, and recorded young persons, in its area."
  I repeat that quote—"in its area." The problem is that many of the provisions will not lie in the person's area any longer, but will lie outwith the area because the Government have decided to break up local authorities into such small units that the provision will not be made in those areas.
  The Minister went on to say:
  "Clause 32 will enable new arrangements for cross-border provision of education to be made, and old arrangements to continue."
  I think that the Minister accepted that I was not satisfied with that, and that it would give no automatic safeguards, because he went on to say that it was all right because the children would continue to live in the area in which they were currently located. He says clearly:
  "Special schools making provision for children and young persons with special educational needs are not being relocated. Children with such needs will be living in the same location." —[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 10 March 1994; c. 1056–7]
  The problem is that the children will not be in the same local authority any longer. In many more cases—an enlarged number, if not the majority, of cases—the provision will lie outwith the area in which the child lives. It is an inherent contradiction in the Bill, and it is not resolved by anything that the Government have done or anything that they have written to me since, or anything that has been said to me in discussions with members of the Scottish Office staff since.
  I mentioned the problem of making one authority raise taxation to provide an infrastructure for another authority. There is a second problem of making a local authority open the doors of provision, and possibly extend those provisions to people who do not lie in its catchment area. From my experience, I can guarantee that there is a growing need, especially at secondary level, for special educational provision for children as we realise the type of provision that is required by many more pupils.
  I shall cite one example in central Scotland, which I know best. Clackmannan, the smallest authority with 47,000 inhabitants, will not have a single provision for secondary education for children with mild, profound or severe learning difficulties, as those provisions all lie in the Falkirk area.
  I taught in a school for children with mild learning difficulties, and attached to it, in other locations, were schools for children with profound and severe learning difficulties. That provision will have to be bought across the border. Does the Minister think that it will be easy to persuade the Falkirk unitary authority to provide that service, particularly given the pressure that will fall on all local authorities for resources when the cost of the reorganisation must be borne and services must be cut left, right and centre? I do not believe that it will.
  What the Government have been saying smells of complacency. Although local authorities have been co-operating, they have had the critical mass to do so. They have had an extended psychological service—an extended provision for mildly, severely and profoundly handicapped children; and they have had a network that allows them to
  862
  co-operate. Once authorities are broken up, the critical mass of provision will also be broken up. Authorities will be much reduced, whether provision is in Stirling, with its centre for children with cerebral palsy, or in Falkirk, with the facilities that I have just mentioned. Once the psychological services have been broken up, local authorities will be strained and stretched and are unlikely to co-operate in providing facilities to people across the borders.
  6.30 pm
  I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central was correct to say that the Government, driven by an ideology, want the children of Clackmannan to be driven on to the market. I do not believe that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is involved in that conspiracy as he is a man of integrity. The Government are not considering the long term. In a generation from now, will children from Stirling simply cross the border to Falkirk? If they have to hunt round the markets of Scotland for the provision that they need, the Government will be damned for what they are doing.
  My main worry is that the arbiter will be the Secretary of State. Under clause 17, if a local authority does not provide and is in default, a parent can appeal to the Secretary of State. Every case in which a parent must appeal for provision to the Secretary of State becomes a cause celebre in the media. It denigrates and degrades the process of special educational provision, as it is seen as a war on behalf of the child between the Government Department and the local authority. The media love it, and the Government love to see a local authority being taken to task and the Secretary of State arbitrating. If the Government want a media circus in thousands of cases, it is a damnable disgrace and they should be ashamed.
  If the Government have a will to solve the problem, they should reconsider it and come back with a clear statutory duty that no one can avoid. But they should remember to put their resources where they are putting their so-called statutory duties.
  Ms Rachel Squire: I wish to support the amendments, especially new clauses 10 and 11 on the statutory need for social work committees and a director of social work. I pay tribute to the work carried out by social work committees, social work staff and all council committees. All too often, they are criticised rather than praised. I admit that I have a vested interest because back in the 1970s I was a social worker. I expect to hear a collective groan at that. The qualities and skills of social work committees and staff are undervalued, particularly by the Government's proposal.
  Nearly 20 years after the last local government reorganisation, which was decided after an independent commission, some people are still not sure which council department to go to. Social work, however, is an exception; people know that if they need personal help or help for their family they go to the social work department. The removal of the statutory right to have a social work director and committee could disrupt accessibility for the public.
  One of the main reasons for opposing the Bill is the disruption that it will cause to community care, in which social work committees and directors play a vital part. The Government had the sense to recognise, when they passed

  863
  the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, that they should allow three years for the structures to be set up, so the Act did not come into effect until 1993. The process of co-ordination and consultation is still going on. In many ways, it is still in its early stages, but it will all be disrupted by the Bill, and especially by the removal of statutory rights. Moreover, the smaller councils being created may be unable to continue the work and structures that have been set up.
  On the impact that the removal of the social work director and committees will have on voluntary organisations, I will quote from three of such organisations. The chairman of the Glenrothes branch of Age Concern Scotland said:
  "As a voluntary oganisation engaged in the provision of Day Care and ancillary services to physically frail and disadvantaged elderly people of the community, we observe with the utmost concern that the above Bill proposes to abolish the statutory requirement for the new Councils to have a Social Work Committee and a Director of Social Work who is professionally qualified".
  The Epilepsy Association of Scotland said the same, and added:
  "We have a further concern that the sensitive and fruitful partnerships which exist between statutory Social Work Departments and voluntary agencies like our own would be endangered, to the detriment of vulnerable people in need of services."
  The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations said:
  "There may be a loss of commitment to some of the less popular clients of social work services, such as ex-offenders, drug users and people with mental health problems."
  I stress the impact that that could have on the most important people—the users of those services, particularly carers. Tens of thousands of people look after a loved one at home but rely on the accessibility of social work services in order to carry out that care.
  Why are the Government so intent on removing that statutory right? It is, in effect, a denial by the state of the responsibility that we all share for every section of our community. In Committee the Minister talked of the "freedom to choose", which shows that the Government are bent on privatising social work services. They may be planning to create social work trusts, as we now have NHS trusts, or to merge social work and health board provision, as they have in Northern Ireland. From my contacts with people in Northern Ireland, I know that that has not been successful.
  I urge the Government to prove me wrong and to show their support for the continuation of community care and social work services by agreeing to the amendments, particularly new clauses 10 and 11.
  Mr. James Wallace: I wish to support new clause 10, which was moved by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). The members of my party had a very genuine debate about the merits of leaving to the discretion of local authorities whether there should be a director of social work and a social work committee. For a party which believes very much in decentralised decision-making, this is a very legitimate debate. We would have been much more convinced about the spirit in which the proposal is put forward if it had come from any source other than a Government who have sought to destroy so many of the other powers of local democracy.
  864
  There was a very strong countervailing argument, however, that with regard to the powers and responsibilities of social work, as set down in statute, serious professional direction must be provided. Subsection (2) of new clause 10 sets out a huge range of functions, the performance of which is the responsibility of social work departments. The details are very clear, as is the fact that these are people-centred responsibilities, often concerning vulnerable individuals. Clearly, the discharge of the functions is sometimes not without controversy—a point which, on the basis of constituency experience, I must accept. For that reason, responsibilities need to be discharged by someone who can be an adviser as well as a manager. In such circumstances, management is not a question just of looking at efficiency and functions in an abstract way. We are dealing here with people, and many of the functions interact. This is why we have concluded that there ought to be a chief officer with professional qualifications.
  The Secretary of State said in a letter to me that he would be issuing guidance under section 5(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 with regard to the staffing arrangements that local authorities should make. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "This will include guidance on the need to ensure professional oversight of social work services at the appropriate level in the organisation."
  I envisage the need for officers with that professional expertise in addition to senior managerial posts. This would not necessarily produce efficiency if it amounted simply to duplication of posts. Inevitably, these services must be people-centred rather than profit-centred or efficiency-centred. The latter would take away any sense of how responsibilities impinge on people. If there is to be a manager, he or she ought to have the proper qualifications and sensitivities.
  In a parallel case, it was proposed that we should do without directors of education. One of my party's councillors—a regional councillor with long experience of education committees—said in a letter to me:
  "A manager would probably ensure that the right number of desks and chairs went into a school and that teachers' allocations were numerically correct, but the innovative curriculum would be stifled."
  There is a parallel fear in respect of social work—that, while one might get some of the numbers right, one would not necessarily get right the policies and their operation as they affect people.
  I should like to refer briefly to new clauses 18 and 19. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) probably hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, with a view to commenting on these provisions. While I do not want to steal the hon. Gentleman's thunder, I must echo something that has been said many times during the debate—the time is long overdue for putting on the statute book many of the proposals contained in the White Paper on children published as long ago as last August. That White Paper brought together many proposals which emanated from a number of earlier studies and inquiries, such as the inquiry conducted by Lord Clyde in my constituency following the removal of nine children in February 1991. The White Paper was given a wide welcome in the House. No doubt we shall debate some of its detail in due course, and differences will undoubtedly emerge.
  We should all like to see the adoption of the principles of a child-centred White Paper which stresses the

  865
  importance of the views of the child. It is a matter not just of regret but of shame that legislative time has not been found for this purpose. In terms of provision for Scotland, Parliament would have done a greater service to the people, particularly the young people, by producing legislation on children rather than a Bill to reform local government.
  New clause 18 sensibly provides for the continuation of services that will become cross-boundary when the new boundaries come into operation. With regard to children in receipt of these services—for example, those in residential establishments and those benefiting from specialised educational facilities—we cannot rest on the basis of permissive provision. If those services were discontinued, the young people would be the sufferers.
  New clause 19 contains a requirement that was proposed in the White Paper—that local authorities should publish plans in relation to child care services. This emphasises the importance of an interdisciplinary approach, and it is long overdue. The new clause and the debate on it give us an opportunity to make a small contribution to putting on the statute book one of the many important proposals contained in the White Paper. Of course, that is no substitute for the substantive Bill which I hope we shall be told is to come along in the next Session.
  6.45 pm
  Dr. Godman: I want to speak in support of new clauses 18 and 19, which appear under my name. I should like to say in passing that I support new clauses 10 and 11 also. In my view, each of the new local authorities should have both a social work committee and a director of social work. That is certainly what I hope for in the case of the new council in Inverclyde.
  I want to echo some of the points made by other hon. Members. I, too, believe that Scotland has first-class social work departments providing essential services for people of all ages. At a local level, I work closely with area teams and with hospital teams when constituents need help. In Inverclyde, the three welfare rights officers employed by the social work department of Strathclyde regional council provide an excellent service to people of all types who are in need of one kind or another.
  There is no doubt that politicians and others place huge responsibilities on social workers, who perform extremely difficult tasks with commendable efficiency. Too often, in the House of Commons and elsewhere, moralists malign social workers unfairly on the basis of lazy judgments. I often say to such critics that they would not last a month in an area social work team. Indeed, some of them would not last two days. Social workers perform extremely difficult tasks, often under the threat of violence. They go about their work in an unassuming way and the overwhelming majority display admirable competence.
  I have been advised to make my intervention brief, and I had better do so. However, I have to say that the Government and their predecessors have adopted a dismally piecemeal approach to child care legislation, in respect of which this legislature seems to be engaged in a leap-frogging game. In the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 we had a dramatic development. I thought then and I still believe that that was an extremely radical and brilliant measure. In some respects, however, Scottish law has fallen behind English legislation. That is especially true of our lack of a comprehensive children Act.
  866
  I am deeply grateful for all the fine work that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) does in this field, and to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for his campaigning efforts. The purpose of new clause 18 is to protect people who need to use social work services that will not be found in their own council areas. The Minister cannot deny that many people need to use services that are outwith the communities in which they live. Children in residential establishments are a good example.
  Some years ago, my wife, then a senior social worker in the east end of Glasgow, had occasion to take a young girl into care, by way of a place of safety order. She also had to take the girl's three brothers into care. They were placed in a fine establishment many miles down the coast, away from Glasgow but still within the Strathclyde regional council's social work department area. Unfortunately, the children had to spend two periods in the establishment, but they were quite happy there. They had come from the most appalling domestic circumstances.
  What would happen under the Bill? The Minister will tell me, referring to clause 57, that such services can be bought in from other councils. Social work services, however, are much more vulnerable than education services, for instance. The statutory duties in the Bill governing the provision of such services are somewhat vague, and in practice they are unenforceable. Whereas in education children and their parents have the right to choose a school and to enjoy certain other guarantees, the same does not apply to children and others who require the services of a social work department.
  Under the new clause, the councils that inherit certain services would have a duty to co-operate with the other councils in whose areas the users of a service resided. As a last resort, the Secretary of State would be able to step in to ensure that those who rely on the services do not suffer. Services change over time, of course, but it is vital to offer transitional protection to all vulnerable clients—people with learning disabilities, for instance, and young children.
  As for new clause 19, I believe that a duty should be imposed on the new local authorities to prepare and publish child care plans. That would be a useful way of ensuring that children's services were protected and enhanced. Such plans could be required to describe how the needs of children with disabilities would be met. They might involve the participation of voluntary organisations, working beside local authorities to provide the necessary services.
  That new duty could go a long way to answering the concerns felt by many of us—that children in need and vulnerable people may suffer as a result of this legislation. I remind the Minister of what he and his officials said in the White Paper, "Scotland's Children", in paragraph 8.13:
  "At a strategic level the Government will introduce a new requirement on local authorities to publish plans in relation to child care services".
  The new clause merely seeks to implement what the Minister and his officials proposed in their fine White Paper. Some of the new duties are described thus:
  "a clear appraisal of the strength and weaknesses of current services;

  an assessment of future needs;

  an estimate of likely available resources;

  a statement of strategic objectives for service development;

  a review of innovative developments."

  All these are what we seek to achieve by way of the new clause.

  867
  Children, particularly those living in difficult circumstances, need a comprehensive children Act in Scotland. Indeed, I hope that such a Bill will feature in the Gracious Speech later this year. It is our children who suffer from the leap-frogging effects of legislation being enacted for the two legal systems in the United Kingdom. Some of our Scottish measures would benefit English children if they were translated into English law, but we in turn need a children Act for all the reasons that I have explained. Admittedly, the new clause is part of the general piecemeal approach to children's needs, but I hope that the Minister will give us a positive response to the concerns expressed in the debate today.
  Mrs. Ewing: I support new clause 10, but, like the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I want to speak to new clauses 18 and 19, to which I am a signatory.
  I echo some of the comments made on new clause 10 in connection with social work committees and the appointment of directors of social work. Unlike the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), I was not a social worker, but I was involved in the administration of a course of training for professional social workers—the certificate in social services. At that time, I saw men and women of all age groups who were seriously committed to eradicating many of the problems that our people face. I therefore have great admiration for social workers, and I echo what the hon. Lady said about them. Like politicians, social workers often seem to be the fall guys for the popular press, even though they undertake jobs that many of us would be too frightened to perform ourselves. They do great work for children, the elderly, the handicapped and, indeed, for all sections of society and they should be given due credit.
  I believe that a statutory duty should be written into the Bill, stipulating that the profession must provide the services and giving people who need them a statutory right to those services. The Government have not acted to allay the fears that many people have, arising from the fact that the local government transitional arrangements are due to last two years. Elections will be held next year. I want to be able to reassure my constituents that their social work facilities will be guaranteed throughout that time. We cannot tell them to wait until next year or the year after that. When people need social work facilities, they need them immediately. The Government must acknowledge and deal with that fact.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow has already dealt effectively with new clause 19. I remind the Minister that we must always recognise the needs of the child. The Scottish Law Commission report seems to have been gathering dust while Scottish children have been relegated to the bottom of the heap. We have had publication of the White Paper, "Scotland's Children," and the family law report No.135. We have also debated them in the Scottish Grand Committee, but there seems to have been no progress whatever. I remind the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), that in the Scottish Grand Committee he referred to
  "the priority that we, and I believe all members of the Committee, place on the care of children."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand
  868
  Committee, 2 November 1993; c. 1.]
  It seems to have slipped down the Government's list of priorities.
  7 pm
  In tabling this all-party group of amendments, we have worked closely as a group and have met Ministers and others in the context of our discussions and we want to ensure that children are placed high on the Government's list of priorities. The Gracious Speech may not include a separate Scottish Children Bill, but we certainly wish to see that and I hope that we shall obtain that commitment when we meet Lord Fraser of Carmyllie on 25 May. However, it would be interesting to hear in the elected House of Commons exactly the view of the Scottish Office. Are Ministers pushing for such legislation in the next Session, or will they let it continue to peter out until our Scottish children can say they are denied their rights, unlike their counterparts south of the border who have the children Acts?
  Mr. Worthington: The new clauses seek to set up a social work committee and appoint a director of social work. However, they are angry gestures and gestures of despair; perhaps they are means by which we may be able to stop some of the damage that we believe will be caused by the legislation.
  Just 20 years ago last week, the new local authorities in 1974 came into force. They began their preparatory year before taking over from social work authorities the size of Clackmannan. It was a pretty desperate scene. There were a lot of well-meaning people around, but there was a shortage of that much despised but important professionalism, drive and vision.
  Enormous progress has been made since then, but I fear that we shall slip backwards because of this legislation. People have talked eloquently about the role of social workers who deal with that with which other people cannot cope—they have to cope with circumstances that are too much for other people. I am thinking particularly about the progress that has been made in adoption and fostering over the years. Some of the large local authorities now have the resources and skills to place hard-to-place, damaged children who in the past would have stayed in institutional care for the rest of their lives. I cannot see that happening in the new local authorities covering a population of 47,000.
  Mental handicap is another important concern. There is an adult training centre in my constituency. Some of the people who were in that adult training centre when I came into local government 20 years ago are still there. It is difficult to decide whether that is right or wrong, but an adult training centre can either be a warehouse to which people turn up each day, or it can be a lively, thriving place which is driven by professional standards and genuine care for those adults and their families.
  We should consider the complexity of the issues involved in taking someone into care and the enormous power which rests with a social worker and a social work department to take someone from his home and to use that power for the benefit of the child and his family. Unfortunately, the Bill does not give a tinker's cuss about those issues and uses local authorities as political playthings.
  No thought has been given to issues relating to the abuse of drugs and the complexity of getting policies to work with the police and the health authorities. Am I

  869
  seriously to believe that my new local authority of Clydebank and Dumbarton will liaise effectively with the Greater Glasgow health board and Argyle and Clyde health board? Is anyone seriously expecting small local authorities to have the clout to do that?
  The new clauses are asking someone in the Government at long last to start listening to the cries of despair. Simply as an act of revenge against Labour local authorities, to divide and rule and to create pathetic little enclaves for little clusters of the nearly extinguished species of the Conservative councillor, they are damaging local authority services.
  The new clauses are gestures, but they are angry and despairing gestures and I hope the Minister will think and listen.
  Mr. Dalyell: On the question of listening, I should like to make an observation, but first I shall ask two questions of the Minister that concern his constituency and mine. First, he will know that there is great concern about those who work in the Blindcraft factory. Alex Scott, the secretary of Blindcraft, has contacted us all. I have spoken to him and there is considerable concern about the future of that factory if it is not supported by Lothian region.
  My second question affects a small minority—those who teach lip reading. It is the considered professional opinion that it has to be done on a large scale and a number of us have received communications about the viability of teaching lip reading in Lothian region.
  I wanted to take advantage of the presence of the vice-chairman of the Conservative party to make an observation to the Minister. Does he realise that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is sitting next to him, and the Secretary of State are busily losing him his parliamentary seat by their non-answers?
  For more than 30 years, I represented the royal borough of South Queensferry. I know it extremely well and there has always been a substantial Conservative vote there. It is a very serious place and the voters are certainly entitled to their opinions, which have always been well-expressed.
  If I were a betting man, which I am not, I should have thought that the Edinburgh, West constituency would remain in the Conservative party. I say in all seriousness, because I am not a yah-boo person, that, chiefly through what has happened in the Bill and the general attitudes that have been displayed, at the next election when South Queensferry goes into his constituency, the Minister will come not first, not second but a very poor third, as the local authority Conservative candidate did, and where there is a very decent Conservative district councillor. It is a sea change.
  If I were in the Minister's position on the Bill, I would say to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood, who, frankly, has been very frivolous in his presentation and non-answers, and to the Secretary of State, who cares about many things but, I am sorry to say, does not care about local government, that I found it extraordinary that the Secretary of State has not been in the House of Commons very much today. If the Secretary of State cared about local government, he would have been in the Chamber for the debate. It is about time that the Minister—who is a personal friend of many years' standing—made it quite clear to his senior colleagues that it is either their ill-informed opinions or his seat.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I think that the best course is for me to send the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) a copy of the letter that my office sent to the National League of the Blind and Disabled about Blindcraft. Obviously, the same duties will remain in place. We believe that it is a matter for local democracy to decide.
  I will deal with three groups of amendments—new clause 10, dealing with social work committees and directors of social work; various amendments dealing with education committees and directors of education; and the new clauses dealing with out-of-area social work services.
  The thrust of our policy is freedom and flexibility for local authorities. The majority of responses to the consultation paper favoured removing the statutory requirements. Social work will remain one of our most important responsibilities. We have major initiatives in community care, child care and criminal justice.
  Each authority will have to make certain that there is oversight of professional social work tasks and clear arrangements for accountability and professional standards. Section 5 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 will remain in place, making it clear that local authorities perform their duties under the guidance of the Secretary of State. We will issue guidance about staffing arrangements and we will monitor the establishment and development of the services concerned.
  We believe that local authorities should be free to determine their own internal organisational requirements. Some may decide to appoint social work committees, to combine social work functions with housing, to manage services on a corporate basis, or to decentralise and involve more local management in a range of functions. Some authorities may wish to appoint directors of social work; others may wish to combine this function with another area, such as housing or possibly leisure and recreation.
  I was interested to see the confusion expressed by some Opposition Members in Committee. Local councils will still be able to appoint directors of education and establish education committees. The proposal to remove the statutory requirement for an education committee emerged from a working group. Since that time, there has been consultation about the matter. Not only the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, but the majority of those consulted expressed strong views in favour of leaving the discretion to local authorities.
  For the benefit of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), at this stage there is no requirement that the director of education need have any teaching or other professional qualifications—although it is highly desirable that he does.
  Mr. Dalyell: So that it is clear and beyond doubt, what is the Minister saying that SOLACE agreed to and supported?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member knows that perfectly well, because I read out its representations in the Standing Committee. He can look up the Standing Committee transcript; it is on the record. It is plain and unmistakable. It supported local authorities having discretion in this connection. Of course, it paid tribute to the work of the directors, but it made its view quite clear.
  For years, social work authorities have co-operated with one another in relation to the purchase and supply of

  871
  services for people living outwith their areas. The 1968 Act enables an authority providing a service to a person outwith its area to recover the cost of that provision from the authority in whose area the person lives.
  We do not believe that the level of coercion in new clause 18 is either necessary or desirable. It is not necessary because it will clearly be cost-efficient for authorities supplying facilities or services to utilise them fully. We do not believe that it is desirable to coerce authorities. In any case, the Bill provides for authorities to receive the necessary information, including details of services bought out of area or provided to those living outwith the area. There are various means whereby the needs of those currently receiving out-of-area services can be assessed fully and properly.
  New clause 19 is in keeping with the provision to introduce child care plans proposed in the White Paper "Scotland's Children", in which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is very interested. Initial work on planning has taken place between Scottish Office officials and local authorities. We are determined to develop a new system in due course as part of child care legislation, not local government legislation. Before finalising the new system, we want to consult local authorities and other interested parties. We will ensure that services are maintained properly during the period of local government reorganisation.
  7.15 pm
  Mrs. Ewing: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He knows of my interest and that of hon. Members from other parties in this matter. When he says that further consultation is needed, does not he accept that there has already been very substantial consultation about this matter? Although we will now have new local authorities, there is surely a possibility of introducing child care legislation in the new parliamentary Session next year. We are fed up with waiting for it.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not in a position to reveal the contents of the Queen's Speech; I have no knowledge of that at present. However, it is certainly a priority that will be borne in mind for the future.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 274.

  Division No. 242]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ainger, Nick

  Berry, Roger

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Betts, Clive

  Allen, Graham

  Blair, Tony

  Alton, David

  Blunkett, David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Boateng, Paul

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Boyes, Roland

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bradley, Keith

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Austin-Walker, John

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Byers, Stephen

  Barron, Kevin

  Caborn, Richard

  Battle, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Benton, Joe

  Canavan, Dennis

  872

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Janner, Greville

  Clapham, Michael

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Coffey, Ann

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Connarty, Michael

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cousins, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Cummings, John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dalyell, Tam

  Loyden, Eddie

  Darling, Alistair

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Davidson, Ian

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dixon, Don

  McFall, John

  Dobson, Frank

  McKelvey, William

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McLeish, Henry

  Dowd, Jim

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McMaster, Gordon

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McNamara, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  MacShane, Denis

  Enright, Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Madden, Max

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fisher, Mark

  Martlew, Eric

  Flynn, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Meale, Alan

  Foulkes, George

  Michael, Alun

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Milburn, Alan

  Galloway, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Garrett, John

  Morley, Elliot

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Mudie, George

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mullin, Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Murphy, Paul

  Graham, Thomas

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Olner, William

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gunnell, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hain, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Hall, Mike

  Patchett, Terry

  Hanson, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Pickthall, Colin

  Harvey, Nick

  Pike, Peter L.

  Henderson, Doug

  Pope, Greg

  Heppell, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoey, Kate

  Prescott, John

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Home Robertson, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hood, Jimmy

  Radice, Giles

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Rendel, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Hutton, John

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Ingram, Adam

  Rogers, Allan

  873

  Rooker, Jeff

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tyler, Paul

  Ruddock, Joan

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Salmond, Alex

  Wallace, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Watson, Mike

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Welsh, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simpson, Alan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

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

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wise, Audrey

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Stevenson, George

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Straw, Jack

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Colvin, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Congdon, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Conway, Derek

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Couchman, James

  Ashby, David

  Cran, James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkins, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Day, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Devlin, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bates, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dover, Den

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Booth, Hartley

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boswell, Tim

  Eggar, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bowden, Andrew

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Evennett, David

  Bright, Graham

  Faber, David

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Burns, Simon

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Burt, Alistair

  Forman, Nigel

  Butcher, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butler, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Carttiss, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Cash, William

  Gale, Roger

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Churchill, Mr

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Clappison, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gill, Christopher

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  874

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gorst, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Norris, Steve

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hague, William

  Page, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Paice, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Pawsey, James

  Harris, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pickles, Eric

  Hawkins, Nick

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Heald, Oliver

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hendry, Charles

  Richards, Rod

  Hicks, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Horam, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Sackville, Tom

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jack, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Jessel, Toby

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Key, Robert

  Spink, Dr Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Spring, Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sproat, Iain

  Knapman, Roger

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Steen, Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Stephen, Michael

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

  Stern, Michael

  Knox, Sir David

  Stewart, Allan

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Streeter, Gary

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sumberg, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sykes, John

  Legg, Barry

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Lightbown, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Lord, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Luff, Peter

  Thumham, Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  MacKay, Andrew

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

  Maclean, David

  Tracey, Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Trend, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Trotter, Neville

  Marlow, Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Walden, George

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Waller, Gary

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Ward, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mills, Iain

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Watts, John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Whitney, Ray

  Moss, Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  875

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willetts, David

  Wilshire, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilshire, Mark

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 23

  POWERS OF COMMUNITY COUNCILS
  '. —(1) A local authority may, by amending a scheme for the establishment of community councils under section 52 of the 1973 Act or in proposing a new scheme under section 22 of this Act, make provision for the exercise by a community council of any of its functions in the area covered by that community council.
  (2) It shall be competent for a community council to undertake any activity which it reasonably considers to be in the best interests of the residents of the area covered by the community council, except to the extent that the function has been statutorily assigned to another body and has not been included in a scheme in pursuance of sub-section (1) above.
  (3) It shall be competent for a community council to own heritable property in Scotland, and title to such property shall vest in the chairman, vice-chairman and clerk of the community council, ex officio and trustees.'.—[Mr. Wallace.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this we may discuss amendment No. 6, in clause 23, page 20, line 9, after 'scheme', insert
  'and about the proposed number and powers of future community councils within their area.'.
  Mr. Wallace: The purpose of the new clause is to stress the importance of community councils in the government of Scotland. As constituency Members, many of us know that they play an important role in the community, particularly in channelling the views of communities to their local Members. That is certainly the case in my constituency. Since the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, there have been developments, not only in rural areas, but in a number of urban areas, and very often areas where, without community councils, it would be difficult to focus on a community view.
  The purpose of the new clause is not in any way intended to limit the purpose and functions of community councils set out in section 51(2) of the 1973 Act. Indeed, it seeks to take community councils further than that. It would recognise that functions, which, under statute, are primarily the function of the new unitary authorities, could be discharged by a community council. That already happens in some areas—for example, some recreational responsibilities and the upkeep of cemeteries, and that is a way in which community councils can raise additional income. The new clause also seeks to have a power of general competence to supplement the current statutory responsibilities of community councils. In that way, I would hope that they would become a much more potent power in their own areas and that they would have an increasing opportunity to make representations to a number of statutory bodies. The Government have acknowledged that 'community councils should at least be consulted on the decentralisation proposals in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 6, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D.
  876
  Steel), proposes that there should also be statutory consultation with community councils on their number and their powers in a given area in future. As the scheme presently stands, while there is a general responsibility on the new councils to consult the public about the creation of community councils in their area, there is no statutory requirement to consult existing community councils. My right hon. Friend's amendment would strengthen that position and give existing community councils a role with regard to consultation when new schemes for community councils are proposed.
  There are other areas, too, in which it is important that community councils are involved. There is to be a statutory requirement to be involved in planning decisions, licensing applications, and proposals that might come from the Forestry Commission and the new water and sewerage authorities. I hope that the steps taken in the Bill to extend the statutory right of consultation can be taken further.
  We wish to clarify the position that community councils can hold heritable property. Why should not they buy premises if they have the funding to do so, or hold premises if they are bequeathed to them? Why should not the officers of a community council in some parts of the highlands be allowed to hold that property on a trust basis for the community rather than having it done by the central council, perhaps many hundreds of miles away? That is a simple point, but it would help to establish community councils more firmly in our scheme of arrangements for local government. They provide an important channel for the views of the communities that they represent. The new clause gives the House an opportunity to express its support for the network of community councils throughout Scotland.
  Mr. Stewart: There will be a great deal of sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). My first point, however, as I am sure he will recognise, is that not all community councils are capable of taking on an extended role.
  I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work in my constituency of many community councils, including Neilston, where I live, under its excellent chairman, Mr. Bill Reid. The role of community councils does vary, but we recognise, as does the hon. Gentleman, that local authorities must make the best use possible of the valuable resource that exists in the form of community councils. That is why we have given them, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, new powers under the Bill: the statutory right to be consulted on draft decentralisation schemes; and the statutory right to be consulted on local planning issues.
  Guidance will be issued to the new authorities, encouraging them to keep community councils informed about local licensing issues. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that we do not see community councils as an alternative mechanism for service delivery. That is why I cannot recommend the new clause to the House.
  On the hon. Gentleman's proposals in subsections (2) and (3), there is no legal bar to community councils being involved in those areas. I can confirm that to the hon. Gentleman. I understand the point of the subsections, but suggest that, in the light of the advice that I have given to him, they are unnecessary.
  Mr. Wallace: With regard to subsection (1), in which I refer to functions currently exercised by councils, does the Minister accept that there may be occasions when some of the functions are carried out by community councils, such as maintenance of cemeteries, and that that already happens quite legitimately?
  Mr. Stewart: I agree. If the local council thinks and believes that that is an appropriate way of delivery of its services, that is perfectly in order.
  On amendment No. 6, I have looked at the present legal position under the 1973 Act and clause 22 of the Bill. I believe that the provisions in the statute and the Bill adequately achieve the objective of ensuring that community councils have the opportunity to review their numbers and powers.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question about community councils' ownership of property. I assure him that there is nothing to prevent them from owning property. I hope that that reassurance will be helpful to him. I do not think that there is any dispute in the House about the importance of community councils and the role that they can play. I think, however, that it is, and can be, variable and, in the context of the general good will towards community councils, which extends to all Members, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
  Mr. Wallace: The Minister has gone a long way in clarifying those points, and there is much common ground between us. I have one query, which, perhaps, could be looked at in another place. The Minister said that community councils would have the opportunity to comment on any proposals for new councils. We were looking for a statutory right to be consulted, but that is something that can be looked at before the Bill is completed.
  With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 28

  DUTY OF EDUCATION AUTHORITIES FOR EDUCATION OF UNDER FIVES
  '(1) For section 1(2) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, there shall be substituted—
  "(2) The duty imposed on an education authority by subsection (1) above shall include a responsibility to secure that educational provision is available for pupils between the ages of three and five years, either by—

  (a) the provision of nursery schools or nursery classes, according to guidelines issued by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools,

  or, where the authority considers the provision of such schools or classes to be inexpedient,

  (b) it shall be their duty to manage the provision of pre-five educational services in other establishments such as day nurseries, pre-school playgroups, independent nursery schools and daycare centres within their area, with specific responsibility for securing the quality of staff training, accommodation and resources according to guidelines issued by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools,

  (c) any additional expenses incurred in pursuit of this duty shall be paid by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Wallace.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take new clause 31—Statutory provision for nursery education—
  'It shall be the duty of each local authority to draw up a scheme for the statutory provision of pre-five nursery places for all eligible children in that area and to specify a date for the implementation of such a scheme which will be submitted to the Secretary of State for final approval.'.
  Mr. Wallace: It appears that, like London buses, Liberal Democrat new clauses and amendments come along in twos and threes after a long wait.
  I think that it is generally agreed that there should be more nursery provision in Scotland and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom. Last December, the Prime Minister stated his ambition
  "over time to move to universal nursery education".
  Welcoming the publication of a statistical bulletin last month, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), said:
  "The Government is committed to an extension of nursery and other pre-school provision in the public, private and voluntary sectors to allow a full range of options for all parents of pre-school children."
  That motivation—which I suspect is shared by all parties—is well founded. In recent months, reports of United States studies have shown that those who have had a nursery education are less likely to be unemployed or to resort to crime in later life. Every £1 spent on nursery education today gives a sevenfold return in years to come.
  Apart from the benefits to society as a whole, nursery education provides individual children with an important benefit, unlocking a potential that can develop and blossom in future years. It gives them a different type of educational experience from that provided by school—a type more appropriate to their age. It may well also give an early warning of learning difficulties or other behavioural problems, thus allowing such problems to be tackled more effectively when the child is younger. It can also lay the foundations for a sound education, contributing in due course—we hope—to higher levels of numeracy and literacy.
  Although those are all worthy objectives, one of the problems is insufficient provision. In a written answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 3 May, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said:
  "It is estimated that 57,600 children under five years had places in local authority education or day care establishments at 31 March 1992."—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 489.]
  That was only 18 per cent. of children under five. As for the levels of provision of state nursery education in the member states of the European Union, it appears that only Portugal has a lower level than the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Foulkes: One cannot say more than that.
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me too much.
  Provision in Scotland differs widely, from more than 51 per cent. in Lothian and Glasgow to only 16 per cent. in the Highland region and 3.3 per cent. in Argyll and Bute. There is no provision at all in the Western Isles: I thought that I had better add that information before the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) jumped to party conclusions. That suggests that access to the current range of nursery education is little more than a lottery, depending on where people live. From the earliest

  879
  age, children in Scotland are given unequal opportunities. The new clause would impose a statutory duty on local authorities throughout Scotland to address the problem.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he accept that, in the imperfect world in which we live, there is one certainty—that nursery education should be available to all children with special needs?
  Mr. Wallace: I would endorse that without qualification. I should like provision to be universal, but if there is to be priority it should certainly be accorded to such children.
  Nursery education is not the only means of serving young families and the educational needs of young children. There is a consensus that there should be a range of provision—playgroups, workplace nurseries, private child care and nursery arrangements and creches. All those have a contribution to make. Again, however, we need only look at different parts of Scotland to observe wide variations in provision, in terms of both availability and quality. The new clause addresses that aspect of pre-school education: it would give local authorities a statutory duty to manage the range of opportunities that should be available. I hope that, in that way, we could establish throughout Scotland the quality and availability of places for under-fives that are widely agreed to be necessary to get them off to a good start.
  There's the rub—by which I mean finance. I quoted the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West earlier. He also said:
  "These ambitions … must be tempered by reality and can only be brought about as resources become available."
  Some 20-odd years ago, Baroness Thatcher—then Secretary of State for Education—made a similar commitment, but did not will the resources. It is well known that my own party has not only made a commitment but been prepared to say that funds should be available to ensure that it is realised.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Dalyell: Earlier this month, many of us received hospitality from the Scottish Pre-School Play Association in the Members' Dining Room. One question was foremost in the minds of the association's members: what would happen to pre-school and nursery education if the regions ceased to exist? How will the Minister answer that question?
  Mrs. Ewing: I support new clause 28. New clause 31, which stands in my name, has a similar intent.
  I think it very sad that previous local government legislation removed the statutory duty on local authorities to provide nursery education. We are attempting to ensure that local authorities give priority to such education.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred to special needs. As you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as other hon. Members also know, I have a special interest in the matter. I believe that the early recognition of problems that children may have could best be ensured by making statutory provision for nursery education in all our local authority areas and by providing qualified and trained personnel to support children with special needs.
  880
  My training in special needs was on how to deal with children who were perhaps in their teens. It has always seemed to me—I think that this has been borne out by subsequent research—that if a child's problems are spotted early enough, that child will not become one of the difficult teenagers with whom many teachers must now deal. I believe that, as well as providing nursery education—particularly for children with special needs—we should ensure that those working with them receive the necessary training and support.
  Of course, I should like every child to have the chance of nursery education. Very young children are like little sponges, absorbing a good deal of information and education and then blossoming. I agree that youngsters should go to school as early as possible and that the necessary facilities should be provided. We must also recognise that we live in a changing society. In my area, and, I suspect, in many other parts of Scotland, women are now often the family breadwinners because of the lack of employment. Therefore, it is important to provide nursery education so that women can reach out to their careers and become breadwinners. At present, far too many are on low wages and cannot afford private nursery facilities. We must remedy that problem in general. Women have an important role to play and the support of nursery education is important to them in terms of their family life.
  Money has been mentioned, and the Government always say that we cannot afford nursery education. Yet yesterday we saw a paper on defence saying that we must crash ahead and buy as many Trident nuclear warheads as possible, as fast as possible. Yet in Scotland we cannot provide nursery education for our children. I ask the Government in all seriousness, "What are your priorities—nuclear warheads or children?" We have already argued today about the need for a children Act for Scotland and the need to recognise the problems that children face, yet the Government's priority appears to be spending our money on the weapons of death.
  Finally, I remind the Minister of what the Prime Minister wrote in his document "Access and Opportunity". He said:
  "Scotland has a long and proud tradition of academic excellence. It is on this firm foundation that the Government have sought to build their reforms of education and training. We have backed these reforms with greatly increased resources. As a result, parents and their children now have opportunities that were simply not available to previous generations of Scots."
  Those words ring hollow.
  Mr. Davidson: It would be appropriate if the Minister said that he intended to move towards universal pre-five provision rather than, as I suspect will happen as a result of the reorganisation, cuts in pre-five services. The effect of the reorganisation will be that local authorities will be obliged to cut all the services that are not statutory. In those circumstances, the pre-five service, which is an important part of the provision in many areas, will be reduced. The Government should now publicly recognise the importance of the value that children get from pre-five provision.
  Many hon. Members have touched on the subject, but I shall concentrate on the support that pre-five services provide to parents, especially single parents. Over the past year or so, the Government have spent a great deal of time lambasting single parents for being a charge on the community as a whole. Many single parents desperately want to work, but cannot make child care arrangements that would enable them to do so.

  881
  In my area, nurseries have been provided as part of the Govan initiative project, which has enabled many single parents who would otherwise have been unable to do so to go to work and to support their families, thus avoiding being a charge on the community. The Government should consider the cost of the reorganisation and ask themselves whether the people of Scotland would prefer that money to be spent on providing universal pre-five services or on a reorganisation that nobody wants. I believe that Scottish people would rather have pre-five services for all the children who need them.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about pre-school provision after the reorganisation. The funding allocated for nursery education in the local government financial settlement is based on the numbers of children of nursery age in each authority area. So provided that the new authorities give the same priority to nursery education as do the existing authorities, there is no reason why they should not continue the service. Clearly, maximum continuity is desirable.
  The Scottish Office position is that we seek an extension of nursery and pre-school provision. Our long-term goal is a full range of options to satisfy the requirements of all parents of pre-school age children. We have a good track record, but our ambitions must be tempered by reality. They can be brought about only as resources become available. We have to report considerable achievement.
  As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will realise, since the Government came to power the number of children attending nursery schools has increased from 31,700 to more than 48,000—an increase of 52 per cent. Moreover, taking under-fives provision generally—I include nursery schools, day nurseries and pre-school playgroups in that grouping—authorities could, should they wish to target a particular age group, cater for almost 80 per cent. of the three and four-year-old population in Scotland.
  The Government have declared their intention to explore ways of adding still further to the choice available to parents. We are determined that that will—
  Mr. Wallace rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No doubt the hon. Gentleman wants to ask me about resources. Those are under consideration. Clearly it is a matter of top priority that the matter be considered most carefully.
  We are determined to extend choice not only in the public but in the private and voluntary sectors. We have to guard against the danger that by favouring one element we may cause another to fall by the wayside. I know, for example, of the Scottish Pre-School Play Association's concerns that that should not happen.
  New clause 28 refers to the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools published on 21 February. That report supports our policy of choice and gives advice on the education of children under five in Scotland across the full range of provision. I believe that it will set the tone for pre-five education in the future and I commend its conclusions and recommendations to all parents and professionals involved in the education of young children.
  The report provides a range of options, and does so with a specific intent. It leaves providers to decide what is most appropriate for their area. It would certainly not be appropriate to respond to that report by limiting the flexible
  882
  use of the advice given in the report by imposing a statutory provision that it must be followed regardless of particular circumstances, as the new clause would do.
  Moreover, the effect of new clause 28 would be to make education authorities responsible for the management of educational services provided in establishments in the voluntary and independent sectors—in playgroups and private nursery schools. As I have said, our aim is for diversity and choice. New clause 28 recognises that that is a correct approach and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. However, safeguards through the involvement of education authorities under the Children Act 1989 and through the inspectorate report mean that the position is well protected as things stand. I should also make it clear that new clause 28 is defective in that it talks in terms of "educational provision" without clarifying what that means.
  New clause 31 is defective in that it does not specify the meaning of "statutory provision", of "pre-five nursery places" or of "eligible children". It would also place the duty on the local authority as a whole rather than on the education authority—a somewhat unusual proposition. More important is the fact that the purpose of new clause 31 is obscure. Arrangements for the provision of nursery education by education authorities are flexible and can be provided for all children whatever their age. As I said earlier, decisions on such matters are very much for authorities to make in the light of local circumstances. Why, then, should we provide only for "eligible children ", whatever that may mean, or for the intervention of the Secretary of State?
  I find that strange—
  Mr. Wilson: Surely the Minister must accept that there must be some statutory minimum, so will he specifically address the point that I raised? I am not arguing the case for children with special needs as against that of other children, but surely it must be right to make some provision in law for the children who are clearly most in need of pre-school education. Surely the Minister cannot maintain that there should be no statutory obligation to provide for any children at all.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was present earlier, when I said that under the Education Act 1980 education authorities are required to
  "secure that there is made for their area adequate and efficient provision of school education and further education".
  Mr. Wilson: School education?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is a matter of resources, as well as of the good will and intention of the authorities. A variety of different types of provision is presently on offer. As has been made clear by the Scottish Pre-School Play Association, it is in the public interest that the provision that they give should continue.
  Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was about to deal with the hon. Lady's new clause. She wished to involve the Secretary of State in local decisions. It is strange that she should want to do that, unless she believes that the Secretary of State knows as much as education authorities about the need for nursery schools in particular areas,

  883
  having regard to such considerations as the availability of other forms of pre-school provision, or the specific needs of certain parts of an authority's area.
  For those reasons, I invite the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to withdraw his new clause and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) not to press hers.
  Mrs. Ewing: I believe that in a nation the size of Scotland it should be perfectly possible to have a national strategy for nursery education, as my new clause suggests.
  In the context of the provision for children with special needs in every community in Scotland, is the Minister satisfied that adequate provision is being made and resources provided to ensure that there are speech and occupational therapists and all the various groupings that are required to ensure that each child has his or her needs met? I am certainly not satisfied, and I suspect from the tone of the arguments of other Opposition Members that those needs are not being met anywhere in Scotland.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Social education needs are extremely important, and we have enormously expanded the resources for those with learning difficulties and acute learning difficulties. We acknowledge the importance of the support services in this connection and we expect that many authorities will wish to retain a comprehensive range of services within their own boundaries. In other cases, authorities may take advantage, for example, of the options for provision by joint arrangements with another authority, or through contracts with the voluntary sector.
  It is clear, however, that the duty will remain with the education authority to whose area a child belongs. With regard to the size of authorities, Borders is a smaller authority than many, but it has an excellent record in that connection. We have not decided whether that will be the situation in the future in relation to children with special educational needs.
  8pm
  Mr. Wallace: We have had a useful opportunity to get the Government's position clearly on record, and we have had a lot of pious expectations and statements. Clearly, the point is that there are no resources, and authorities will not be able to deliver in anything like the way in which they ought to. I do not think that we will achieve anything by putting the matter to the vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I beg to move amendment No. 2, a new schedule—Area Tourist Boards—

  Area of Tourist Board

  Comprising area of

  Shetland

  Shetland Council.

  Orkney

  Orkney Council.

  Western Isles

  Western Isles Council.

  Highland

  Highland Council.

  Grampian

  City of Aberdeen Council;

  Aberdeenshire Council;

  Moray Council.

  Tayside

  Angus Council;

  City of Dundee Council.

  Fife

  Fife Council.

  Perthshire

  Perthshire and Kinross Council.

  Area of Tourist Board

  Comprising area of

  Argyll and Bute

  Argyll and Bute Council.

  Central

  Clackmannan and Falkirk Council;

  Dumbarton and Clydebank Council;

  Stirling Council.

  Glasgow and Clyde

  City of Glasgow Council;

  Valley

  Inverclyde Council;

  Renfrewshire Council;

  East Renfrewshire Council: East

  Dunbartonshire Council;

  North Lanarkshire Council;

  South Lanarkshire Council.

  Edinburgh and Lothian

  City of Edinburgh Council;

  East and Mid Lothian Council;

  West Lothian Council.

  Scottish Borders

  The Borders Council.

  Ayrshire and Arran

  East Ayrshire Council;

  North Ayrshire Council;

  South Ayrshire Council.

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway Council.'.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the amendment, leave out from "Glasgow and Clyde Valley" to "South Lanarkshire Council" and insert

  'Glasgow

  City of Glasgow Council;

  Inverclude Council;

  Renfrewshire Council;

  East Renfrewshire Council;

  East Dunbartonshire Council;

  Clyde Valley

  North Lanarkshire Council;

  South Lanarkshire Council.'.

  Amendment No. 4, in clause 167, page 112, line 31, leave out
  'may be specified in the order'
  and insert
  'specified in Schedule (Area Tourist Boards) to this Act.'.
  No. 191, in clause 171, page 117, line 32, leave out 'in their area'.
  Mrs. Michie: I should say at the outset that I do not wish to prejudice any other colleague, particularly in the highlands, who may wish to see a change to the proposed tourist board arrangements. That includes the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), and the amendment in his name.
  It was with considerable astonishment, and not a little dismay, that the announcement of the revised tourist board structure was greeted by myself and the people of Argyll and Bute. As we all know, there has been no member from the highlands and islands sitting on the committee and that has been a grave omission.
  I am grateful for the opportunity now to move the amendment, for which I seek the support of the Minister and the House. The amendment would include in the Bill the list of area tourist boards as announced by the Secretary of State, but add to it one more, to be named Argyll and Bute, which would be coterminous with the new local authority area.
  Previously in Argyll and Bute, there were four tourist boards, but it is now accepted that there should be one. But never in our wildest dreams—or is it nightmares?—was it considered possible that the Secretary of State would agree to Argyll and Bute being lumped in with Stirling,

  885
  Clackmannan, Falkirk, Dumbarton and Clydebank and being given the unwieldy name of the Loch Lomond, Stirling and Trossachs, Argyll and Bute tourist board. What a mess.
  Granted, for the traveller seeking to discover Scotland, those are names to conjure with, but Clackmannan has little in common with Colonsay or Coll. In its original submission in response to the Scottish Office and Scottish tourist board consultation papers, a working party representing a wide range of tourist interests in Argyll and Bute clearly expressed the view that there must be one tourist board to cover the new local authority area. Therefore, there was deep frustration at the inability to have a meaningful dialogue on the matter. Consultation is a two-way process, but there has been none of that in this case.
  Not only is Argyll and Bute one of most gloriously beautiful parts of Scotland—many hon. Members have spent happy and relaxing holidays there—but it is unique, because of the number of islands within its boundaries. There are some 550 islands, of which 28 are inhabited. It covers an area of 2,500 sq m and has a coast line longer in distance than that from Calais to Gibraltar.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: May I endorse what the hon. Lady is saying about her constituency? She may remember that, when I was on holiday in her constituency, she came to hold a surgery in Colonsay. Although I did not avail myself of the opportunity—I spent the time on the golf course instead—that is a ringing endorsement of the hon. Lady's attitude towards her constituency.
  Mrs. Michie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I remember him visiting Colonsay and playing on the golf course—in among the sheep, as I recall.
  By its nature, Argyll and Bute is crucially different from the urban conurbations with which the Bill would link it. It does not have the same day-visitor identity as Loch Lomond and Stirling castle. Its prime objective is to attract people more to resort destinations than to tourist areas. That relies not just on road and rail transport but on ferry and air travel to the islands and remote mainland havens. Surely the setting up of a new structure should always follow a decision on the purpose and the function. One decides what one wants to do and how one wants to do it and then one creates the structure.
  The purpose and function in this case is to make tourism, which is a vital industry in Argyll and Bute, flourish and be successful. There is already a great deal of co-operation between the existing public and private bodies. It is only logical, therefore, that there should be one local authority, one enterprise company and one tourist board. A detailed study of the financial viability of such a board concluded that the potential grant-funding and the likely savings in expenditure would indeed make it financially viable. That confirmed an earlier report commissioned by the Argyll and Islands enterprise company.
  If the amendment is not accepted, the downside is that there would be without a doubt a significant drop in tourism and in the associated income. There would be an increase in administration costs in an effort to maintain the identity of the area and—I know this for certain—there would be an upsurge of small groups seeking to promote their own particular corner. Many of those who are closely
  886
  involved in the work of the tourist boards would simply walk away because of a sense of isolation and non-compatibility with the Government's proposed huge board. To make a rural tourist board successful, those involved need to feel a sense of belonging and ownership.
  The Secretary of State has already accepted the logic of having separate island tourist boards. Argyll and Bute is little different and has, over the years, built up a distinct industry. We must remember that it is subject to objective 1 status and will be eligible for EC funding. The European Community has identified tourism as a crucial growth area. It would be ironic if the Government, having turned Argyll and Bute into a single-tier local authority and removed it from Strathclyde, which the Prime Minister once unwisely described as a monstrosity, put it back into another huge area.
  The amendment is supported by many organisations —Argyll and Bute district council, the Bute and Cowal tourist board, the West Highlands and Islands of Argyll tourist board, the local enterprise company—and by the chairman of the Scottish Confederation of Tourism. To achieve cohesion and a sense of purpose in promoting the distinctive, historical, cultural, social and economic features of the area, I urge the Minister and the House to take the sensible course and accept the logic and desirability of an Argyll and Bute tourist board.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) argued that we should reconsider the proposal for an Argyll-Stirling tourist board. The amendment would remove the flexibility of action that we intend in relation to future changes in tourist board area boundaries. We hope that it will not be necessary to alter those boundaries, but if, for whatever reason, change is required at some time in the future, we need the power to be able to achieve that change quickly and easily. Such a proposal is contained in the Bill—a change can be achieved by an order made under clauses 168 and 169—but if we agreed to the amendment, the Bill would have to be changed.
  In its advice, the Scottish tourist board was strongly of the view that a board which comprised the new Argyll and Bute, Stirling, Clackmannan and Falkirk unitary authorities would be a major player in Scottish tourism. Contrary to what has been claimed, the STB believed that such a board would cover a marketable area with considerable synergy between mainland Argyll—[Hon. Members: "Synergy?"] Yes, synergy. There would be considerable synergy between mainland Argyll, rural Stirling and Clackmannan, with Loch Lomond, which I am sure the hon. Lady would agree is a destination of international renown, as the central feature.
  I agree that the considerable market appeal, coupled with the gateway status of Stirling, will bring induced benefit to less visited areas such as Clackmannan, Cowal and Kintyre. It would also provide a stronger mainland area to service the remote and fragile Argyll islands. Of course, it would be expected to be financially viable.
  Analysis of current funding shows that two separate areas would be financially weak in comparison with many of the other boards and underlines fears already experienced in Argyll and Bute that a separate board for the area could not compete or survive. I am aware of the report, to which the hon. Lady referred, on an Argyll and Bute tourist board. However, I am not convinced by its claims that an Argyll and Bute area tourist board would be

  887
  financially viable. We are aware that in the recent past the West Highlands and Argyll board has experienced financial difficulties and, as a consequence, has received substantial financial assistance from Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish tourist board.
  Against that background, Argyll and Bute district council's report strikes too optimistic a note. Some of its claims for the new Argyll and central Scotland area tourist board are completely misplaced. Therefore, with regret I cannot support the hon. Lady's amendment. I recommend accordingly that the House rejects it.
  8.15 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. He has a number of facts wrong and he has been misinformed. The Scottish tourist board was wrong to give the Scottish Office and the Minister that advice. It did so without consulting people in Argyll and Bute and without conducting any sort of dialogue or discussion with them. For the Minister to say that Stirling and Clackmannan is a gateway to Kintyre or Oban is just not credible.
  I find it extraordinary that the Minister should maintain that an Argyll and Bute tourist board, which would include Helensburgh, would not be financially viable and that he is rejecting the report by the local enterprise company. I hope that he will reconsider the matter and that it will be considered again in another place. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

  NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS
  Amendment proposed: No. 25, in page 124, line 8, leave out
  'Banff and Buchan District Council'.—[Mr. Salmond.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 20, Noes 265.

  Division No. 243]

  [8.16 pm

  AYES

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Rendel, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Salmond, Alex

  Harvey, Nick

  Skinner, Dennis

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tyler, Paul

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Wallace, James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing and

  Maclennan, Robert

  Mr. Andrew Welsh.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Baldry, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bates, Michael

  Amess, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ashby, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkins, Robert

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Booth, Hartley

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Boswell, Tim

  888

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bowis, John

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hague, William

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hannam, Sir John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Burns, Simon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawkins, Nick

  Butler, Peter

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hendry, Charles

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Cash, William

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

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

  Coe, Sebastian

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Congdon, David

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Couchman, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cran, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Devlin, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

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

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, Sir David

  Dover, Den

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Duncan, Alan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Elletson, Harold

  Leigh, Edward

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Evennett, David

  Lord, Michael

  Faber, David

  Luff, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maclean, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Malone, Gerald

  Forman, Nigel

  Mans, Keith

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marlow, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  French, Douglas

  Mates, Michael

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gallie, Phil

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Merchant, Piers

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mills, Iain

  Garnier, Edward

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gill, Christopher

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Moss, Malcolm

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gorst, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  889

  Norris, Steve

  Stewart, Allan

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Streeter, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sumberg, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Page, Richard

  Sykes, John

  Paice, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thumham, Peter

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Richards, Rod

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

  Riddick, Graham

  Tracey, Richard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Walden, George

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Sackville, Tom

  Ward, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Watts, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Whitney, Ray

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Willetts, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wood, Timothy

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Yeo, Tim

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Stephen, Michael

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Stern, Michael

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 287, in page 124, column 2, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—

  '(except first, polling district PDB; secondly, that part of polling district PDC lying to the east and south of a line commencing at the junction of unnamed roads at grid reference NO 3297 3106; then running northwest to the crossroads at Mains of Fowlis at grid reference NO 3247 3239; then running northeastward along the unnamed road between Mains of Fowlis and Liff to the western curtilage of the property known as Cater-Milly at grid reference NO 3300 3276; then running southward and eastward along the western and southern curtilages of the said property to the field boundary at grid reference NO 3308 3259; then continuing southeastward along the said field boundary and across the Liff Burn to the eastern perimeter of the woodland known as Gray Den at grid reference NO 3332 3239; then running north and east along the path running along the said eastern perimeter of Gray Den to its junction with the unnamed track between Liff and Mains of Gray at grid reference NO 3336 3273; then running north to the junction of the said track and the southern curtilage of the property known as Gray Cottage; then running northeastward along the southern curtilages of Gray Cottage, Learsmonth House and Woodend Cottages to the unnamed road between Liff and the Royal Dundee Liff Hospital then running eastward along the said road past the northern perimeter of the said Hospital to the road junction at grid

  reference NO 3537 3276; that part of polling district ADA lying to the east and south of a line commencing at a point on the A923 road at grid reference NO 3560 3378; then running north along the eastern curtilage of No 100 Coupar Angus Road and northwestwards along the northern curtilages of Nos 100 to 122 Coupar Angus Road to the eastern perimeter of Blairfield Road; then northwards along the said eastern perimeter to the field boundary at grid reference NO 3533 3436; then northeastwards along the said field boundary to its junction with Templeton Road at grid reference NO 3577 3455; thirdly, that part of polling district ADC lying to the east and south of a line commencing at grid reference NO 3660 3474 then running northward to the northwest corner of Baldragon Wood at grid reference NO 3658 3496; then running eastward along the northern perimeter of the said wood and continuing along the field boundary to grid reference NO 3725 3491; fourthly, those parts of polling districts ADE and ADF lying to the east and south of a line commencing on the southern boundary of polling district ADE on the A929(T) road at grid reference NO 4166 3458; then running northwards along the said A929(T) road to its junction with the unnamed road leading to South Powrie; then running southeastwards along the said unnamed road to South Powrie; then eastwards from South Powrie along the unnamed road leading to Barns of Wedderburn as far as the northwestern curtilage of that property at grid reference NO 4347 3469; then running southwestwards and southeastwards along the northwestern and southwestern perimeter of the said property to the point where it meets the unnamed road leading to Fintry at grid reference NO 4347 3458; then running southwestwards along the said unnamed road to the southern boundary of polling district ADF at the road junction at grid reference NO 4352 3466; and fifthly, those parts of polling districts EDN, EDQ, PDA, WED, WEE, WEF and WEG lying within its boundary).'.

  No. 288, in page 124, line 21, column 2, leave out from 'DB78' to end of line 39 and insert—

  'lying north of a line commencing at grid reference NS 3464 8256; then running northeastwards to the field corner at grid reference NS 3469 8264; then southeastwards to the field junction at grid reference NS 3608 8198; then northeastwards to the field junction at grid reference NS 3658 8242; then northwestwards to the junction of the field boundary and an unnamed burn at grid reference NS 3613 8269; then generally northeastwards along the course of the said burn to where it meets Loch Lomond at grid reference NS 3743 8336; then due northeastwards from that point to the eastern boundary of the said polling district in Loch Lomond.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Amendment proposed: 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.'. — [Mr. McLeish.]

  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 266.

  Division No. 244

  [8.29 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ainger, Nick

  Eastham, Ken

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Enright, Derek

  Allen, Graham

  Etherington, Bill

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fisher, Mark

  Austin-Walker, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Barnes, Harry

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Barron, Kevin

  Foulkes, George

  Battle, John

  Fraser, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bell, Stuart

  Galloway, George

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gapes, Mike

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Garrett, John

  Benton, Joe

  George, Bruce

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gerrard, Neil

  Berry, Roger

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Betts, Clive

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Blair, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  Blunkett, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boyes, Roland

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bradley, Keith

  Graham, Thomas

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burden, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Byers, Stephen

  Gunnell, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Hain, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Henderson, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heppell, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hutton, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Ingram, Adam

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jamieson, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Janner, Greville

  Darling, Alistair

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dixon, Don

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dobson, Frank

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Dowd, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  892

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lewis, Terry

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Livingstone, Ken

  Radice, Giles

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Loyden, Eddie

  Redmond, Martin

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Reid, Dr John

  McAllion, John

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McCartney, Ian

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rogers, Allan

  McFall, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  McKelvey, William

  Rooney, Terry

  McLeish, Henry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Madden, Max

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Short, Clare

  Mandelson, Peter

  Simpson, Alan

  Marek, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meale, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Alun

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spellar, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morley, Elliot

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Tyler, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mullin, Chris

  Wallace, James

  Murphy, Paul

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wareing, Robert N

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Watson, Mike

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Olner, William

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, Brian

  Parry, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Wortnington, Tony

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pope, Greg

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Booth, Hartley

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Boswell, Tim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowden, Andrew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Ashby, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkins, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Baldry, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Burns, Simon

  Bates, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butcher, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butler, Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cash, William

  893

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

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

  Coe, Sebastian

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Congdon, David

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  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

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dover, Den

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

  Duncan, Alan

  Knox, Sir David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Elletson, Harold

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Evennett, David

  Lord, Michael

  Faber, David

  Luff, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maclean, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Malone, Gerald

  Forman, Nigel

  Mans, Keith

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marlow, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Mates, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Merchant, Piers

  Gallie, Phil

  Mills, Iain

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Garnier, Edward

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gill, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gorst, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Norris, Steve

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Page, Richard

  Hague, William

  Paice, James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Pawsey, James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Harris, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Richards, Rod

  Heald, Oliver

  Riddick, Graham

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hicks, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  894

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Thumham, Peter

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tredlnnick, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Trend, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Trotter, Neville

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Waller, Gary

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spring, Richard

  Watts, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Wells, Bowen

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Whitney, Ray

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stephen, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Wilshire, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sumberg, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Sweeney, Walter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sykes, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 289, in page 124, line 46,column 1, leave out 'and Falkirk'.
  No. 290, in page 124, line 46, column 2, leave out from 'Council' to end of line 49.
  No. 292, in page 125, line 12, column 2, leave out 'and Mearns and' and insert 'or'.

  'Falkirk

  Falkirk District Council'

  No. 293, in page 125, line 15, column 2, leave out from
  'Council' to end of line 18.

  'East Lothian

  East Lothian District Council.

  Midlothian

  Midlothian District Council.

  No. 295, in page 125, line 45, column 2, at end insert—

  'and that part of polling district PDA lying to the south of a line commencing at a point adjacent to Stan Inn Farm at grid reference NO 3309 3051 on the A90 road; then running eastward along the said road to the junction at grid reference NO 3462 3079'.

  No. 296, in page 125, line 46, column 2, leave out from 'In council' to the end of line 37 on page 126 and insert—

  '; Strathclyde electoral division 79 (Barrhead).'

  No. 297, in page 126, line 38, column 2, leave out from 'except' to the end of the line 39 and insert—

  'Strathclyde electoral division 79 (Barrhead).'

  — [Mr.Stewart.]

Clause 2
  CONSTITUTION OF COUNCILS
  Amendment made: No. 48, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.—[Mr. Stewart.]
Clause 4

  CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN
  Amendments made: No. 49, in page 3, line 2, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.
  No. 50, in page 3, line 3, leave out 'vice-chairman' and insert 'depute convener'.
  No. 51, in page 3, line 9, leave out 'chairman and vice-chairman' and insert 'convener and depute convener'.
  No. 52, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.
  No. 53, in page 3, line 12, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.
  No. 54, in page 3, line 15, leave out 'chairman or vice-chairman' and insert 'convener or depute convener'.
  No. 55, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.
  No. 56, in page 3, line 21, leave out 'vice-chairman' and insert 'depute convener'.
  No. 57, in page 3, line 23, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.
  No. 173, in page 3, line 24, after 'shall' insert
  with effect from 1st April 1996,'.
  No. 58, in page 3, line 25, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.
  No. 59, in page 3, line 27, leave out 'chairman and vice-chairman' and insert 'convener and depute convener'.—[Mr.Stewart.]

Clause 6

  DATE OF ELECTIONS
  Amendments made: No. 174, in page 4, line 8, after 'preceding' insert
  'the year or, in the case of an order affecting more than one year,'.
  No. 175, in page 4, line 9, at end insert—
  '(1A) An order made under subsection (1)(b) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr.Stewart.]

Schedule 2

  ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  Amendments made: No. 113, in page 128, line 6, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.
  No. 114, in page 128, line 10, leave out 'chairman', in both places where it occurs, and insert 'convener'.
  No. 115, in page 128, line 26, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.
  No. 116, in page 128, line 26, leave out 'vice-chairman' and insert 'depute convener'.
  No. 117, in page 128, line 29, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.
  No. 118, in page 128, line 30, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.
  No. 119, in page 128, line 31, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 8

  TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES
  Amendments made: No. 176, in page 4, line 19, at beginning insert
  'Subject to the provisions of this section,'.
  No. 177, in page 4, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert—
  '(2A) Each regional and district council shall, in accordance with the provisions of an order made under this section, prepare a scheme in relation to the transfer under or by virtue of this Act of their employees.'.
  No. 178, in page 4, line 34, leave out '(2)(c)' and insert '(2A)'.
  No. 179, in page 4, line 37, at end insert—
  '( ) The Secretary of State shall by order under this section provide for the transfer of all fire and police personnel employed by an existing local authority for the purposes of a fire brigade or police force to the new authority which will, after 1st April 1996, have responsibility as respects that brigade or force.'.
  No. 180, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'and'.
  No. 181, in page 4, line 44, at end insert—
  ' "fire personnel" means any persons employed by an existing local authority for the sole purpose of assisting a fire brigade maintained by that authority;'.
  No. 182, in page 5, line 3, at end insert 'and
  "police personnel" means any persons employed by virtue of section 9 (employees other than constables) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967:.-[Mr.Stewart.]

Clause 11

  REMUNERATION OF EMPLOYEES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  Amendments made: No. 60, in page 6, line 18, after '(b)' insert
  'by order made by statutory instrument'.
  No. 61, in page 6, line 21, at end insert—
  '() An order under subsection (1)(b) above—

  (a) may make provision as to the constitution and membership of the body established;

  (b) may include provision as to the employment of staff and the remuneration and superannuation of the members and staff of the body; and

  (c) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 13

  COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF OFFICE OR DIMINUTION OF EMOLUMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 62, in page 8, line 46, leave out 'or under' and insert
  ',under or by virtue of'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 19

  PROPERTY COMMISSION
  Amendments made: No. 63, in page 15, line 45, leave out '(A)'.
  No. 64, in page 15, leave out from line 47 to the end of line 2 on page 16.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 20

  JOINT COMMITTEES AND JOINT BOARDS
  Amendment made: No. 65, in page 16, line 40, after 'shall' insert
  'be in terms agreed by the relevant authorities and shall'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 23

  DUTY TO PREPARE DECENTRALISATION SCHEMES
  Amendment made: No. 6, in page 20, after 'scheme', insert
  'and about the proposed number and powers of future community councils within their area.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 24

  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS: FINANCE
  Amendment made: No. 67, in page 20, line 38, after 'may' insert
  ', after consulting such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be appropriate,'.
  —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 26
  VALUATION LISTS
  Amendment made: No. 280, in page 21, line 46, after 'Galloway,' insert 'Fife,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Clause 27
  VALUATION AREAS AND AUTHORITIES AND APPOINTMENT OF ASSESSORS ETC.
  Amendment made: No. 68, in page 23, leave out lines 31 to 34.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Clause 28
  VALUATION ROLLS
  Amendment made: No. 281, in page 23, line 43, after 'Galloway,' insert 'Fife,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Schedule 4

  AMENDMENTS OF THE 1972 ACT
  Amendments made: No. 304, in page 134, line 26, leave out from 'words' to end of line and insert
  'from "any", where it first occurs, to "may" substitute "any local authority may";'.
  No. 223, in page 134, line 28, leave out from 'words' to end of line 29 and insert
  'from "of the", where they thirdly occur, to the end substitute "of the area of the local authority"'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 34

  REORGANISATION OF POLICE AREAS
  Amendments made: No. 282, in page 29, line 2 [Clause 34], leave out 'and'.
  No. 283, in page 29, line 4, column 2, leave out 'and' and insert 'Lothian,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 36

  FIRE SERVICES
  Amendments made: No. 284, in page 31, line 22 [Clause 36], leave out 'and'.
  No. 285, in page 31, line 28, leave out 'and' and insert 'Lothian,'.
  No. 70, in page 32, line 8, at end insert—
  '( ) Before making an administration scheme under this section the Secretary of State shall—

  (a) consult such fire authorities as appear to him to be affected by the scheme; and

  (b) where any such authority submit objections to the scheme, inform that authority in writing whether he accepts the objections and, if he does not, why he does not.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 40

  ESTABLISHMENT ETC. OF STRATHCLYDE PASSENGER TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
  Amendments made: No. 183, in page 38, line 46, at end insert—
  '( ) Before making an order under subsection (4) above the Secretary of State shall consult such persons or bodies as he thinks fit.'.
  No. 286, in page 39, line 8, at end insert—
  '( ) section 97A (studies for improving economy etc. in services);
  ( ) section 97B (furnishing of information and documents to Commission);'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 43

  GUIDANCE AS TO EXERCISE OF TRAFFIC POWERS
  Amendments made: No. 71, in page 41, line 17, after 'consult' insert
  'the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service in respect of the provision by them of an ambulance service by virtue of the National Health Service (Functions of the Common Services Agency) (Scotland) Order 1974 and'.
  No. 72, in page 41, line 18, leave out 'officers of police;' and insert
  'constables of the police forces maintained;
  ( ) the fire authorities (within the meaning of the Fire Services Act 1947);'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 44

  RESTRICTION ON ORDER-MAKING POWERS OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES
  Amendments made: No. 73, in page 42, line 28, leave out 'relevant'.
  No. 74, in page 42, leave out lines 42 and 43.
  No. 75, in page 42, line 46, at end insert—
  '( ) Where—

  (a) a regional council have sought the consent of a successor authority to the making of a proposed order to which this section applies; and

  (b) the successor authority have failed, within 6 weeks of such consent being sought, to consent,

  the successor authority shall be deemed to have given such consent.
  ( ) In this section "successor authority" means any council constituted under section 2 of this Act (other than the councils for Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands and Western Isles) in whose area the proposed order will have effect.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 50

  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES
  Amendment made: No. 76, in page 44, line 46, leave out from 'in' to
  '; and' in line 47 and insert 'subsection (1), for the words from "the director" to "person" substitute "such officer of the local authority";

  899
  ( ) in subsection (3), for the words from "the director" to "authority" substitute "such officer of the local authority as may be appointed for the purpose by the local authority"'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 54

  RESTRICTION ON DISPOSAL OF ASSETS AND ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS BY EXISTING AUTHORITIES
  Amendments made: No. 77, in page 47, line 13, leave out '£100,000' and insert £250,000'.
  No. 78, in page 47, line 28, leave out from 'disposal' to
  'is' in line 29 and insert 'of relevant property (within the meaning assigned by paragraph (b) of section 90(1) of this Act) or proposed contract in so far as it relates to functions mentioned in that paragraph'.——[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 57
  FURTHER PROVISION AS TO DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY AUTHORITIES
  Amendment made: No. 79, in page 50, leave out lines 33 to 36.—[Mr. Stewart.]
Clause 58

  LOCAL ACTS AND INSTRUMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 80, in page 52, line 48, at end insert
  'or a provision of an instrument made under any such Act;'.
  No. 81, in page 53, line 7, leave out from 'instrument' to
  'any' in line 8 and insert 'in so far as that enactment or instrument relates to functions mentioned in section 90(1)(b) of this Act nor'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Schedule 7

  CONSITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS ETC. OF A NEW WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
  Amendment proposed: 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.'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 252.

  Division No. 245]

  [8.45 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benton, Joe

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ainger, Nick

  Berry, Roger

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Betts, Clive

  Allen, Graham

  Blair, Tony

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Blunkett, David

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Boyes, Roland

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bradley, Keith

  Ashton, Joe

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Austin-Walker, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry

  Burden, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Byers, Stephen

  Battle, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Callaghan, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  900

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hutton, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ingram, Adam

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jamieson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Coffey, Ann

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Connarty, Michael

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cousins, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Cummings, John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dalyell, Tam

  Loyden, Eddie

  Darling, Alistair

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Davidson, Ian

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dixon, Don

  McFall, John

  Dobson, Frank

  McKelvey, William

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McLeish, Henry

  Dowd, Jim

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McMaster, Gordon

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McNamara, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  MacShane, Denis

  Enright, Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Madden, Max

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Marek, Dr John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Martlew, Eric

  Fisher, Mark

  Maxton, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foulkes, George

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Fraser, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Fyfe, Maria

  Miller, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gapes, Mike

  Morley, Elliot

  Garrett, John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mudie, George

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Mullin, Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  Murphy, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gordon, Mildred

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Graham, Thomas

  O'Hara, Edward

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Olner, William

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Grocott, Bruce

  Parry, Robert

  Gunnell, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hain, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Hall, Mike

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hardy, Peter

  Pope, Greg

  Harvey, Nick

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Henderson, Doug

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Heppell, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Prescott, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hoey, Kate

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

  Radice, Giles

  Home Robertson, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hood, Jimmy

  Redmond, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Rendel, David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rooker, Jeff

  901

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tyler, Paul

  Ruddock, Joan

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Salmond, Alex

  Wallace, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Watson, Mike

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Welsh, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simpson, Alan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

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

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wise, Audrey

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Stevenson, George

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Conway, Derek

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Amess, David

  Couchman, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ashby, David

  Day, Stephen

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkins, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dover, Den

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dunn, Bob

  Bellingham, Henry

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bendall, Vivian

  Elletson, Harold

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evennett, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Boswell, Tim

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowden, Andrew

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bowis, John

  Forth, Eric

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bright, Graham

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gale, Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  Burns, Simon

  Gill, Christopher

  Burt, Alistair

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Butcher, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butler, Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clappison, James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hague, William

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hannam, Sir John

  Congdon, David

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  902

  Harris, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pawsey, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pickles, Eric

  Heald, Oliver

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hendry, Charles

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hicks, Robert

  Richards, Rod

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Riddick, Graham

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Horam, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Sackville, Tom

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Jessel, Toby

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Key, Robert

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Spring, Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sproat, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Steen, Anthony

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

  Stephen, Michael

  Knox, Sir David

  Stern, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Stewart, Allan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Streeter, Gary

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sumberg, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sweeney, Walter

  Legg, Barry

  Sykes, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lightbown, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Lord, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maclean, David

  Thumham, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Malone, Gerald

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

  Mans, Keith

  Tracey, Richard

  Marlow, Tony

  Tredinnick, David

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Trend, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Trotter, Neville

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Walden, George

  Merchant, Piers

  Waller, Gary

  Mills, Iain

  Ward, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Waterson, Nigel

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Watts, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Willetts, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wilshire, David

  Norris, Steve

  Wolfson, Mark

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Yeo, Tim

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Paice, James

  Mr. Andrew MacKay and

  Patnick, Irvine

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 64
  GENERAL DUTIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND OF NEW AUTHORITIES
  Amendment made: No. 82, in page 56, line 2, clause 64, after 'access' insert '(including access for recreational purposes)'—[Lord James Douglas Hamilton.]
Clause 65

  CODES OF PRACTICE FOR NEW WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITIES
  Amendment made: No. 184, in page 56, line 42, at end add—
  '( ) The authority shall take such steps as appear to them appropriate to inform customers and potential customers of the contents for the time being of their code approved by virtue of this section.'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 74

  MAXIMUM CHARGES FOR SERVICES PROVIDED WITH HELP OF NEW AUTHORITY
  Amendments made: No. 83, in page 60, line 12, clause 74, leave out 'water supplies or sewerage services provided to' and insert
  'the supply of water to, the provision of sewerage to or the disposal of sewage for';
  No. 84, in page 60, line 15, leave out 'supplies or sewerage services are provided to' and insert
  'is supplied to, sewerage provided to, or sewage disposed of for';
  No. 85, in page 60, line 20, leave out 'services' and insert
  'which is, or facilities for the disposal of sewage which are,';
  No. 86, in page 60, line 26, leave out 'services' and insert
  ',or with facilities for the disposal of sewage,';
  No. 87, in page 60, line 27, leave out 'those services' and insert 'the sewerage or facilities';
  No. 88, in page 60, line 28, leave out 'services' and insert 'or of such facilities'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 77

  LIABILITY OF OCCUPIERS ETC. FOR CHARGES
  Amendments made: No. 89, in page 62, line 22, leave out 'sewerage services' and insert
  'the provision of sewerage, and the disposal of sewage,';
  No. 90, in page 62, line 23, leave out 'provided to' and insert
  'provision to, or as disposal for,';
  No. 91, in page 62, line 31, at end insert
  '; and such supply of water, provision of sewerage or disposal of sewage are referred to in subsection (2) below as "relevant services".';
  No. 92, in page 62, line 35, after 'for' insert 'relevant' —[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 79
  POWER TO DEMAND AND RECOVER CHARGES NOT TO AFFECT DUTY TO MAINTAIN DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY ETC.
  Amendment made: No. 93, in page 64, line 20, leave out 'Subsection (1)(b) of section 73 of this Act is' and insert'Subsections (1)(b) of section 73 and (1), (3) and (4) of section 78 of this Act are'—[Mr. Stewart.]
Clause 81

  ARREARS OF CHARGES: RESTRICTIONS ON VOTING
  Amendment made: No. 94, in page 65, line 25, at end insert—
  '(5) In subsection (1) above, "joint committee" has the meaning given by section 235(1) of the 1973 Act.'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 92
  PREPARATIONS FOR TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS ETC. TO NEW AUTHORITIES
  Amendment made: No. 95, in page 74, line 34, leave out 'in Chapter 2 of Part I' and insert 'by virtue of section 96' —[Mr. Stewart.]
Clause 96

  STAFF: APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 2 OF PART I ETC.
  Amendments made: No. 185, in page 76, line 10, after second 'and' insert
  subject to subsection (1A) below,';
  No. 186, in page 76, line 13, at end insert—
  '(1A) Subsections (2A) and (3) of section 8 of this Act shall apply as respects such employees of the Board or of an islands council as are transferred to a new water and sewerage authority as those subsections apply as respects employees of a regional council who are so transferred (subsection (4) of that section applying to an order made by virtue of this subsection as that subsection applies to an order made by virtue of subsection (1) above).'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 109

  VESTING OF CERTAIN SUPPLY PIPES
  Amendments made: No. 158, in page 83, line 9, leave out from 'supplied' to 'shall' in line 11;
  No. 159, in page 83, line 13, at end add
  'as shall any apparatus used wholly or mainly in connection with that supply pipe; and a supply pipe in so far as so lying is, together with any apparatus so used in connection with it, referred to in the following provisions of this section as a "relevant supply pipe".';
  No. 160, in page 84, line 8, after 'whether' insert '-(a)';
  No. 161, in page 84, line 9, leave out from 'unjustified' to
  'pipe' in line 10 and insert

  ';(b) apparatus is used wholly or mainly in connection with a supply pipe; or

  (c) on a specified day a relevant supply'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 116

  DIRECTIONS IN THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY
  Amendment made: No. 96, in page 87, line 4, leave out 'or sewerage services' and insert
  ',the provision of sewerage or disposal of sewage'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 122

  POWER TO REQUIRE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ASSESSORS TO SUPPLY INFORMATION TO THE NEW AUTHORITIES
  Amendment made: No. 162, in page 89, line 20, leave out from 'date' to '27' in line 21 and insert
  —(i) "local authority" means an authority constituted under section 2 of this Act or a residuary body; and (ii) "assessor" shall be construed in accordance with section'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 124

  INTERPRETATION OF PART II
  Amendment made: No. 98, in page 89, line 42, at end insert—
  ' "local authority" means, subject to section 122(3), an authority constituted under section 2;'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 136
  TRANSFER OF STAFF, PROPERTY ETC. TO THE ADMINISTRATION
  Amendment made: No. 187, in page 93, line 44, leave out subsection (1)—[M r. Stewart.]
Clause 140

  DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS: PROPOSALS UNDER SECTION 22D OF EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1980
  Amendments made: No. 99, in page 96, line 13, at beginning insert 'in subsection (2)(a), for the word "the" there shall be substituted "an"; ( )';
  No. 100, in page 96, line 32, leave out from 'pupils' to
  'as' in line 33 and insert 'belonging to the area of another education authority';
  No. 101, in page 96, line 37, after 'other' insert 'public';
  No. 102, in page 96, leave out lines 38 to 40—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 141

  PROVISION OF SCHOOL TRANSPORT AND OTHER FACILITIES
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 97, line 11, at end insert—
  '(aa) in subsection (1) at the end there shall be inserted— "; provided that any motor vehicle used for the conveyance of pupils pursuant to this subsection shall be equipped with seatbelts for the use of any passengers travelling in it.".'.
  I want to start by stating the obvious—that this amendment is about education and that its competency is wholly relevant to education in Scotland. It seeks to make compulsory the fitting of seat belts in all vehicles transporting children to and from school. The Minister seems to think that this is a matter for the Department of Transport rather than for the Scottish Office. He is wrong, and I hope to persuade the House why it is so important that we provide protection for children travelling to and from school.
  9 pm
  There is a legal obligation on parents to send their children to school. It is therefore not unreasonable for them to expect the Government to provide legislation to ensure that their children are transported safely. My amendment would ensure that the legislation provided such protection. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James DouglasHamilton)—together with the Minister for Roads and Traffic, whom I am pleased to see in his place, have argued that we cannot legislate without impinging on the competency of the European Commission and that seat belts can be made compulsory only by means of Europewide legislation. The Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am the Chairman, is currently inquiring into the competence of member states in respect of all issues of road safety. We hope, by the summer recess, to have taken evidence from the
  906
  Commission and from both Ministers. I have not so far been persuaded of the validity of some of the Government's arguments. However, I shall not try to anticipate the Committee's conclusions.
  Not long ago, we sat many hours during the course of which the Prime Minister himself sought to convince the House—in particular, his own Back Benchers—on the question of subsidiarity. If the protection of children travelling to and from school is not a matter for subsidiarity, what is? I want to read into the record a Commission statement dated 8 February. In that statement, Commissioner Bangemann outlines the approach that he intends to adopt to improve protection for bus and coach passengers, especially against the risk of ejection in the event of an accident:
  "In the meantime, as the Commission has previously indicated, member states may still, within the limits set by Community law, introduce legislation regarding the use of certain categories of vehicles to transport members of the public—for example, motorway coaches or school buses."
  I quote that comment for the purpose of stopping the nonsensical suggestion that the protection we seek cannot be provided by the House of Commons—that it can come only from Brussels. I do not accept that, and the words that I have just quoted prove our point.
  The Government make a case about cost. They say that the cost of the compulsory provision of seat belts would be too inhibiting. It is nonsense to talk about cost in the context of children's lives. But let us get the matter into perspective. Like many other people, I argue that the cost involved here is not great. Seat belts could be fitted to a 53-seat coach for no more—probably less—than it takes to put a stereo cassette and a video unit in a coach. In that light, what we are talking about takes on a different meaning. If seat belts had to be fitted in all buses, the cost would obviously come down. Lo and behold, it might also be possible to give jobs to the unemployed. When people talk about cost, let them compare like with like.
  In this situation, cost should not be an issue. In any case, it is estimated that the implementation of the Bill will cost up to £700 million. In that context, what is the relevance of questioning the cost of protecting children on their way to and from school?
  Mr. Foulkes: I assure my hon. Friend that he has not only my support but that of my constituent Dorothy Wilson, whose son Christopher was tragically killed last year in a school bus at Auchinleck. Christopher's mother has set up a group to argue the case that my hon. Friend is putting forward so eloquently. My hon. Friend will have the eternal gratitude of Dorothy Wilson and her whole family if the Minister and the House accept his amendment.
  Mr. Hood: I thank my hon. Friend. I have indeed met his constituent, and it was a tragic case.
  Twenty-two children have been killed in coach accidents in the past 28 weeks—almost one child a week. We do not have time to equivocate or pontificate about where competence may lie. Our children are in daily danger of being killed as they travel to and from school. We have the power to stop that; I hope that the Minister will take action tonight to do just that.
  I ask Conservative Members and Ministers to put themselves in the place of a bereaved parent and to think long and hard before voting against the amendment.

  907
  On 17 February this year at 10 o'clock in the morning, I received a phone call from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), telling me that he had just heard on the news that a child had been killed in a school bus accident in Biggar. A few minutes before I had phoned my wife at home, and she told me that my daughter had left for Biggar high school on the school bus. For a few minutes, therefore, I did not know whether the child who had been killed was my own daughter. I shall never forget the feeling of despair and anguish I experienced as I phoned home to find out from my wife whether my daughter had been killed. Fortunately she was able to tell me that it was not my daughter who had been involved in the accident.
  My feeling was one of relief, immediately followed by guilt because I was relieved to learn that someone else's child, not mine, had been killed. I have since met the parents of the two children who died—another child died some time after the accident. I am determined to put in place legislation to protect our kids.
  I should like to record my thanks to the Minister for the courteous way in which he received the parents who came to present a petition bearing 46,254 signatures. I have read press comments to the effect that the signatures came from all over Scotland; in fact most of them came from my constituency. That means that well over 60 per cent. of my constituents must have signed the petition.
  The Minister knows what is required now—indeed, I suspect that he supports the amendment. I know from my discussions with him that he is sympathetic and supportive. I hope that he will give us good news tonight. We must adopt seat belt legislation as a matter of urgency. Certainly, the supervision of school buses, coach design, traffic management and the installation of seat belts are all important parts of the overall solution, but seat belts are the most important.
  The Government have three options. They can support my amendment, as I hope they will; or they can tell the House that they intend to return later with legislation to make seat belts compulsory on school coaches; or they can turn their backs on the problem and walk away. I very much hope that they will not turn their backs on it.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on what he is trying to achieve tonight. He will be aware that in a parliamentary answer to me, the Minister has already said he would disregard for capping purposes any expenditure incurred by local authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not enough, because it does not make seat belts compulsory on school buses?
  Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend raises an important point. While I welcome the measure, and acknowledge that the Government's initial response was helpful, we still need legislation. We cannot have discretion when we are talking about saving children's lives. We cannot have a discretion which may be taken up in one part of the country but not in another. If it is at the discretion of expenditure for local authorities, priorities will take over and we will not achieve the safety that we require.
  Therefore, it is important to have legislation to make it compulsory to have seat belts in school buses and I hope the Minister supports that tonight.
  908
  The Government do not have the option of walking away. If they walk away, turn their backs and allow the carnage of children being transported in buses that are then involved in crashes, deaths in school bus crashes will continue. In amendment No. 3 we have the opportunity to stop that carnage, so I hope the Minister will take the opportunity tonight and support the amendment.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I intervene in the debate because today we have had the announcement of the final figures for road casualties in Scotland, England and Wales for 1993.
  The good news is that since the Department of Transport set a target of cutting casualties involving deaths and serious injuries by one third by the year 2000, it has virtually achieved that target. That is a staggering achievement which covers the whole of Great Britain. It is one for which most other countries in Europe, and certainly countries in North America, would give their eye teeth.
  One of the more impressive interpretations is that if we accept that road traffic has increased by virtually 40 per cent., the rate at which people are killed and seriously injured has halved. That is dramatic. We have not had the same change for slight injuries, but those do not matter so much.
  For the number of deaths to have come down from an average of 5,600 to just over 3,800 is a tribute to road engineers, vehicle engineers and those who use the roads —motor cyclists, cyclists and car users—have all contributed.
  As the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) rightly pointed out, there are still 3,800 deaths a year in Great Britain. We know the causes and the consequences of the crashes.
  The whole House will agree with the hon. Gentleman that the time will come when all organised transport for children to and from school will have seat belts and the law will require that they should be used.
  I have not been able to track back through the amendment, which will amend the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, to find out whether it would affect private transport as well as organised transport by the school, but I do not want to make nit-picking points. Getting it right will reduce risks and avoid some of the consequences when there is a crash.
  As Esther Rantzen showed in her "That's Life" programmes in 1986, a child in a crash is more at risk of severe injury and we should accept that by being belted up in a car, a child reduces that risk by half or two thirds. That is a significant improvement. The improvement for a passenger in a bus or coach is less, but it is probably still significant; the improvement for a passenger in a minibus is probably the same as if they were in a car, so we need to work for all those improvements.
  No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will make a formal response to the amendment, put it in context and say what the Government may be able to achieve. If the House takes action which moves people from organised transport to parents' cars, we shall increase the risk by two or three times. A passenger in a private car is at two or three times the risk of someone in a bus or a minibus. We should be slightly careful about saying that a blanket change will instantly reduce the risk for those who travel on organised transport. I think that we will need to work out how to reduce the risk, while encouraging those who are putting

  909
  out contracts for transport to introduce safety provisions at a certain time—perhaps now or at a specified time in the future.
  I say to both my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the time has come to abolish the out-of-date habit of allowing education authorities to put three teenagers in seats which are meant for two.
  Anyone who looks at 13-year-olds nowadays and pretends that three of them can be squeezed safely into a bus seat made for two is wrong. Responsibility in this area is shared by the Department of the Environment, the Treasury, the Department of Transport and the territorial departments. They should respond to the recent tragic vehicle accidents by abolishing that provision at once.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). As he mentioned, between August 1993 and February 1994 we have seen 21 school children and three adults die on our roads. Five people have been seriously injured and 105 school children have been hurt.
  In Scotland, we are particularly concerned about the incident in Biggar involving two pupils, Francis Scorgie and Tony Cousins. In the discussions we have had with parents' groups and others since then, the message has come across that only national legislation will secure compliance with real safety requirements and will guarantee the central Government funding which is necessary in order to implement them. If that were the case, bus companies, schools or local authorities could no longer pass the buck and continue to confuse parents with the finer details of contractual law.
  The national Government need to help local government to combat the problem. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) mentioned the three-for-two rule. The Lothian region has abolished that rule and contractual arrangements make sure that the three-for-two rule does not apply. In Strathclyde, it will be abolished from the 1994–95 session. Strathclyde has also made an immediate commitment to spend £4.35 million on seat belts. Its total commitment will be £10.29 million over the next two years.
  We are looking for a financial commitment from the Government to help local authorities with this problem. The Government can help in a number of areas—for example, vehicle identification for minibuses. A pilot scheme was conducted in my constituency of Dumbarton involving fitting to vehicles a sign on the nearside sun visor in the down position. The local authority has undertaken that scheme, but we need a commitment from national Government to reaffirm that that is the right way to go.
  Within the context of the European Union, Strathclyde has also undertaken preparatory work on legislation to make mandatory the fitting of signs saying "Front" and "Rear" to all school transport vehicles. The Government could make identification mandatory for school vehicles. If that can be done in every town and city in America, it can be done in the United Kingdom.
  Strathclyde and other local authorities are looking to central Government to consider, within any national guidelines and school transport provisions, the fitting of vehicle signs and the illumination of school buses while pupils are embarking or disembarking.
  910
  Above all, we require national guidelines about home-to-school transport. The Secretary of State for Scotland should address the full range of parental concerns regarding home-to-school transport by devising a set of national guidelines for implementation and resourcing local authorities through central Government.
  I ask the Scottish Office Minister responsible for education to form a national working group of interested parties to devise these guidelines. That group should include parent representatives from, for example, the Scottish School Boards Association and the Scottish Parents Teachers Council.
  We are masters in our own country when it comes to European legislation. The British Government are at liberty to name their own rules in relation to seat belts. I contacted the House of Commons Library today and I was informed that the United Kingdom can pass legislation that seat belts must be worn, but it cannot independently pass legislation that belts and anchorages must be fitted.
  I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House agree with my hon. Friends that if the Government give a sign that they will pass such legislation, that will reassure thousands of parents throughout the country that the Government are serious. We ask the Government to make a genuine response tonight.
  At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the tragic fatal accident at Biggar involving two young people. The mother of one of them, Shona Cousins, said recently that she felt like walking into the Houses of Parliament and yelling, "Get a move on." We endorse that sentiment. We will not yell, "Get a move on," but we make a heartfelt plea on behalf of Shona Cousins and other parents who have tragically lost their children that the Government get a move on and legislate immediately.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), whose speech was moving, eloquent and passionately argued. I cannot understand the delay. Voices north of the border are legitimately asking why Scottish Office Ministers seem to hide behind the fact that this issue is not their responsibility—that the Department of Transport is the lead Department. That may be the case —and it is a welcome sign to see the Minister for Roads and Traffic in his place to hear these important discussions. However, it is weak-kneed in the extreme of the Scottish Office to say the matter has nothing to do with it and that action must await an already long-awaited report. I understand that the report is much more superficial than people expected, given the length of time taken to produce it.
  I cannot understand the continuous and continuing delay. It is incumbent on the Government to take this evening's appropriate opportunity to make a clear statement. A clear statement in principle would do. If they will say, "We are committed to this in principle," we could argue about the time scale, funding and the relationship between central and local government in future. All that could be discussed, and it would be sensible to take time to get those aspects right.
  At present, we are missing a clear statement that the Government have the political will to address the issue with the seriousness that it deserves, in the way that the hon. Member for Clydesdale did. I entirely subscribe to the argument that discussions should embrace the question of three pupils to two seats, and supervision should also be

  911
  reviewed. Proper provisions may cost money in the long run, but they are absolutely essential. The lives of 22 young children have been lost in 28 weeks, and that is a frightening statistic. There is not a lot of time. There are questions urgently to be addressed. The Government have the power to legislate, and I fail to understand how Conservative Members could possibly be persuaded to vote against the amendment. It would take a strong argument from the Treasury Bench to persuade me that it would be right to do so. The Government have the power to legislate, but they are not exercising it. The people of Scotland are right to ask why.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: With the indulgence of the House, I shall make a brief contribution. If we wait for Europe, we will wait a long time. The Government have been talking to the European Commission for years about this matter, and there is not much enthusiasm from many member states for protecting their children in the way that we want to protect the children of this country. I see no reason why we should not go it alone.
  At present, local education authorities or school governors can tell their contractors, "You will not bus our children unless seat belts are fitted in your vehicles." They could do that immediately. With all the publicity that has been given to the issue, many local authorities are debating it now. As contracts are usually renewed in September, they will tell their contractors that from now on, their vehicles must be fitted with seat belts.
  We have a dilemma. One cannot just fit seat belts. Bus and coach operators have been here today with lap belts and seats down in Dining Room B. The problem is that the front forward-facing seats that are exposed—the two front seats on the opposite side to the driver, and the middle seats at the back—must have seat belts now by law. Usually, the loading is 10G. The question is whether 6G is acceptable on other seats; if not, a great deal of structural alteration to the floors has to be made, because not all the seats go into chassis metal members.
  It is very important that the Government give us the conclusions of the technical and cost report that they have on the table at the moment, because once we have that and get some technical guidance we will not need Government money or any great incentive; the coach operators. are waiting to fit them. In fact, many of them have ordered them by the thousand and have them on the shelf waiting to fit, but cannot do so ahead of the conclusions of the report, which we hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to announce shortly. I do not see why, as the majority of trips are made by schools. The voluntary people with their own bus could have a fund-raising event and fit their own. They could go ahead and do it tomorrow, but we need the technical information.
  That is why I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), on the Opposition Benches, will be able to withdraw his amendment if we get the right answers tonight. [Interruption.] Yes, he is a friend. I like him.
  If the Government show us that they are really going for it and we are to go it alone, we can get on and do it almost immediately. The coach operators wish to do it. The school governors want it. Many voluntary organisations want it, but we must have the technical know-how to ensure the
  912
  correct loading on the belts. They are not just pretty belts to put around people. They must have an impact loading. That is the important thing.
  I implore my hon. Friend to try to give us some guidance. If he cannot do so tonight, he should promise it within a few days so that the coach operators know the loading and what structural alterations have to be made.
  Mrs. Ewing: In supporting the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), I make two personal points: first, I am a former pupil of Biggar high school and, although I did not know the youngsters involved or, indeed, the families, it touches one's heart when one thinks about the circumstances. I am very concerned about the pupils. Secondly, as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I sit with the hon. Member when we deal with that aspect of legislation.
  I started writing to the various Departments involved in the issue some time ago. It might be useful to remind the House that we are not looking for a knee-jerk reaction to a particular incident, but for legislation that will be effective and long term. When I first started taking up the issue, it was because parents in my constituency were writing to me about their concerns, because I represent a rural area, as does the hon. Gentleman, where youngsters have to travel long distances to reach their school.
  I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport and to the Minister for education and housing in the Scottish Office a considerable time ago and raised the issue of seat belts on minibuses. I made four points: what freedom the UK Government have to implement legislation pertaining to seat belts in minibuses and coaches; whether the Government have any facility to assist financially any owners or companies wishing to install them; what is the practice of our European Union partner countries; and what European directives and regulations have been issued on such matters.
  To be fair, both Departments responded fairly quickly. The Minister for education and housing at the Scottish Office mentioned the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which has already been referred to. But there is also the issue of regulation 3(a) of the Schools (Safety and Supervision of Pupils) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 for pupils when under their charge and under common law. As we have seen in the Aberdeen Evening Express, if we go ahead with the legislation, it could cost Grampian regional council £2 million. That is part of the difficulty that many local authorities face. If our local authorities are to implement effective regulations that will ensure that children travel to school in safety—from whatever corner of the community they come—the Government must recognise that they have a duty to assist authorities in implementing those regulations. The responsibility must be placed firmly with them.
  In a letter dated 22 February, the Minister wrote:
  "We are currently reviewing the full technical and cost implications of seat belts in these vehicles. Until this review is complete and we have full reports on the recent tragic accidents we feel that it would not be wise to consider making further regulations in this area."
  We desperately want to know when the reports will be forthcoming: until we see them, we shall not know whether the Government are making any commitment to introduce the appropriate safety legislation.

  913
  9.30 pm
  It is wrong for Ministers to blame the European Commission and European legislators for the problem. I have a copy of the sessional documents, dated as far back as December last year; the relevant motion was moved in the name of the European People's party, to which I believe the Government subscribe. The motion asked for individual member states to be allowed and encouraged to take over the whole idea of seat belts and roll-over bars in all new coaches as a matter of urgency. I shall send the document to the Minister if he wishes, but it is quite clear that there is a commitment to seat belts in Europe.
  At the end of last year, the Government tried to blame the European Commission and the European Union for the fact that seat belts had not been installed. That is appalling. Contradictory statements were put out, which caused considerable confusion and concern to parents in my constituency and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Let me place it on record that responsibility lies with the Government: they must legislate.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I will be brief. I had intended to speak for three hours, but I will speak for three minutes.
  The issue seems simple to me. I cannot understand why anyone has not already legislated for seat belts to be provided in all vehicles carrying people at risk, whether they are of tender age, in old age or middle-aged. My one criticism of the amendment is that it is restricted to school children. Why should it not apply to all of us?
  I have heard the excuses relating to cost, delay and the difficulties involved in fitting seat belts. I do not recall those arguments being accepted when seat belts were introduced for motor cars. If motorists did not have them, they were in trouble. No one said, "It takes an awfully long time to fit a seat belt; you have to measure it and fiddle around with it." Absolute nonsense!
  This legislation is essential, and I hope that it will be extended to every member of the population. I thoroughly commend the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) for tabling the amendment. No excuses based on cost, delay, reports, studies or any other stupid thing will convince me. It can be done tomorrow. If someone wants a seat belt for his car, he can drive along to the garage and have it fitted. Let the Government do this tomorrow.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is an extremely important debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) pointed out—he has been a transport Minister—the number of road casualties has fallen, but that leaves no room for complacency. There can be no walking away from the problem; it will be given proper consideration. Indeed, it is being given urgent consideration now.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said, local authorities can do much by putting into their contracts the most appropriate terms and conditions to lay down in the circumstances.
  The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) made a moving and effective speech to raise an important issue. I fully understand his concerns; the fact that he lives in Biggar, and so shared the grief of that community following the Biggar school bus crash on 10 February, underlines his commitment to the cause. I was especially glad that he led a delegation of local parents from the
  914
  Biggar area to see me in Edinburgh on 15 April, so that they could put forward their concerns to the Government. I listened to the powerful points that they made.
  I have had several meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, and I am glad to see that he is here for the debate. The Scottish evidence has, of course, been fed in to the process.
  More recently, the whole House will have shared the grief of the families of the two cub scouts, Andrew Lyle and Richard Olsson, and of Mr. Anthony Milburn—the three people killed in the tragic accident in North Yorkshire earlier this week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will receive a full report on that accident, too, as soon as possible.
  I make it clear at the outset that the Government share the deeply felt public concern about safety standards in school transport. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the safety of children is at the forefront of our concern. However, the Secretary of State for Transport has the lead responsibility for vehicle safety matters in the United Kingdom. His Department has recently completed a review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all minibuses and coaches, and of related safety matters. The Government will take decisions shortly on the outcome of that review.
  I am sure that there will be no disagreement in the House that it is vital that appropriate steps should be taken in all the circumstances. But I hope that hon. Members will also agree that whatever steps we take must be the right ones, fully informed by all the available evidence.
  I shall return to the wider issues later, but first I shall address the substance of the amendment. As drafted, it would have a damaging effect on the delivery by education authorities of a school transport service, because it would require that no buses could transport children to school unless they were fitted with seat belts. If that restriction were incorporated into the Bill, it would in practice prevent education authorities from providing school transport for most of the children presently dependent on school buses to get to and from their schools. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman intended, but that is what the amendment would do.
  Secondly, as I have said, the question whether seat belts should be fitted to any category of motor vehicles, including buses, is properly a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport. It would not be appropriate to introduce into clause 141 a provision on seat belts restricted to school transport in Scotland alone. Yet that would be the result of the amendment.
  Mr. McLeish: This is a Scottish Bill, and the Minister is responsible for it.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The matter has to be dealt with on a British basis; it will be dealt with collectively by Ministers as a whole.
  Thirdly—
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No.
  Thirdly, the amendment is technically flawed in that it refers to line 11—
  Mr. Hood: Will the Minister give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Clydesdale, who moved the amendment, in a moment.
  The amendment refers to line 11 on page 97, and would therefore amend section 50 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. In fact, the main provisions of that Act relating to school transport are in section 51. That is, of course, a detail, but it means that the amendment is flawed. For all those reasons, the Government must reject the amendment.
  Mr. Hood rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have many more points to make, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hood: May I make an obvious point? If the amendment was out of order, Madam Speaker would not have chosen it to be debated. Therefore, the amendment is within the competence of the legislation, and it is within the competence of the Scottish Office to accept that protection, as part of a Scottish Bill, to protect Scottish children.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall repeat what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box yesterday:
  "I hope that it will not be very long before we are able to publish it"—
  that is, the report. He continued:
  "The report has now been delivered to Ministers and I hope that they will be able to announce their conclusions shortly."
  —[Official Report, 17 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 669.]
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I shall not give way now.
  The matter has to be dealt with on a British basis. I fully appreciate the widespread concern in the House for immediate Government action, but the decisions that we take will have to be right in the light of all the evidence, and the fullest knowledge of all the facts. That is our priority now. I am taking careful note of the widespread concerns that have been expressed about school transport safety, including what has been said in the House today. We are concerned to make certain that appropriate steps are taken on the safety of school transport. The Department of Transport's review looks at the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all minibuses and coaches, as well as related safety matters.
  I do not believe that it would be appropriate to move forward in advance of the Department's conclusions. I hope that all hon. Members would agree that it is absolutely essential that we take the right decisions on safety measures when we are fully informed by all the available evidence and of the implications of our decisions. As the Prime Minister made clear to the House, we hope to be able to do so in the near future.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way on an intervention?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have sat down, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. Dalyell: I just want the Minister to explain how it is possible under this legislation to have legislation on the disconnection of water supplies, but apparently not possible to have a different policy on seat belts. How does that come about? We had endless arguments in the
  916
  Standing Committee about the disconnection of water supplies, and it was said to be quite proper to have separate legislation for Scotland—rightly, in the opinion of some of us—on disconnections. Why cannot the same thing be applied to seat belts? Is there an answer? The Minister is broody with answer.
  Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I find it difficult to comprehend what the Minister has just said. It now seems that we cannot amend Scottish legislation through the normal processes of the House, because we have attempted with this amendment and debate to alter regulations pertaining to Acts which solely relate to Scotland—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is not putting a point of order to me. She really is attempting to take a second bite of the cherry. She has already spoken once, and therefore I cannot allow it. She is putting questions to me which concern legislation, which is not within my authority.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I shall explain to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) that local authorities can put a specification into their contracts. They have that power now. The point I was making was that, while he may be confident in amending the Bill, it is not desirable before the review has reported to the House and to the Secretary of State for Transport.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 274.

  Division No. 246]

  [9.42 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Coffey, Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Connarty, Michael

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cummings, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bell, Stuart

  Dafis, Cynog

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Darling, Alistair

  Benton, Joe

  Davidson, Ian

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blair, Tony

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

  Blunkett, David

  Dixon, Don

  Boateng, Paul

  Dobson, Frank

  Boyes, Roland

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bradley, Keith

  Dowd, Jim

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Burden, Richard

  Enright, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Callaghan, Jim

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Flynn, Paul

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  917

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Fraser, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Martlew, Eric

  Galloway, George

  Maxton, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Garrett, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  George, Bruce

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Milburn, Alan

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Miller, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morley, Elliot

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Graham, Thomas

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mudie, George

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mullin, Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  Murphy, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hall, Mike

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hanson, David

  Olner, William

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Harvey, Nick

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Henderson, Doug

  Parry, Robert

  Heppell, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoey, Kate

  Pope, Greg

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Home Robertson, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Prescott, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hoyle, Doug

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hutton, John

  Rendel, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Ingram, Adam

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jamieson, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Janner, Greville

  Rooney, Terry

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Salmond, Alex

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Keen, Alan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Short, Clare

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Simpson, Alan

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Lewis, Terry

  Soley, Clive

  Livingstone, Ken

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stevenson, George

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stott, Roger

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McAllion, John

  Straw, Jack

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McCartney, Ian

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Tyler, Paul

  McFall, John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  McKelvey, William

  Wallace, James

  McLeish, Henry

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wareing, Robert N

  McMaster, Gordon

  Watson, Mike

  McNamara, Kevin

  Welsh, Andrew

  MacShane, Denis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  McWilliam, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Madden, Max

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Wilson, Brian

  918

  Winnick, David

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wise, Audrey

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Alan Meale and

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mr. J. Spellar.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alexander, Richard

  Dover, Den

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Duncan, Alan

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Amess, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Arbuthnot, James

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Eggar, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evennett, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Faber, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Batiste, Spencer

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forman, Nigel

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Booth, Hartley

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowden, Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bowis, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bright, Graham

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gorst, John

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Peter

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Cash, William

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harris, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Churchill, Mr

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Coe, Sebastian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Conway, Derek

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dicks, Terry

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  919

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knox, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lord, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  Maclean, David

  Streeter, Gary

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  Malone, Gerald

  Sykes, John

  Mans, Keith

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thumharn, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mills, Iain

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

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trend, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Norris, Steve

  Walden, George

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ward, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Pickles, Eric

  Wilkinson, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Willetts, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wilshire, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wood, Timothy

  Richards, Rod

  Yeo, Tim

  Riddick, Graham

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Mr. Bowen Wells.

  Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 146

  EXCLUSION FROM VALUATION ROLL OF SHOOTINGS,DEER FORESTS AND FISHINGS
  Amendments made: No. 188, in page 99, line 41, leave out 'or'.
  No. 189, in page 99, line 42, after 'fishings' insert 'or fish counters'.
  No. 190, in page 99, line 46 [Clause 146], at end insert—
  '() For the purposes of this section—

  "fish counter" means any weir or other structure in inland waters primarily used for the purpose of counting fish; and

  "inland waters" has the same meaning as in section 24(1) (interpretation) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951.'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 156

  POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO COMBINE AND DIVIDE LANDS AND HERITAGES
  Amendments made: No. 103, in page 104, line 30, leave out '(a)'.
  No. 104, in page 104, line 32, leave out from
  'Parliament;' to end of line 37.—[Mr. Stewart]

Clause 160

  POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO BORROW AND LEND MONEY
  Amendments made: No. 105, in page 106, line 30, leave out 'order made by statutory instrument' and insert 'regulations'.
  No. 106, in page 106, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert—
  '() Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, but shall not be made unless a draft of any such statutory instrument has been laid before and approved by resulution of each House of Parliament.'.
  No. 107, in page 106, leave out lines 37 to 39.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 163

  DIRECT LABOUR ORGANISATION/DIRECT SERVICES ORGANISATION ACCOUNTS
  Amendments made: No. 219, in page 108, line 20, leave out from 'section,' to
  'for' in line 22 and insert 'Direct Labour Organisation/Direct Services Organisation Funds (to be known as "DLO/DSO funds")'.
  No. 220, in page 108, line 35, leave out from 'above' to the end of 37 and insert
  'and which is, in the opinion of the authority, not required for the purpose of dealing with deficits in any such fund, may be transferred by them to the general fund maintained by them under section 93 of the Act of 1973 (general fund).'.
  No. 221, in page 108, leave out line 42 and insert
  'Paragraphs 22(1)(c) and 24A of Schedule 3 to the 1975 Act'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 171
  POWERS TO CARRY ON TOURISM-RELATED ACTIVITIES
  Amendment made: No. 191, in page 117, line 32, leave out 'in their area'.—[Mr. Stewart.]
Clause 172

  PARLIAMENTARY DISQUALIFICATION
  Amendments made: No. 108, in page 118, line 39, after 'by' insert 'virtue of'.
  No. 109, in page 118, line 41, after 'by' insert 'virtue of.
  No. 110, in page 118, line 44, after 'by' insert 'virtue of'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Schedule 13

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 224, in page 158, line 25, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 119(3) (special provisions as to Scotland), for the words from "A" to "shall" substitute "A local roads authority".'.
  No. 120, in page 160, line 33, leave out '(a)'.
  No. 121, in page 160, line 34, leave out from beginning to 'paragraphs' in line 35.
  No. 122, in page 160, line 35, leave out from 'below'
  to end of line 37.
  No. 123, in page 160, line 47, leave out 'chief officer' and insert 'firemaster'.
  No. 124, in page 161, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert
  ', the fire authorities affected by it may amend or revoke that scheme by a subsequent scheme submitted to the Secretary of State by them jointly and the Secretary of State may by order approve any such subsequent scheme submitted to him.
  (7A) A subsequent scheme under subsection (7) above may make provision with respect to any of the matters for which provision is required to be made, or may be made, by virtue of subsections (4), (5), (8)(b) and (8A) of this section.
  (7B)'.
  No. 125, in page 161, line 23, leave out '(b)'.
  No. 126, in page 161, line 36, leave out from first 'and' to end of line 39 and insert
  'such an order may make provision with respect to any of the matters for which provision is required to be made, or which may be made, by virtue of subsections (4), (5) and (8A) of this section.'.
  No. 127, in page 162, line 2, leave out 'chief officer' and insert 'firemaster'.
  No. 128, in page 162, line 4, leave out 'chief officer' and insert 'firemaster'.
  No. 225, in page 163, line 24, leave out -regional, islands or district council" substitute and insert
  'the words from "any" to the end substitute "any'.
  No. 129, in page 173, line 8, at end insert—
  '( ) in subsection (3), for "committee", where it secondly and thirdly occurs, substitute "board";'.
  No. 163, in page 175, line 21, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 63(2)(c) (activities in respect of which instruction may be provided etc.), for the words from "or" where it fourthly occurs, to the end substitute "or a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994".'.
  No. 164, in page 175, line 27, after 'secondly' insert 'and thirdly'.
  No. 131, in page 182, line 6, leave out "and".
  No. 132, in page 182, line 7, at end insert '; and
  (e) in subsection (8), for "duties of the reporter" substitute "functions of the Principal Reporter under this Act and under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.".'.
  No. 133, in page 183, line 8, leave out "and".
  No. 134, in page 183, line 23, at end insert '; and
  (c) in paragraph 7, for "may" substitute "shall"'.
  No. 226, in page 185, line 27, leave out "'regional or islands council" substitute and insert
  'the words from "Scotland" to "council" substitute "Scotland, a'.
  No. 298, in page 186, line 3, after 'insurance)' insert '—(a)'.
  No. 299, in page 186, line 6, at end insert '; and
  922
  (b) after "such council" insert "the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority"'.
  No. 227, in page 186, line 44, leave out from second 'for' to
  'constituted' in line 45 and insert 'the words from "the council", where they thirdly occur, to "Scotland" substitute ", in relation to Scotland, a council'.
  No. 228, in page 188, line 19, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 31 (disqualification for nomination etc.)—

  (a) for the words "chairman or vice-chairman", in both places where they occur, substitute "convener or depute convener";

  (b) after subsection (3) insert—

  "(3A) A person who is for the time being an officer or employee of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority or an employee of a subsidiary of that Authority shall be disqualified for being appointed or for being a member of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority."; and
  (c) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.'.
  ( ) In section 38 (disability of members from voting etc.), in subsection (4) for the words "chairman or vice-chairman" substitute "convener or depute convener".'.
  No. 135, in page 188, line 24, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 50B (access to agenda and connected reports), in subsection (4)(b), for the word "chairman" substitute "convener".'.
  No. 136, in page 189, line 2, at end insert—
  '() In section 67 (members of authorities not to be appointed as officers), for the words "chairman or vice-chairman" substitute "convener or depute convener".'.
  No. 137, in page 189, line 4, after 'purposes)' insert
  '(a)'.
  No. 138, in page 189, line 4, at end insert '; and
  (b) in subsection (3)(c), for the words "chairman of a regional, islands or district council, a chairman" substitute "convener of a local authority, a convener".'.
  No. 300, in page 189, line 37, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 100 (auditor's right of access to documents)—
  (a) after subsection (1) insert—
  "(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, the auditor shall be entitled to require any officer, former officer, member or former member of an authority whose accounts are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act to give him such information or explanation as he thinks necessary for the purposes of the audit and, if he thinks it necessary, to require any of the persons mentioned above to attend before him in person to give the information or explanation.";
  (b) in subsection (2), for "subsection (1)" substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)"; and
  (c) in subsection (3)—

  (i) after "(1)" insert "or (I A)"; and

  (ii) the words from "and to an additional fine" to the end shall cease to have effect.

  '()In In subsection (3) of section 102 (reports to Commission by Controller of Audit), for the words "the audit" substitute "any matter arising out of the auditing".'.
  No. 139, in page 190, line 10, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 128 (educational endowments), in Table B, in subsection (2), for the words "Chairman of council" substitute "convener of council".'.
  No. 229, in page 190, line 21, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 133 (roads), subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.'.
  No. 140, in page 191, line 14, at end insert—
  '( ) Section 142 (public health) shall cease to have effect.'.
  No. 141, in page 193, line 26, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 190 (service of legal proceedings), for the word 'chairman', in both places where it occurs, substitute 'convener'.
  No. 142, in page 193, line 26, at end insert—
  '() For subsection (1) of section 194 (execution of deeds by local authority) substitute—

  923
  "(1) For a purpose other than is mentioned in subsection (1A) below, a document is validly executed by a local authority if signed on behalf of that authority by their proper officer.
  (1A) For the purposes of any enactment or rule of law relating to the authentication of documents, a document is validly executed by a local authority if subscribed on behalf of the authority by being executed in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) above.
  (1B) A document which bears to have been executed by a local authority in accordance with subsection (1A) above shall, in relation to such execution, be a probative document if—

  (a) the subscription of the document bears to have been attested by at least one witness; or

  (b) the document bears to be sealed with the seal of the authority.".'.

  No. 194, in page 193, line 28, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 202 (procedure, etc., for byelaws), subsection (13) shall cease to have effect.'.
  No. 143, in page 194, line 22, leave out 'paragraph 5(1) of'.
  No. 144, in page 194, line 23, after 'authorities)' insert—

  '(a) in paragraphs 1(4), 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3), for the word "chairman" substitute "convener";

  (b) in paragraphs 3(2) and (3), for the words "vice-chairman" substitute "depute convener"; and

  (c) in paragraph 5(1),'.

  No. 145, in page 194, line 24, leave out 'chairman or vice-chairman' and insert 'convener or depute convener'.
  No. 195, in page 197, line 36, at end insert—
  'The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c.24)
  . In Part IV of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (offices disqualifying for particular constituencies)—

  (a) in the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for a region in Scotland—

  (i) for the words "a region" substitute "an area"; and

  (ii) for the words from "such part" to "Majesty" substitute "the area";

  (b) the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for an islands area in Scotland shall cease to have effect; and

  (c) in the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for the district of the city of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, or Glasgow—

  (i) the words "the district of" shall cease to have effect; and

  (ii) for "district" substitute "city".'.

  No. 146, in page 198, line 40, at end insert—
  '( ) in subsection (2) of section 28 (reports on investigations), for the word 'chairman' substitute 'convener'.
  No. 230, in page 199, line 10, at end insert'—
  '( ) in paragraph 22—
  (i) in sub-paragraph (1), after head (b) insert—"(ba) an insurance fund, to be used for the following purposes, namely—
  (i) where the authority could have insured against a risk but have not done so, defraying any loss or damage suffered, or expenses incurred, by the authority as a consequence of that risk;
  (ii) paying premiums on a policy of insurance against a risk."; and
  (ii) in sub-paragraph (2), after "repair fund" insert "or the insurance fund".
  ( ) in paragraph 24(1), after "repair fund" insert ", or an insurance fund,";'.
  No. 196, in page 202, line 14, at end insert—
  'The Race Relations Act 1976 (c.74.)
  . In section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (local authorities: general statutory duty), the existing wording shall become subsection (1) of that section and after that subsection there shall be added—
  924
  "(2) In this section, "local authority", in relation to Scotland, means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 ("the 1994 Act") and includes—

  (a) a joint board and a joint committee within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973;

  (b) the staff commission established by virtue of section 12 of the 1994 Act;

  (c) a water and sewerage authority within the meaning of the 1994 Act; and

  (d) the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority.".'.

  No. 197, in page 217, line 12, at end insert—
  '( ) in subsection (1), for "an islands or district council" substitute "a local authority";'.
  No. 198, in page 217, line 18, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 15(2) (local authority's powers in relation to provision of recreational, sporting etc. facilities), for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority".
  No. 199, in page 217, line 19, leave out 'subsection (1) of'.
  No. 200, in page 217, line 19, after '15)' insert—
  (a) in subsection (1)—

  (i) for "an islands or district council" substitute "a local authority";

  (ii)'.

  No. 201, in page 217, line 22, at end insert 'and
  (iii) in each of paragraphs (c), (g)(ii) and (k)(ii), for "council", wherever it occurs, substitute "authority"; and
  (b) in subsection (2)—

  (i) for "an islands or district council" substitute "a local authority"; and

  (ii) in paragraph (a), for "council" substitute "authority".'.

  No. 231, in page 217, line 34, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 18 (byelaws in relation to recreational, sporting etc. activities)—

  (a) in subsection (1)—

  (i) for "an islands or district council" substitute "a local authority"; and

  (ii) for "council" substitute "authority";

  (b) in subsection (2)(b), for "council" substitute "local authority"; and

  (c) in subsection (3), for "council"—

  (i) where it first occurs, substitute "local authority"; and

  (ii) where it secondly occurs, substitute "authority".

  ( ) In section 24(1) (provision of gardening assistance for certain persons), for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority".
  ( ) In section 25 (local authority's functions in relation to cleansing of land)—

  (a) in subsection (2), for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority"; and

  (b) in subsection (3), for "islands or as the case may be district council" substitute "local authority".

  ( ) In section 26(1) (local authority's functions in relation to the provision of public conveniences), for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority".
  ( ) In section 27 (local authority's functions in relation to provision of a market)—

  (a) in subsection (1)—

  (i) for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority"; and

  (ii) in paragraph (b)(i), for "council" substitute "authority";

  (b) in subsection (3), for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority"; and

  (c) in subsection (4), the words from "Without" to "Act" shall cease to have effect.

  ( ) In section 28 (local authority's functions in relation to the provision of clocks)—

  (a) for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority"; and

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "council" substitute "authority".

  925
  ( ) In section 30(1), for the words from "an islands" to "may", where it first occurs, substitute "a local authority may, with the consent of the roads authority".
  ( ) In section 67 (interpretation), immediately before the definition of "the 1972 Act" insert—
  "local authority" means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;".
  No. 202, in page 219, line 40, leave out from 'seashore)' to end of line 41 and insert '—

  (a) in each of subsections (1), (3), (4) and (5), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";

  (b) in subsection (2)—

  (i) in paragraph (a), for "council" substitute "local authority"; and

  (ii) in paragraph (b)—

  (1) after sub-paragraph (i) insert "and";

  (2) in sub-paragraph (ii), for "the district council" substitute "any local authority other than the authority for Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands or Western Isles"; and

  (3) sub-paragraph (iii) and the word "and" immediately preceding it shall cease to have effect;

  (c) in subsection (5), for "council", where it secondly occurs, substitute "local authority".

  ( ) In section 123(1) (interpretation of sections 120 to 122), in the definition of "adjacent waters", in paragraph (b), for "district council" substitute "local authority".'.
  No. 147, in page 219, line 41, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 123(2) (interpretation of sections 120 to 122), after the words "purposes of ", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted "giving notice or, as the case may be,".'.
  No. 203, in page 219, line 44, at end insert—
  '( ) In Schedule 2 (control of sex shops)—

  (a) in each of paragraphs 3, 4, 5(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), 7(2), (7), (8) and (10) and 8(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";

  (b) in paragraph 6–

  (i) in sub-paragraph (1), for "district or islands council" substitute "local authority"; and

  (ii) in sub-paragraph (6), for "islands or district council" substitute "local authority";

  (c) in paragraph 9—

  (i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (4) and (5), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority"; and

  (ii) in sub-paragraphs (3)(g) and (h), for "council", in each place where it occurs, substitute "local authority";

  (d) in paragraph 10–

  (i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority"; and

  (ii) in sub-paragraph (3), for "council", where it secondly and thirdly occurs, substitute "authority";

  (e) in paragraph 12(1), (2)(b), (3), (4) and (6) for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";

  (f) in paragraph 13–

  (i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority"; and

  (ii) in sub-paragraphs (6) and (9), for "council", where it secondly occurs in each of those paragraphs, substitute "authority";

  (g) in paragraph 14–

  (i) in sub-paragraph (1), for "islands or district council" substitute "local authority"; and

  (ii) in sub-paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";

  (h) in paragraph 15–

  (i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (5), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";

  (ii) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), for "council" substitute "authority"; and

  926

  (iii) in sub-paragraph (3), for "council", where it secondly occurs, substitute "local authority";

  (i) in paragraph 16(1), (2), (3) and (4), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";

  (j) in paragraph 17–

  (i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (4), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority"; and

  (ii) in sub-paragraph (4), for "council", where it secondly occurs, substitute "authority";

  (k) in paragraph 18–

  (i) in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for "district or islands council" substitute "local authority";

  (ii) in sub-paragraph (1), for "council", where it secondly occurs, substitute "authority"; and

  (iii) in sub-paragraph (2), for "council", where it secondly and thirdly occurs, substitute "authority";

  (l) in each of paragraphs 19(8) and 20(1), (3) and (5), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";

  (m) in paragraph 22—

  (i) for "district or islands council" substitute "local authority"; and

  (ii) for "its" substitute "their";

  (n) in paragraph 23–

  (i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";

  (ii) in sub-paragraph (2), for "council", where it secondly occurs, substitute "authority"; and

  (iii) in sub-paragraph (4)(c), for "council" substitute "local authority";

  (o) in paragraph 24–

  (i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2)(a), (3), (6), (7) and (9), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";

  (ii) in sub-paragraph (6), for "council", where it secondly, thirdly and fourthly occurs, substitute "authority"; and

  (iii) in sub-paragraph (9)(b), for "council" substitute "authority"; and

  (p) in paragraph 25(1) and (3), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority".'.

  No. 204, in page 221, line 41, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 19(3)(b) (local authority in Scotland empowered to regulate use of roads by public service vehicles), for "regional or islands council" substitute "council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994".'.
  No. 205, in page 222, line 32, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 55(3) (arrangements for provision of meals etc. on picnic sites), for "regional, islands or district council" substitute "local authority".'.
  No. 206, in page 222, line 35, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 95(2) (recovery of expenses by road authority where contravention of section), the words "or by the district council" shall cease to have effect.
  ( ) In section 97(6) (trading: meanings of certain expressions)—

  (a) in the definition of "relevant public market", in paragraph (b), for "regional, islands, or district council" substitute "local authority"; and

  (b) in the proviso to that definition, for "council", in both places where it occurs, substitute "local authority".

  ( ) In section 113(1)(c) (transfer of property and liabilities in connection with special roads etc.), for "regional council" substitute "local authority".'.
  No. 207, in page 222, line 41, leave out '(1)'.
  No. 208, in page 222, line 42, after '(a)' insert 'in subsection (1)—
  (i)'.
  No. 209, in page 222, line 44, at end insert—
  '( ) in the definition of "maintenance", in paragraph (b), for "an islands or district council" substitute "a local authority";'.
  No. 210, in page 223, line 6, at end insert '; and

  927
  (b) in subsection (3)(c), for "an islands or district council" substitute "a local authority".'.
  No. 211, in page 229, line 12, leave out from ' 1 ' to
  ', for' in line 13 and insert '(interpretation)—

  (a) in subsection (1)—

  (i) after paragraph (h) insert "and"; and

  (ii) paragraph (k) and the word "and" immediately preceding it shall cease to have effect; and

  (b) in subsection (3)(a)'.

  No. 301, in page 229, line 14, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 2 (defined activities), after subsection (9) insert—
  "(10) Without prejudice to his powers to make orders or regulations under any other provision of this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State may by order provide that, from 31st March 1995 or such later date as may be specified in the order until such date as may be so specified, being a date not later than 31st December 2001, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply in relation to local authorities subject to such modifications as may be so specified.".
  ( ) In section 15 (orders, regulations etc.), in each of subsections (2) and (5), after "section 2(9)" insert "or 2(10)".'.
  No. 212, in page 229, line 21, at end insert—
  '(a) after the entry relating to the Peak Park Joint Planning Board insert—
  "The Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority."; and
  (b)'.
  No. 213, in page 230, line 48, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 67B(2) (tests to check whether defects have been remedied), for "a region or islands area" substitute "the area of a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994".'.
  No. 148, in page 242, line 41, after '(interpretation)' insert '—
  (a)'.
  No. 149, in page 242, line 44, at end insert '; and
  (b) in the definition of "relevant water body", in paragraph (b), for "a water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980" substitute "a water and sewerage authority established by section 61 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994".'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Schedule 14
Amendments made:
Schedule 14

  REPEALS
  No. 150, in page 244, line 14, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 36, in subsection (2), the words "and thirty-six" and "and twenty-three" and subsections (3) and (6).'

  No. 232, in page 247, line 44, column 3, at end insert—

  'Section 31(4).'.

  No. 165, in page 248, line 31, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 100(3), the words from "and to an additional fine" to the end.'.

  No. 233, in page 248, line 52, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 133, subsection (1).'.

  No. 166, in page 249, line 2, column 3, leave out 'Section' and insert—

  'Sections 142 and'.

  No. 151, in page 249, line 52, column 3, at end insert—

  'Section 193(2).'.

  No. 214, in page 249, line 59, column 3, leave out 'subsection (1A)' and insert—

  'subsections (1A) and (13).'.

  No. 234, in page 250, line 18, column 3, at end insert—

  'Schedule I4.'.

  No. 215, in page 250, line 36, at end insert—

  '1975 c. 24.

  The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

  In Schedule 1, in Part IV, the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for an islands area in Scotland and, in the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for the district of the city of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, or Glasgow, the words "the district of'.'.

  No. 235, in page 251, line 6, column 3, after '22' insert—

  ', in sub-paragraph (I), head (c) and, in sub-paragraph'.

  No. 236 in page 251, line 11, column 3, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 24A and'
  No. 237, in page 258, line 8, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 27(4), the words from "Without" to "Act".'.

  No. 152, in page 258, line 14, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 121, in subsection (6), the words from "and of to "that proposal" and, in subsection (7), the words from "but the" to "his consent" and the word "nevertheless".'.

  No. 216, in page 258, line 14, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 122(2)(b), subparagraph (iii) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.'.

  No. 217, in page 258, line 52, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 95(2), the words "or by the district council".'.

  No. 238, in page 258, line 53, column 3, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 27(3)(a) and'.
  No. 218, in page 259, line 27, column 3, after 'words"' insert 'and'.
  No. 239, in page 259, line 45, column 3, leave out 'paragraph 11' and insert—

  "in paragraph 11, the words from "and", where it first occurs, to the end.'.—[Mr. Stewart].

Clause 176

  CONSEQUENTIAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 111, in page 122, line 10, after '1968;' insert—
  ' "joint committee" and "joint board" have the meanings given by section 235(1) of the 1973 Act;'.
  No. 112, in page 122, line 12, after '2' insert 'of this Act'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 178
  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 192, in page 123, line 16, after 'Act' insert ', except section 158,'.

  Title
  Amendments made: No. 153, line 21, leave out from 'to' to 'children's' in line 22.
  No. 154, line 22, after 'hearings;' insert
  930
  'to amend the procedure for making byelaws under section 121

  Revenue Support Grant
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  9.57 pm
  Mr. John Evans: I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, the Ministers and my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench on the speedy way in which you cleared the important business on the Bill so that I could start my even more important business on the Adjournment. I refer, of course, to the subject of the rate support grant settlement, particularly as it affects my constituency and the City of Westminster.
  The Minister is well aware that I am extremely grateful to have this opportunity to speak, once again, on this subject. During the past four years, I have spoken on innumerable occasions and asked innumerable questions, both written and oral, on the rate support grant settlements. I asked a further question about it today.
  I was moved to ask for the Adjournment debate because of an answer I received from the Prime Minister to an oral question. I asked the right hon. Gentleman:
  "Is he aware of the fact that if Westminster city council had received the same rate support grant per head of population as the borough of St. Helens it would have been forced to charge £1,019, instead of £245, for a band A property? Will the Prime Minister explain to my constituents how a rate support grant settlement that throws up such huge disparities is not politically corrupt?"
  I shall not bore the House with the Prime Minister's entire reply. It is sufficient to say that towards the end of the exchanges on the question he spoke of
  "some of the reasons why Westminster is so efficient and some of the reasons why the council deserves to be re-elected."—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 591.]
  The Prime Minister's answer demonstrated that Her Majesty's Government were still attempting to brazen out the rigging of the grant support system in favour especially of Westminster city council and of the London borough of Wandsworth, which are often described as Tory local government flagships.
  I think that all of us were also aware of some of the allegations that were surfacing about what was or was not to be broadcast in the BBC "Panorama" programme about the affairs of the city of Westminster. Indeed, I think that all of us who watched the "Panorama" programme on Monday night agree that it portrayed a shocking story of graft and corruption at the very heart of this country—the city of Westminster—and it was corruption on a scale which, I believe, is without precedent in Great Britain.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Mr. Evans: Anyone who watched that programme recognises that Her Majesty's Government strong-armed the BBC into keeping the programme off the air during the period of the local government elections. The BBC should be condemned for bowing the knee to the threats and intimidation to which it must have been subject. That was a programme about local government in Britain in the 1990s, which everyone had a right to see, and it should have been shown for people to watch.
  The votes of the people who saw the programme would have been influenced because they would have recognised,

  931
  Westminster, but that it was obvious that Ministers, and in one or two cases Conservative Members, had gone along with what had happened in that borough. Although I note, and will accept, that Members of Parliament have said that they had no knowledge of what was going on in the city of Westminster, it is interesting that, as far as I am aware, none has condemned anything that took place in that borough.
  I shall concentrate on the difference in treatment of the city of Westminster and of my constituency and the borough that I represent—St. Helens. They are boroughs with similar populations and similar duties and responsibilities to their electorate. Apart from the huge discrepancies in the grants that they receive, their performance differs.
  The Prime Minister, in his answer on 3 May, praised Westminster for its efficiency. If that was correct, one would have assumed that when the district auditor reported earlier this year on the accounts of Westminster city council he would be able to praise the borough. Far from that, the district auditor condemned, in terms which I have never seen before, the activities of the council and, as all of us understand it, a number of councillors in the borough and a number of the officers of the borough are facing surcharges approaching £21 million. The Evening Standard last night suggested that, following further investigations, the likely bill for the irregularities is approaching £55 million. We shall all be interested to know the outcome.
  St. Helens is a borough which was hard done by by the Government in the past three or four years. The district auditor's report for St. Helens highly praised the borough and all that it had done in the past year.
  "In his annual report, District Auditor Frank Kerkham gives special mention to the Council's 'sound and business like' management.
  Among services most praised was the way the Authority collects and monitors Council Tax collections. He says: 'By the end of October 1993 the money owed in Council Tax was £4.9 million. This represents 3.9 per cent. of the gross debit for three years of the community charge's existence.'
  This represents a good performance given that the Authority has had to introduce and collect the Council Tax in tandem with collecting residual community charge."
  He went on to praise the borough in a number of other ways. Thus a borough that had been desperately strapped for support grant from the Government was praised for its efficiency by the district auditor.
  Because revenue support grant is distributed according to the standard spending assessment formulae, this year Westminster received £2,622 per primary school pupil whereas St. Helens received £1,851—a difference of £770. Does it cost that much more to educate a primary school child in Westminster? In secondary education, the position is even worse. Westminster receives a grant per pupil of £3,677, whereas St. Helens receives £2,590 per pupil—a difference of more than £1,000. Why should St. Helens school children be regarded as so much cheaper to educate than children in Westminster?
  Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the opportunity to support my hon. Friend in his Adjournment debate. The comparison that he makes between the boroughs of St. Helens and Westminster is identical to the comparison between Wakefield district council and
  932
  Westminster. Will my hon. Friend mention the other authorities in the Webber Craig group, which is a group of authorities that includes St. Helens and Wakefield?
  My hon. Friend mentioned SSAs. In March 1994, the Secretary of State issued a report that said:
  "The Government has consistently taken the view that SSA is an appropriate benchmark against which to consider whether spending decisions of an authority have resulted in a budget which is excessive."
  Neither St. Helens nor Wakefield has spent excessively. The figures for education in Westminster are evidence of excesses. If there was to be capping, that is where it should have been.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to the attention of the House the fact that his authority, like another five authorities that are grouped in what is known as the Webber Craig group, which are well known to the Minister, suffers from similar problems.
  The position with social services is just as bad as that with education. Westminster receives more than £18 million more for its social services than St. Helens. The position was graphically described in the St. Helens Star on 6 January 1994 when it said:
  "St Helens received a massive £18 million less a year than Westminster to spend on these vital services. That's £994 less to spend on each of our elderly people.
  For every elderly person living in the Borough, the Council receives just £131 compared to Westminster's £257—almost double what St Helens receives."
  That shows how an authority at one end of the country receives substantially more to look after its elderly citizens than a borough at the other end of the country.
  St. Helens has had a raw deal ever since SSAs were first established. Because of how they were calculated, St. Helens has had to cut no less than £20 million from its budget in the past three years. The council has had to close a library, an elderly persons' home, a family centre, a day nursery and a day centre and increase charges for school meals, meals on wheels and home helps. Regrettably, the cuts have been inflicted on the elderly and the very young—the most defenceless people in the community.
  I want to put to the Minister some of the questions that constituents have asked me on many occasions. In the borough of St. Helens there is considerable resentment about how people are treated. I pay tribute to the local newspapers, the St. Helens Star and the St. Helens Reporter, which have regularly featured these issues so that citizens may understand precisely what is going on.
  How can it be fair that an authority such as the one in Westminster, with a population only 4 per cent. higher, receives 70 per cent. more in terms of SSAs and 116 per cent. more in revenue support grant than my council? The sums of money involved are huge. My constituents, who know that their council is efficient, would have to be charged twice the council tax that people in Westminster have to pay. Obviously they are extremely angry about this.
  The Government's SSA of £220 million for Westminster is supposed to reflect the council's need to provide services at a standard level. Does not the fact that Westminster spends £3 million less mean that it is failing to provide services at that level? Is not revenue support grant distributed according to SSAs? If Westminster is spending less than the SSA, it must be receiving rate support grant in respect of expenditure that it is not incurring. Surely that cannot be justified.

  933
  If the Prime Minister argues, as he did in a parliamentary answer to me on 3 May, that Westminster has achieved efficiency savings—he pointed out that £11 million had been saved as a result of compulsory competitive tendering: the equivalent of £110 in council tax—why is the council still receiving rate support grant as if it had not achieved those savings? Should not its SSA be reduced to reflect them?
  The Prime Minister's reference, in his reply to me, to the loss of SSA in Wandsworth was irrelevant. I had not mentioned Wandsworth; I had referred simply to Westminster and St. Helens. It is true that Wandsworth lost standard spending assessment, but it was given £26 million in SSA reduction grant to cushion the effect. Westminster received a reduction grant of £7 million. Both authorities benefited because of the change in SSA methodology. There was no such cushion when, in 1991, St. Helens was capped. We lost £6 million, on the basis of the national average, as a result of the switch from what was known as grant-related expenditure assessment—GREA—to SSAs. There was no preferential treatment for St. Helens on that occasion.
  I am quite happy to put on record the fact that we in St. Helens and the other Webber Craig authorities are grateful for some of the changes in SSA calculations this year. I should like to make it clear that they have been beneficial. We recognise that the inclusion of the long-term unemployed—a measure for which we fought for a long time—has been advantageous, and we give credit to Ministers for listening to the arguments that we put forward in meetings last year and for going part of the way towards meeting our case.
  In answer to my question 7 today, the Minister of State indicated that discussions with the local authority associations about revision of the SSAs were continuing. I and, I am sure, my colleagues in the Webber Craig authorities warmly welcome those discussions and trust that they will be brought to a happy conclusion.
  I should like to ask the Minister to consider the inclusion of two or three items. We believe that account should be taken of the fact that the provision of nursery education ought to be based on the actual number of children rather than on proxy figures. After all, we know exactly how many under-fives in St. Helens are being educated. Could not the actual, not the proxy, figures be used? The construction of the additional educational needs index should also be reconsidered, as it is based on three rather broad proxy figures: children of lone parents, children of benefit claimants and children of ethnic origin.?
  I suggest that the numbers of statemented children could be considered in this context—they are statemented, after all, so as to receive the special education that they so badly need. I also suggest that the assessment of the number of children at risk should be based on actual numbers, not on proxies. St. Helens, like most other authorities, knows exactly how many children are on its at-risk register.
  As I said the last time I spoke in a debate on this subject —indeed, I have often said it—local government finance is a complex, mysterious and arcane subject, and I suspect that only local authority finance executives understand it. The rest of us have to work very hard—I suspect that the Minister sometimes has to work even harder—to keep up with the jargon and the changing patterns involved in mastering this complex subject.
  I should point out, however, that local government finance affects every person in the land. After all, it used
  934
  to be reflected in people's rates; then in the community charge; now in the council tax. It is thus important that we try to get it right. I thank the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary for listening to the authorities and trying to produce a fairer system. They can rest assured that if they produce figures which are fairer, and which therefore benefit our hard-pressed constituents, we will be grateful.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): It will help the House if I briefly set out the general principles and mechanisms of the local government finance settlement before turning to the points about St. Helens made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans). I hope that both the St. Helens Star and the St. Helens Reporter will give my comments extensive coverage.
  Government support for local authority spending this year will be £34.3 billion, a large sum of money representing an increase of 1.7 per cent. on the amount spent in the previous year. That is fair settlement, consistent with our determination to maintain a firm grip on public spending, of which local government accounts for about a quarter. Clearly, the total amount of money available for local government spending has to be distributed to the various local authorities in the fairest possible way—there is no argument about that.
  That is done by means of the revenue support grant, which is distributed to local authorities by reference to standard spending assessments. SSAs are an objective, statistically based measure of the amount that an authority needs to spend to deliver a standard level of service. In other words, having regard to different populations and different needs, each local authority should be treated—and as far as the Government are concerned, will be treated—equally.
  Our aim is to ensure that the available resources are divided fairly, so that each authority is placed on an equal footing. Of course, that is not an easy task. In evidence to the Environment Select Committee, the local authority associations said:
  "The distribution of grant to 420 authorities in England on an equitable basis is a complex task and it is not surprising that the extensive analysis and research over the years has shown that there are no simple answers."
  But we do try extremely hard. The Audit Commission observed that
  "the SSA system … is a more sophisticated system for equalising needs than any overseas system examined in this study and it is an improvement on its predecessor in many respects."
  Last year, we carried out a thorough review of the calculation of the standard spending assessment which incorporated an in-depth look at all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised relating to St. Helens. The review was prompted by the need to incorporate new data on social conditions from the 1991 census, but we also took the opportunity to carry out a root and branch review of the SSA formula more generally.
  The review was carried out in close co-operation with the local authority associations. We made the underlying data freely available to the associations and provided exemplifications of any option which the associations wished to consider. I and ministerial colleagues also met delegations from more than 30 individual local authorities to hear their views and discuss their ideas.

  935
  The Environment Select Committee has recently produced a report on SSAs. One of the Committee's first conclusions in that report is this:
  "We welcome the openness with which this year's SSA review has been carried out, and we trust the approach will continue in future years."
  So do we.
  One of the Committee's final conclusions is:
  "We recognise that the changes to the SSA methodology this year have led to some commonsense improvement in the 1994–95 proposals."
  I hope that we will continue to earn the commendation of independent experts and the Select Committee for the fact that our proposals for SSAs are arrived at through open and co-operative discussion and are both common sense and fair.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baldry: No.
  Just because we aim to ensure a fair distribution does not mean that everyone will be happy with the result. I totally refute any suggestion that the distribution system is somehow rigged in a party political way. If anyone cares to look at the figures, they will see that a large number of the local authorities that have gained this year as a result of recent SSA changes are Labour-controlled authorities.
  In his evidence to the Select Committee, Mr. Tony Travers, who is generally recognised as an objective and informed academic in this area, said:
  "A number of commentators have accused SSAs of being politically rigged … Yet there is no evidence of such political intervention".
  The review of SSAs last year was thorough and wide ranging and I agree with the Select Committee that there will always be a trade-off between improving the technical content of the SSAs and increasing its complexity.
  I do not plan such a wide-ranging review this year. Of course, that does not mean that there will be no changes. We will always continue to discuss the SSA methodology with local authority associations and with individual authorities which wish to make a contribution.
  St. Helens was one of the authorities that benefited from the review of SSAs. It got more money this year than it would have done under the old formula—although I recognise that it was not as much as some other authorities, nor evidently as much as the hon. Gentleman would have liked.
  St. Helens SSA went up by just over 3 per cent.—more than the average for metropolitan districts of 1.3 per cent.—and under the capping rules St. Helens can set a budget some 5 per cent. above SSA. If one compares what St. Helens actually spent last year with what it can spend this year—comparing like with like—that is a permitted increase of 1.7 per cent. It is an increase and in no way a cut.
  St. Helens education SSA increased by 3.1 per cent.; its personal social services SSA increased by 5.7 per cent. and its all other services block SSA increased by almost 11 per cent. As a result of the introduction of an index measuring economic circumstances, for which St. Helens and others in the Webber Craig group of local authorities have campaigned, it did extremely well.
  St. Helens will also benefit from committed spending under the single regeneration budget of £11.4 million in 1994–95 and a share of the £1 billion objective 1
  936
  programme money for Merseyside. The Department of Transport has also been able to provide an extra £6.6 million of borrowing approvals to help finance the additional costs of the M62 link road—again in response to a case put by St. Helens in which Environment Ministers took a close interest.
  I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's comparison with Westminster. I think it is cheap stuff; I think it is poor stuff. It is belittling and it is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman.
  The measures used to arrive at the standard spending assessment for Westminster are exactly the same measures as are used for every other authority. They give a higher SSA per head than in St. Helens simply because that is what the statistics show. But the statistics also show that 23 out of the 32 London boroughs get more per head than St. Helens, irrespective of political control.
  The SSA review this year reduced Westminster's SSA by 1.6 per cent.—a greater reduction than the average for inner London boroughs. Total external support per head for Westminster—made up of revenue support grant, redistributed business rates and SSA reduction grant—is below the average for inner London boroughs. The low level of council tax in Westminster is, in large measure, simply a reflection of the excellent budgeting by Westminster council, which set a budget some 11.6 per cent. below SSA.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study the SSA grants for the London boroughs this year. Having done so, I hope that he will take back any scintilla of a suggestion that they have been politically rigged. Conservative-controlled Kensington and Chelsea has had a reduction in its SSA grant this year of 8.3 per cent. In Conservative-controlled Wandsworth, there has been a reduction in SSA of 10.6 per cent. Conservative-controlled Brent has seen a reduction in its SSA of 8.5 per cent. Ealing, which, at the time that the SSA was set, was Conservative controlled, has seen a reduction in SSA of 3.8 per cent. Redbridge, which, at the time that the SSA was set, was also Conservative-controlled, has seen an SSA reduction of 1 per cent.
  The hon. Gentleman could then look at some of the Labour-controlled boroughs in London. Greenwich has had an increase of 7.6 per cent. in its SSA grant. The SSA grant for Barking and Dagenham has increased by 11.8 per cent. The grant for Hillingdon has increased by 7.7 per cent., and so on. It is complete nonsense to suggest that any of the SSAs are politically rigged in any way. They are set objectively using the best possible criteria after lengthy and extensive discussions with the local authority associations.
  Mr. Evans: Will the Minister spend one minute explaining to the people of St. Helens why Westminster receives £1,000 more per child for secondary education as compared with St. Helens?
  Mr. Baldry: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, marks out the word "Westminster" and puts in its place practically any other London borough, he could make exactly the same speech again replacing the word "Westminster" with "Greenwich", "Lambeth", "Newham" or "Islington". That is simply because that is what the statistics demonstrate in terms of need and in terms of the formula that has been worked out openly and objectively with the local authority associations.

  937
  I am delighted that St. Helens has welcomed the review of the SSAs and, in particular, the inclusion of health and economic indicators. The work that we have done this year with the Webber Craig group of authorities clearly demonstrates our preparedness and determination to make the system as fair as possible.
  Expert independent commentators agree that the process by which we decide the distribution of resources between authorities is as open and as fair as practicable without creating a system that is impossibly complex. The formula is exhaustively discussed with local authority representatives and the data come from statistical returns which are common to all local authority areas.
  I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman would like to see St. Helens do better from the system. Many hon. Members would like their areas to do better. Of course, we shall continue to strive to balance these conflicting demands as fairly and reasonably as possible. In a system such as this there may always be scope for further improvements.
  938
  As I have made clear, we are always happy to consider with the local authority associations any proposals for improvements. But the improvements will be objective and they will apply to every local authority, irrespective of political complexion. If St. Helens wishes to press further for specific changes to the SSAs, it needs first to seek to persuade other local authorities to put a case to us in the discussions that are already under way. As always, any case that is put forward will be discussed openly with a view to arriving at an approach that is fair to all authorities.
  In the meantime, I am sure that St. Helens council wants to make the best use of the £105 million of grant that has been made available to it this year, in addition to the money that it has—
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many amalgamations of magistrates court committee areas he has determined to make; how many committee areas(a) will be affected, and (b) will remain; and if he will list the names of the committee areas that will be affected by each amalgamation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice", published in February 1992, announced that the Government would like to see a progressive reduction in the number of separate management units, and that we judged that something between 50 and 60 would in due course provide a good balance between the local character of the service and operational needs. The Lord Chancellor has reached no final conclusions about any specific amalgamations.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all the magistrates court committees that he has consulted about possible amalgamation; and what plans he has to consult other magistrates court committees about amalgamation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  All magistrates courts committees were consulted during 1992 about criteria for magistrates court committee areas and were subsequently consulted on how those criteria could be met in their area. As a result of this, the Lord Chancellor published indicative conclusions as to possible amalgamations, but these do not constitute final decisions. Under the provisions contained in the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill, no order amalgamating or otherwise adjusting the boundaries of a magistrates court committee area could be made without consultation with the magistrates courts committee or committees concerned, except where they themselves had requested that such an order be made.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his oral answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 454, if he will list all the criteria by which he has decided to reduce the number of magistrates court committees.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Any decision to amalgamate or otherwise adjust the boundaries of a magistrates court committee or committees would be taken in the light of local circumstances and against criteria appropriate at that time.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list by year for the last 10 years, and for the year to date, the number of magistrates courts that have been closed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The provision of magistrates court-house accommodation is a matter for the courts 452
  committees for the area concerned in conjunction with the local paying authority. The Department has no central record of the number of magistrates court-houses that have been closed or are scheduled to be closed. A local authority that is aggrieved by a decision of a magistrates court committee to close a court-house has the right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor. Since 1993 the Lord Chancellor has dealt with six appeals and there is currently one appeal outstanding.

  Justices' Clerks
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 403, if he will list all the other non-judicial functions of justices' clerks.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No definitive list of the non-judicial functions of justices' clerks is possible. Section 28(3) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 states what the functions of a justices' clerk include, and section 28(4) of the Act goes on to state that subsection (3)"…shall not be taken as defining or in any respect limiting the powers and duties belonging to a justices' clerk…".

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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 on to an agency chief executive; and, in each case, what percentage of the total number of questions asked this constituted.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  During this period 16 questions tabled to me were not answered on the basis of disproportionate cost and nine were referred on to an agency chief executive. These figures represent 4·22 per cent. and 2·37 per cent. respectively of the total number of questions tabled to me.

  Trial Waiting Times
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current average waiting time for trial at(a) magistrates courts and (b) Crown courts for (i) defendants granted bail and (ii) those remanded in custody in (1) Doncaster, (2) Barnsley, (3) Rotherham and (4) Sheffield.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For the magistrates courts the average time from listing to completion for indictable and either way offences for the named metropolitan districts in 1993 were as follows:

  Weeks

  Doncaster

  7·0

  Barnsley

  12·0

  Rotherham

  7·4

  Sheffield

  8·6

  However, the Barnsley figures are less reliable statistically than the others as only a small number of defendants was surveyed. Given the sample sizes, these figures cannot be broken down to show defendants granted bail and those remanded in custody without producing unrepresentative results.
  453
  The average time from committal for trial to arraignment or start of trial for defendants dealt with at the Crown court centre in Doncaster during four months to the end of March 1994 was 17.6 weeks for those remanded on bail and 13.5 weeks for those remanded in custody. The corresponding times for the centre in Sheffield were 24 weeks and 17.5 weeks respectively. Barnsley and Rotherham do not have Crown court centres.

  Child Witnesses
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the courts, adult and juvenile, in the London area which now have screens, television equipment and pre-recorded interview facilities or other equipment for the use of child witnesses in court cases in which they are involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The following courts in the London area are fitted with live television link equipment and video playback equipment for use in the presentation of evidence by child witnesses. The use of screens by child witnesses is available at all courts upon the direction of the judge.

  Central Criminal Court

  Crown Court at Croydon (two sets)

  Crown Court at Harrow

  Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames

  Crown Court at Southwark

  Crown Court at Wood Green

  Crown Court at Woolwich

  Thames Magistrates' Court

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications from foreign nationals to enter or remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of a stable and committed homosexual partnership with a United Kingdom national have been received in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not separately identified in the statistics.

  Table A

  Number and percentage of persons found guilty or cautioned for the indictable offence of theft of a motor vehicle1 by police force area and age group, 1992

  10–16

  17–20

  All ages

  Police force area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  20

  23

  28

  32

  88

  100

  Bedfordshire

  56

  49

  33

  29

  115

  100

  Cambridgeshire

  28

  20

  51

  37

  139

  100

  Cheshire

  30

  29

  40

  39

  102

  100

  Cleveland

  36

  32

  36

  32

  112

  100

  Cumbria

  9

  21

  16

  38

  42

  100

  Derbyshire

  27

  29

  34

  37

  93

  100

  Devon and Cornwall

  22

  15

  57

  39

  147

  100

  Dorset

  7

  17

  20

  49

  41

  100

  Durham

  21

  21

  38

  37

  102

  100

  Essex

  80

  33

  84

  35

  241

  100

  Gloucestershire

  12

  22

  25

  45

  55

  100

  Greater Manchester

  118

  31

  96

  25

  380

  100

  Hampshire

  48

  29

  41

  25

  163

  100

  Hertfordshire

  32

  33

  33

  34

  96

  100

  Humberside

  69

  44

  38

  24

  157

  100

  Kent

  142

  40

  119

  34

  352

  100

  Lancashire

  11

  14

  17

  22

  76

  100

  454
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to allow foreign nationals to enter or remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of a stable and committed homosexual partnership with a United Kingdom national; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the remarks that I made in reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) in the Adjournment debate on 4 May on the case of Mr. Bryan Ruppert,Official Report, columns 820–26.

  Colin Ivor Dunning (Appeal)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will refer the case of Colin Ivor Dunning to the Court of Appeal under the provisions of section 17 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The representations submitted on Mr. Dunning's behalf in February 1994, together with earlier representations, are currently being considered. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will determine in the light of that consideration whether it would be right to refer Mr. Dunning's case to the Court of Appeal or to take any other action in the matter.

  Vehicle Crime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list for each police authority in 1992 the number of known offenders found guilty of or cautioned for offences of(a) theft of a motor vehicle or (b) unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle; and what proportion of the total number of known offenders in total and in each category were (i) juveniles and (ii) young adults;

  (2) if he will list for each police authority in 1992 the number of known offenders found guilty of or cautioned for offences of theft from a motor vehicle; and what proportion of those offenders were (i) juveniles and (ii) young adults.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the tables.
  455

  10–16

  17–20

  All ages

  Police force area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Leicestershire

  34

  29

  45

  38

  119

  100

  Lincolnshire

  9

  24

  14

  37

  38

  100

  City of London

  —

  —

  1

  50

  2

  100

  Merseyside

  17

  18

  32

  35

  92

  100

  Metropolitan Police

  75

  22

  82

  24

  335

  100

  Norfolk

  17

  22

  21

  27

  79

  100

  Northamptonshire

  11

  17

  23

  35

  66

  100

  Northumbria

  35

  23

  49

  32

  151

  100

  North Yorkshire

  13

  21

  20

  32

  63

  100

  Nottinghamshire

  77

  39

  63

  32

  197

  100

  South Yorkshire

  106

  42

  74

  29

  254

  100

  Staffordshire

  6

  10

  17

  28

  61

  100

  Suffolk

  29

  35

  30

  37

  82

  100

  Surrey

  20

  30

  16

  24

  67

  100

  Sussex

  23

  27

  19

  22

  85

  100

  Thames Valley

  45

  24

  79

  41

  191

  100

  Warwickshire

  26

  39

  18

  27

  67

  100

  West Mercia

  5

  8

  23

  38

  61

  100

  West Midlands

  104

  29

  114

  32

  353

  100

  West Yorkshire

  80

  26

  94

  31

  307

  100

  Wiltshire

  10

  22

  14

  31

  45

  100

  Dyfed Powys

  2

  9

  7

  32

  22

  100

  Gwent

  3

  6

  22

  47

  47

  100

  North Wales

  13

  31

  5

  12

  42

  100

  South Wales

  26

  24

  39

  36

  109

  100

  England

  1,510

  29

  1,654

  32

  5,216

  100

  Wales

  44

  20

  73

  33

  220

  100

  England and Wales

  1,554

  29

  1,727

  32

  5,436

  100

  1 Theft Act 1968 Section 1.

  Table B

  Number and percentage of persons found guilty or cautioned for the summary offence of stealing and unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle1 by police force area and age group, 1992

  10–16

  17–20

  All ages

  Police force area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  121

  33

  158

  43

  365

  100

  Bedfordshire

  79

  33

  106

  44

  242

  100

  Cambridgeshire

  45

  31

  62

  43

  143

  100

  Cheshire

  222

  44

  190

  38

  506

  100

  Cleveland

  201

  46

  167

  38

  439

  100

  Cumbria

  90

  41

  90

  41

  222

  100

  Derbyshire

  127

  39

  133

  40

  329

  100

  Devon and Cornwall

  110

  29

  167

  45

  373

  100

  Dorset

  54

  31

  69

  39

  176

  100

  Durham

  60

  34

  80

  45

  176

  100

  Essex

  152

  36

  159

  38

  419

  100

  Gloucestershire

  74

  46

  54

  34

  160

  100

  Greater Manchester

  917

  42

  791

  36

  2,191

  100

  Hampshire

  255

  44

  198

  34

  577

  100

  Hertfordshire

  80

  33

  117

  48

  246

  100

  Humberside

  248

  53

  157

  33

  469

  100

  Kent

  80

  31

  107

  41

  259

  100

  Lancashire

  226

  38

  225

  38

  590

  100

  Leicestershire

  137

  33

  198

  48

  411

  100

  Lincolnshire

  57

  36

  59

  38

  157

  100

  City of London

  3

  16

  9

  47

  19

  100

  Merseyside

  281

  34

  352

  43

  816

  100

  Metropolitan Police

  941

  42

  737

  33

  2,243

  100

  Norfolk

  87

  41

  90

  43

  210

  100

  Northamptonshire

  38

  18

  114

  53

  217

  100

  Northumbria

  264

  35

  302

  41

  745

  100

  North Yorkshire

  73

  36

  86

  42

  203

  100

  Nottinghamshire

  218

  43

  196

  39

  502

  100

  South Yorkshire

  206

  36

  250

  43

  580

  100

  Staffordshire

  167

  40

  162

  39

  418

  100

  Suffolk

  57

  38

  51

  34

  152

  100

  Surrey

  31

  22

  62

  45

  138

  100

  Sussex

  116

  36

  138

  43

  322

  100

  Thames Valley

  388

  45

  338

  39

  871

  100

  Warwickshire

  38

  35

  46

  42

  110

  100

  West Mercia

  132

  42

  127

  40

  316

  100

  West Midlands

  592

  39

  621

  41

  1,525

  100

  West Yorkshire

  512

  36

  617

  43

  1,420

  100

  Wiltshire

  45

  38

  48

  41

  118

  100

  456 457

  10–16

  17–20

  All ages

  Police force area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Dyfed Powys

  19

  16

  58

  50

  117

  100

  Gwent

  79

  47

  56

  34

  167

  100

  North Wales

  74

  37

  78

  39

  200

  100

  South Wales

  325

  39

  346

  42

  823

  100

  England

  7,524

  39

  7,638

  39

  19,375

  100

  Wales

  497

  38

  538

  41

  1,307

  100

  England and Wales

  8,021

  39

  8,176

  40

  20,682

  100

  1 Theft Act 1968 Section 12(1) as amended by CJA 1988 Section 37: being carried knowing vehicle to have been taken or driven away; unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle.

  Table C

  Number and percentage of persons found guilty or cautioned for the indictable offence of theft from a motor vehicle1 by police force area and age group, 1992

  10–16

  17–20

  All ages

  Police force area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  43

  17

  122

  48

  252

  100

  Bedfordshire

  64

  37

  70

  40

  173

  100

  Cambridgeshire

  59

  31

  88

  46

  192

  100

  Cheshire

  72

  33

  102

  47

  219

  100

  Cleveland

  128

  48

  96

  36

  267

  100

  Cumbria

  26

  31

  39

  46

  84

  100

  Derbyshire

  87

  25

  155

  45

  346

  100

  Devon and Cornwall

  25

  18

  62

  44

  142

  100

  Dorset

  40

  25

  62

  38

  163

  100

  Durham

  69

  29

  105

  44

  241

  100

  Essex

  169

  32

  238

  44

  535

  100

  Gloucestershire

  61

  34

  75

  42

  178

  100

  Greater Manchester

  390

  47

  273

  33

  824

  100

  Hampshire

  152

  27

  261

  46

  570

  100

  Hertfordshire

  63

  22

  155

  53

  290

  100

  Humberside

  106

  32

  122

  36

  336

  100

  Kent

  135

  27

  238

  48

  498

  100

  Lancashire

  118

  33

  171

  48

  358

  100

  Leicestershire

  139

  32

  187

  43

  432

  100

  Lincolnshire

  32

  18

  100

  55

  182

  100

  City of London

  —

  —

  3

  38

  8

  100

  Merseyside

  151

  47

  101

  31

  323

  100

  Metropolitan Police

  498

  37

  453

  33

  1,359

  100

  Norfolk

  55

  35

  69

  44

  157

  100

  Northamptonshire

  11

  10

  70

  63

  111

  100

  Northumbria

  143

  32

  174

  39

  449

  100

  North Yorkshire

  62

  38

  58

  35

  165

  100

  Nottinghamshire

  131

  30

  182

  42

  431

  100

  South Yorkshire

  148

  30

  202

  40

  499

  100

  Staffordshire

  58

  31

  99

  52

  190

  100

  Suffolk

  64

  35

  80

  43

  184

  100

  Surrey

  46

  27

  77

  46

  169

  100

  Sussex

  54

  15

  192

  55

  351

  100

  Thames Valley

  182

  35

  231

  45

  515

  100

  Warwickshire

  36

  26

  72

  52

  139

  100

  West Mercia

  55

  33

  67

  41

  165

  100

  West Midlands

  476

  47

  361

  35

  1,023

  100

  West Yorkshire

  320

  41

  282

  36

  776

  100

  Wiltshire

  37

  23

  67

  42

  159

  100

  Dyfed Powys

  68

  68

  23

  23

  100

  100

  Gwent

  19

  17

  59

  51

  115

  100

  North Wales

  43

  24

  89

  49

  181

  100

  South Wales

  119

  40

  118

  39

  300

  100

  England

  4,505

  33

  5,561

  41

  13,455

  100

  Wales

  249

  36

  289

  42

  696

  100

  England and Wales

  4,754

  34

  5,850

  41

  14,151

  100

  1 Theft Act 1968 Section 1.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the mechanism under which submissions are to be made for section 11 funding.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The matter is under consideration. I will write to the hon. Member once the position is clearer.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances the Police Complaints Authority may withhold evidence in criminal proceedings.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The responsibilities of the Police Complaints Authority do not normally involve the supply
  459
  of evidence. Where a police investigation discloses material which may be of relevance to criminal proceedings, either in the past or under consideration for the future, any such material would be made available to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the agenda which has been proposed for the forthcoming meeting in Greece of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers of the member states of the European Union treaty on 20 and 21 June, meeting in accordance with the title U1 of the European Union treaty.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No draft agenda has yet been proposed.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the results of the meeting of the Interior Ministers of the member states of the European Union, meeting in accordance with Title U1 of the European Union treaty, in Thessalonika, Greece on 6 and 7 May.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The meeting in Thessalonika on 6 and 7 May was an informal meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. As such, it did not reach any formal conclusions. Representatives of the member states continued a wide-ranging debate of the Commission's recent communication on immigration and asylum policy.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has now been seized as a consequence of convictions involving section 1 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information collected centrally is given in the table:

  Amount (£) recovered1 by the Secretary of State in Confiscation orders under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986
  by financial year 1987–88—1992–93
  England and Wales

  Year

  Amount recovered £

  1987–88

  600,000

  1988–89

  1989–902

  1,375,200

  1990–912

  1,448,000

  1991–92

  5,384,500

  1992–93

  5,180,900

  1 The information collected centrally is known to be incomplete as returns were not received from all petty sessional divisions.

  2 There was some confusion with the recording of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 during these two years. In consequence it is considered that data has been under-recorded for the Drug Trafficking offence Act 1986 and over-recorded for the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  Misuse of Drugs Act
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has now been paid over to constabularies as a consequence of the provisions of section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
  460
  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not collected centrally on the type or monetary value of property ordered to be forfeited.

  Trans-sexual Prisoners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available gender reassignment treatment to Kelly Denise Richards, currently serving a sentence at HM Prison, Parkhurst; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 18 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about gender reassignment for Kelly Richards, a prisoner currently at Parkhurst prison.
  Kelly Richards, who is also known as David Cross, has been seen by a consultant psychiatrist and a doctor from the Gender Identity clinic at Charing Cross hospital. No treatment has been recommended and arrangements are currently being made for Mr. Cross to be seen by another consultant.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of his Department on male-to-female trans-sexuals serving sentences in male prisons; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter From Derek Lewis to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 18 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the policy on male to female transsexuals serving sentences in male prisons.
  The handling of transsexuals in prisons is dificult, both in administrative and medical terms.
  Any transsexual is likely to have difficulties in adjusting to prison life, and it is more often than not necessary to segregate in a vulnerable prisoner unit or prison health care centre those whose transsexuality is obvious. We prefer to treat each case individually and the principal criteria is the most obvious physical characteristics of the person concerned and their ability to integrate with other inmates. A male to female transsexual who had undergone surgery and hormone treatment would therefore be more appropriately allocated to a femal establishment. Conversely, a transsexual who had not undergone any form of treatment would be unlikely to be accepted by fellow inmates in an establishment for the gender of their choice.

  Nessun Quinliven and Pearse McAuley
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps have been taken to initiate formal extradition proceedings in the Irish Republic against Nessun Quinliven and Pearse McAuley; what discussions with the authorities in the Irish Republic have taken place; and what has been the Irish Republic's response;

  (2) when he was first informed of the capture by the Irish Republic's authorities of Nessun Quinliven and Pearse McAuley; and whether he was officially given details by the Irish Government.
  461
  Mr. Maclean
  The Metropolitan police was informed by the Irish authorities on 4 April and 9 April 1993 of the arrests in that country of Nessun Quinliven and of Pearse McAuley on those days. The Irish authorities were immediately informed of our interest in securing the return of the two men, in respect of whom arrest warrants had been issued here. But as I explained in my letter to the hon. Member of 4 August 1993, the domestic Irish proceedings against Quinliven and McAuley take precedence over requests for extradition. Nessun Quinliven was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on 7 October 1993, and Pearse McAuley to seven years on 18 November 1993, by the Dublin Special Criminal Court. These sentences of imprisonment will have to be served before they could be surrendered to the United Kingdom authorities.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Dependent Territories
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his responsibilities for the environment of Pitcairn island and other dependent territories.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 February,Official Report, column 581, which outlines the FCO's responsibilities for the dependent territories.

  The setting of domestic policies and priorities is a matter for the dependent territories' own Governments. Environmental protection is a high priority for them. We are consulting the dependent territories on their participation in environmental agreements which are most appropriate to their particular circumstances.

  We take seriously the issue of environmental protection in the Pitcairn Islands. We are preparing a management plan to address conservation issues on Henderson Island. Any conservation measures will need to take into account the isolation and remoteness of the Pitcairn Islands and must be agreed by the islanders.

  Multilateral Trade Negotiations
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when copies of the final Act embodying the results of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations and the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April will be presented to Parliament.

  Mr. Hurd
  Copies of the final Act embodying the results of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations and the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation were presented to Parliament and published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office as Command Papers, miscellaneous series, on Monday 16 May.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  English Heritage
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on how many occasions, and in what circumstances, he has disregarded the advice of English Heritage on the listing of historic buildings.
  462
  Mr. Brooke
  The advice of English Heritage is never disregarded, but my decisions must finally be my own judgment of a building's special architectural or historic interest.

  Since April 1992, I have added 5,550 buildings to the statutory lists. During that period, I have decided in 55 cases not to accept recommendations from English Heritage in favour of listing. In a very small number of cases, I have decided to list buildings against the advice of English Heritage.

  Outdoor Education Centres
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what contribution the Sports Council has made to developing an accreditation scheme for outdoor activity centres;

  (2) what support his Department has provided to the Sports Council and the English tourist board in developing a code of practice for outdoor education centres.

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on Monday 16 May,Official Report, column 347.

  Film Lighting
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will commission a report on competition in the film lighting supply industry; and what recent representations on this subject he has received.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have recently received a representation from my hon. Friend on this subject. The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for reviewing competition in markets, and any concerns that my hon. Friend has should be referred to him.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Primates
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 377, if she will list those establishments which have been approved as sources of primates under directive 92/65.

  Mr. Soames
  No establishment has yet completed the necessary approval procedures to be a source of primates under directive 92/65.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will place in the Library a copy of the recent investigation undertaken by staff of her chief veterinary officer into alleged irregularities in the veterinary certification of the export of live farm animals.

  Mr. Soames
  The investigations into alleged irregularities in the veterinary export certification of farm animals are continuing. Some are being undertaken by local authorities assisted by investigation officers of the Department and prosecutions may follow. These matters are therefore sub judice and, as is normal practice, copies of the investigations will not be placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 48, on what date he will publish the document which will form the basis of consultation on the Government's preferred options for the future of the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I have nothing further to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 9 May,Official Report, column 48.

  Waste Water Treatment Directive
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made with the identification of sensitive areas and high natural dispersion areas in connection with the urban waste water treatment directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish waters identified as sensitive areas and high natural dispersion areas —HNDAs —in connection with the urban waste water treatment directive are set out in the table.

  The general requirement of the directive is that all discharges of urban waste water from a population equivalent of 2,000 or more to freshwaters or estuaries, or 10,000 or more to coastal waters, should receive secondary treatment.

  In areas identified as sensitive, more stringent treatment will be required while in HNDAs, the directive permits less stringent treatment—but at least primary treatment. The adequacy of less stringent treatment to prevent adverse effects on the environment requires to be demonstrated by comprehensive studies and confirmed by subsequent monitoring.

  A map showing the locations of these areas has been prepared and will be forwarded to the European Commission. It will be made available for public inspection at the offices of the river purification authorities and meanwhile has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Sensitive Areas

  River Almond (Cramond to Whitburn)

  Forfar Loch/Dean Water

  South Calder Water/Strathclyde Park Loch

  High Natural Dispersion Areas (HNDAs)

  Eyemouth Coast

  Firth of Forth

  Forth Estuary (E)

  Firth of Tay (E)

  Angus Coast (South)

  Angus Coast (North)

  Kincardine Coast

  Peterhead Coast

  Fraserburgh Coast

  Banff Coast

  Buckie Coast

  Moray Firth (Lossiemouth/Burghead)

  Cromarty Firth (E)

  Wick Bay

  Thurso Bay

  The String, Kirkwall

  Lerwick Harbour

  The Minch (Stornoway)

  Oban Bay

  Campbeltown Loch

  464

  Inner Firth of Clyde

  Clyde Coast (Irvine/Ayr)

  Clyde Coast (Girvan)

  Inner Solway Firth (E)

  Note:

  All HNDAs are in coastal waters, except those marked (E), which are in estuaries.

  Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what way the Scottish ambulance service becoming a trust will enable it to compete on a level playing field with the other demands on health service finance.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]Trust status for the Scottish ambulance service would allow it to operate on the same basis as the majority of hospitals to which it provides services and which are now NHS trusts. With the exception of the London ambulance service, all ambulance services in the United Kingdom have applied for or have already been granted trust status.

TRANSPORT

  Tamar Crossing
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has decided to proceed with the proposal for a second crossing of the River Tamar.

  Mr. Key
  The proposal for a new crossing of the River Tamar has generated much interest and more than 5,000 people visited the public exhibitions held in the summer. Although the views of the public were evenly balanced, we have also had due regard for the views of the local authorities and other interested parties, who have expressed concern about the economic effects on the local area of a new tolled crossing.

  Therefore, I shall be commissioning further studies into these effects as the next step forward on this important project. Officials of the south-west network management division of the Highways Agency will now contact the local authorities to discuss the precise aspects that the studies should cover.

  No decision has been taken about the means of financing any new crossing of the Tamar and the degree to which private finance could be involved.

  To choose any route corridor in such a beautiful and environmentally important area is difficult, but I am satisfied that if a new crossing of the River Tamar ultimately proceeds, the red route corridor as recommended by my consultants, and preferred by the majority of the people who have made comments on the various route options, is the least damaging in environmental terms. I have therefore decided that this route should be protected from development, but this does not mean that a decision to proceed with the project has definitely been taken: I need to see the outcome of the further studies first.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing for each Network SouthEast division in each four-week period during(a) 1992 and (b) 1993 the number of incidents, including cancellations, which resulted in a headway of (1) more than 20 minutes and (2) more than one hour; and if he will make a statement.
  465
  Mr. Roger Freeman
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish a table showing (1) the number of trains which arrived more than five minutes late during peak hours on each of the Network SouthEast divisions in each four-week period during(a) 1992 and (b) 1993, and the numbers attributable to (i) train breakdowns, (ii) signal failures, (iii) track and points failures, (iv) leaves on the line, (v) staff shortages, (vi) adverse weather conditions, excluding leaves on the line and (vii) other and (2) the percentage of peak hour trains which were on time or up to five minutes late on each of the Network SouthEast divisions in each four-week period during (I) 1992 and (II) 1993;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing (1) the number of trains cancelled on each of the Network SouthEast divisions in each four-week period during (a) 1992 and (b) 1993, and the numbers attributable to (i) train breakdowns, (ii) signal failures, (iii) track and points failures, (iv) leaves on the line, (v) staff shortages, (vi) adverse weather conditions, excluding leaves on the line and (vii) other and (2) the percentage of timetabled trains which did not run on each of the Network SouthEast divisions in each four-week period during (I) 1992 and (II) 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested has been placed in the Library and I have sent the hon. Member a copy.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Assistance, East Midlands
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average size and number of regional enterprise grants awarded to companies employing fewer than 25 people in(a) Ashfield, (b) Nottinghamshire and (c) the east midlands since the new assisted areas map was announced in 1993.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The average size and number of grants offered on applications received since 1 August 1993 to companies employing fewer than 25 people in Ashfield is £11,847 and 13; for Nottinghamshire £16,831 and 35; and the east midlands £16,418 and 60.

  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the number, average size and average effect in terms of predicted jobs created of grants awarded since the new assisted area map was announced in the east midlands to(a) companies relocating into the area and (b) companies already located in the area;

  (2) what is the number, average size and average effect in terms of predicted jobs created of grants awarded since the new assisted area map was announced in Nottinghamshire to (a) companies relocating into the area and (b) companies already located in the area.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The number, average size and average effect in terms of predicted jobs to be created or safeguarded of regional selective assistance grants offered on applications received since 1 August 1993 for(a) companies locating into the area and (b) companies already located in the area is, in the east midlands (a) nine, £233,888 and 77 and (b) 16, £90,103 and 31.5 and in Nottinghamshire (a) six, £316,666 and 91 and (b) five, £52,930 and 14.

  Regional Assistance/East Midlands
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many companies in the Ashfield constituency employing(a) fewer than 25 people, (b) fewer than 50 people, (c) fewer than 100 people, (d) fewer than 200 people, (e) 200 or more people have been awarded (i) regional selective assistance and (ii) regional enterprise grants since the new assisted areas map was announced in 1993;

  (2) how many companies in the east midlands employing (a) fewer than 25 people, (b) fewer than 50 people, (c) fewer than 100 people, (d) fewer than 200 people, (e) 200 or more people have been awarded (i) regional selective assistance and (ii) regional enterprise grants since the new assisted areas map was announced in 1993;

  (3) how many companies in Nottinghamshire employing (a) fewer than 25 people, (b) fewer than 50 people, (c) fewer than 100 people, (d) fewer than 200 people, (e) 200 or more people have been awarded (i) regional selective assistance and (ii) regional enterprise grants since the new assisted areas map was announced in 1993.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Regional selective assistance has been offered to one company in the Ashfield constituency, 11 companies in Nottinghamshire and 25 companies in the east midlands on applications received since 1 August 1993. Of the total for the east midlands, 11 were to companies employing fewer than 25 people. The remainder were spread over the other categories. For regional enterprise grants, the figures are 14, 38 and 68 respectively. All 68 employed fewer than 50 people.

  Regional Assistance, East Midlands
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many companies in the east midlands have received grants since the new assisted areas map was announced; and what was the average size of grant in: primary production standard industrial classification division 0 and 1; manufacture of metals, mineral products and chemicals, SIC division 3; manufacture of textiles, SIC class 43; manufacture of footwear and clothing, SIC class 45; other manufacturing, SIC division 4; construction, SIC division 5; distribution, hotels and catering, SIC division 6; transport and communications, SIC division 7; banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing, SIC division 8; and other services, SIC division 9;

  (2) how many companies in the Ashfield constituency have received grants since the new assisted areas map was announced; and what was the average size of grant in: primary production standard industrial classification division 0 and 1; manufacture of metals, mineral products and chemicals, SIC division 3; manufacture of textiles, SIC class 43; manufacture of footwear and clothing, SIC class 45; other manufacturing, SIC division 4; construction, SIC division 5; distribution, hotels and catering, SIC division 6; transport and communications, SIC division 7; banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing, SIC division 8; and other services, SIC division 9;

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On applications received since 1 August 1993, 93 offers of grant have been made to companies in the east midlands; 15 offers were made to companies in Ashfield. Sixty-eight of the grants offered —14 in the Ashfield constituency—were to companies in
  467
  SIC divisions 3 and 4, with an average size of grant offered of f59,667—£13,601 in Ashfield. The remaining offers of grant were spread over SIC divisions 1, 2, 3, 45, 6, 7, 8 and 9, with an average size of grant offered of £26,618.

  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average size and number of regional selective assistance grants awarded in(a) Ashfield, (b) Nottinghamshire and (c) the east midlands since the new assisted areas map was announced in 1993.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As only one company in the Ashfield constituency has been offered regional selective assistance, the average amount of grant offered, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, cannot be disclosed. The average grant offered and the number of offers made are: for Nottinghamshire, £196,786 and 11; and for the east midlands, £141,866 and 25.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has received from the Atomic Energy Authority for plans to reprocess(a) the core fuel pins and (b) the blanket from the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay.

  Mr. Eggar
  The DTI has received proposals from the AEA setting out plans for the reprocessing of all remaining prototype fast reactor—PFR—fuel, including PFR breeder fuel. On the basis of these proposals, reprocessing operations are now expected to continue for between one and three years beyond the 1996–1997 closure date which was foreseen when the Government decided in 1988 that the Dounreay prototype fast reactor would close in 1994.

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is his intention that the Cotswolds will continue to be included in the list of areas eligible for funding via the Konver programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Under the Commission's current proposals for Konver II each member state would have to prepare a map which concentrates funding in a limited number of areas which have lost or announced losses of at least 1,000 jobs in defence activities since 1 January 1990.

  The Government have made it clear to the Commission that they favour a more flexible approach which would allow each member state to decide which areas should benefit under the Community initiative.

  Film Lighting
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to examine competition in the supply of lighting equipment to the United Kingdom film industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg, to consider directly. Any concerns that my hon. Friend has should therefore be addressed to Sir Bryan.

  Cross-Media Promotion
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in preparation of a code of practice on cross-media promotion as recommended in Mr. John Sadler's report on this subject, published in 1991.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am pleased to announce that the newspaper and periodical industry has today published a code of practice on cross-media promotion in response to Mr. Sadler's recommendation, Cm 1436. The code, which draws on existing good industry practice, covers both the advertising and editorial content of newspapers and magazines as well as the promotion of premium-rate telephone services. It has been endorsed by the Newspaper Society, the Newspaper Publishers Association, the Periodical Publishers Association, the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society and the Scottish Newspaper Publishers Association. Copies of the code have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Plutonium
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on the storage of plutonium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for the owners of plutonium to make arrangements for its storage and use, subject to meeting the internationally agreed guidelines for physical protection arrangements and the requirements of the international safeguards regime. The United Kingdom's civil plutonium stock is held safely and securely, principally in purpose-built stores at Sellafield. It is expected that the material will ultimately be burnt in reactors to generate electricity.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Industry
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to impose on oil exploration licences any conditions recommended by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 17 May 1994]Where blocks are offered in sensitive areas, conditions will be attached to licences which will protect those sensitivities. As in previous rounds, these conditions will be discussed with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and other bodies as appropriate.

PRIME MINISTER

  EC White Paper
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a White Paper setting out the economic gains and losses for EEC membership since Britain joined.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's White Paper on competitiveness, to be published on 24 May, will set out the United Kingdom's approach to Europe, the benefits that that has brought, and how we can enhance the performance of the European economy as a whole.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 April,Official Report, column 264, if he has now received from the Indian Human Rights Commission its report of the incident at Bijbehara in Kashmir which took place in October 1993.

  The Prime Minister
  The Indian Human Rights Commission report into the incident at Bijbehara in October 1993 was published on 24 April. A copy was placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 12 May.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement as to whether his office has obtained or sought to obtain a copy of the receipt and letter from the Ritz hotel in Paris referred to in the correspondence between the Prime Minister and Mr. Peter Preston, editor of The Guardian newspaper.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]I have nothing further to add to the letter sent from my office to Mr. Preston on 29 March 1994.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Services
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of total expenditure on police services in Northern Ireland has been deemed attributable to rate-relevant expenditure for each year since 1985.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The cost of policing in Northern Ireland is funded by Government from moneys voted by Parliament. However, in order to ensure that ratepayers contribute towards the cost of services which elsewhere in the United Kingdom are provided by local authorities a regional rate is struck. In striking this rate, approximately 25 per cent. of total expenditure each year on police services is deemed attributable to rate relevant expenditure.

  Neurosurgical Services
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the waiting time for non-emergency neurosurgical admissions at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast; how many consultant neurosurgeons are employed; how many beds are available; and what are the number of operating sessions each week;

  (2) what hospitals in Northern Ireland provide neurosurgical facilities.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of patients and the lengths of time they have been waiting for admission to the Royal Victoria hospital's neurosurgery unit at 31 March 1994, the latest date for which information is available, are set out in the table.

  Waiting times (months)

  Ordinary admissions

  0–2

  85

  3–5

  43

  6–8

  35

  470

  Waiting times (months)

  Ordinary admissions

  9–11

  33

  12–14

  30

  15–17

  6

  18–20

  3

  Total

  235

  There are currently four consultant neurosurgeons employed in the Royal Victoria hospital, the only hospital in Northern Ireland which provides neurosurgical facilities.

  The average number of beds available during the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 was 42. In the same period the average number of operating sessions held per week was 11.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many further education colleges in Northern Ireland are to be amalgamated during 1994–95 following the publication of the Stewart inquiry; what study has been made of additional expenditure required to carry out the mergers; if that additional expenditure is expected to be met from colleges' own delegated budgets or from additional finance provided by the Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Five mergers involving 12 colleges will be implemented on 1 September 1994, reducing the total number of colleges from 24 to 17. There was no overall study on the costs to carry out the mergers; details of additional expenditure will become available following decisions made by local management. The Department of Education will continue to review the situation with the education and library boards concerned and every effort will be made to ensure that college budgets will not be adversely affected.

  Education Budget
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many third level students from Northern Ireland have enrolled in universities or colleges in(a) Eire, (b) Great Britain, (c) other European Community countries and (d) other non-European countries in each year since 1984–85; and what has been the cost or benefit, in each category, to the Northern Ireland education budget.

  Mr. Ancram
  Available information relates to full-time undergraduate students and is as follows:

  Eire

  Great Britain

  Other EC1 and non-EC

  1984–85

  578

  5,051

  —

  1985–86

  489

  5,632

  —

  1986–87

  462

  6,185

  —

  1987–88

  396

  6,968

  —

  1988–89

  367

  7,560

  4

  1989–90

  406

  8,415

  —

  1990–91

  424

  8,970

  —

  1991–92

  408

  9,524

  —

  1992–93

  803

  10,836

  11

  1993–94

  1,120

  11,962

  10

  471
  Notes:

  1 Separate data is not available.

  Figures for 1993–94 are provisional.

  Information on costs is not available for the years requested. However, the estimated cost to public funds during the years 1991–92 to 1993–94 for fees and maintenance awards for students from Northern Ireland attending institutions/colleges in the Republic of Ireland is as follows:

  Cost (£)

  1991–92

  1,530,000

  1992–93

  2,057,000

  1993–94

  3,313,000

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Eire

  178

  305

  441

  764

  1,066

  1,314

  1,516

  1,718

  2,018

  2,288

  Scotland

  66

  94

  110

  114

  101

  95

  96

  75

  72

  64

  England

  534

  637

  629

  623

  560

  537

  596

  591

  575

  526

  Wales

  22

  20

  27

  30

  26

  22

  18

  18

  17

  14

  Other EC

  9

  32

  68

  65

  84

  109

  185

  189

  235

  334

  Other non EC

  270

  245

  341

  405

  484

  448

  405

  382

  352

  372

  Information in the exact form and covering the period requested is not available. However, the estimated cost to the Northern Ireland educational budget for fees for students from the Republic of Ireland enrolled in Northern Ireland universities/colleges during the years 1991–92 to 1993–94 is as follows:

  Year

  Cost £

  1991–92

  3,800,000

  1992–93

  4,500,000

  1993–94

  4,600,000

  Accommodation Addresses
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many successful prosecutions there have been in respect of the acquisition of public sector housing for the purpose of providing an accommodation address for fraudulent social security claims and on the illegal sub-letting of such property in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  None, since neither of these activities constitutes a criminal offence.

  Stewart Report
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from teachers' organisations concerning recommendations contained within the Stewart report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Representations were invited when the report was published and three teachers' organisations responded; further representations were formally made on three subsequent occasions.

  The main areas of concern have related to the effect and cost of college mergers and the level of capital and recurrent funding for the further education sector in general.
  472
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many third level students from(a) Eire, (b) Scotland, (c) England, (d) Wales, (e) other European Community countries and (f) other non-European Community countries enrolled in Northern Ireland universities or colleges in each year since 1984–85; and what has been the yearly cost or income, in each category, to the Northern Ireland education budget.

  Mr. Ancram
  Available information relates to full-time undergraduate students and is as follows:

  Rate Poundages
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the percentage increase during each year since 1985 in(a) non-domestic regional rate poundage, (b) domestic regional rate poundange and (c) average district rate poundage; and what is the overall percentage increase in each during that period.

  Sir John Wheeler
  (1) The information is as follows:

  Year

  Non domestic regional rate Per cent.

  Domestic regional rate Per cent.

  Average district rate Per cent.

  1985–86

  +8.07

  +9.26

  +5.61

  1986–87

  +9.43

  +10.70

  +9.76

  1987–88

  +2.85

  +3.20

  +4.98

  1988–89

  +7.98

  +8.92

  +4.25

  1989–90

  +12.63

  +14.00

  +2.38

  1990–91

  +7.39

  +8.09

  +5.52

  1991–92

  +11.55

  -47.60

  +9.45

  1992–93

  -7.39

  -5.92

  +6.16

  1993–94

  -8.61

  -1.77

  +3.52

  1994–95

  +6.22

  +13.19

  +2.73

  (2) Overall percentage increases

  Per cent.

  (a) Non-domestic regional rate

  +59.3

  (b) Domestic regional rate

  -8.2

  (c) Average district rate

  +69.3

  Health and Social Services
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nursing and midwifery staff, excluding agency staff, were employed by each health and social services board in each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  It is for employing authorities to decide the number of nursing and midwifery staff to be employed and the appropriate skill mix to ensure the provision of a quality service to patients and clients.

  The information requested is detailed in the table:
  473

  Nursing and Midwifery Staffing Levels

  September 1991 WTE

  September 1992 WTE

  September 1993 WTE

  Board

  Trained Nurses

  Student Nurses

  Other Nurses

  Trained Nurses

  Student Nurses

  Other Nurses

  Trained Nurses

  Student Nurses

  Other Nurses

  EHSSB

  6,016

  1,411

  1,746

  5,859

  889

  1,783

  5,720

  308

  1,806

  NHSSB

  2,158

  150

  411

  2,152

  60

  412

  2,164

  6

  420

  SHSSB

  1,955

  138

  548

  2,001

  40

  563

  2,025

  2

  573

  WHSSB

  2,088

  352

  486

  2,088

  165

  517

  2,022

  36

  544

  TOTAL

  12,217

  2,051

  3,191

  12,100

  1,154

  3,275

  11,931

  352

  3,343

  Notes:

  1. WTE=Whole Time Equivalent.

  2. Figures for Student Nurses represent Traditional Nurse Students and exclude Project 2000 Nurse Students. (Project 2000 Nurse Students are not employees.)

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many managerial staff were employed by each health and social services board in each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Figures for the managerial staff group specifically are not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. The table shows the combined managerial, administrative and clerical staffing levels in whole time equivalents in the four board areas since 1991.

  Board

  September 1991

  September 1992

  September 1993

  Eastern

  3,555

  3,720

  3,621

  Northern

  1,325

  1,395

  1,490

  Southern

  967

  1,044

  1,061

  Western

  912

  1,006

  1,018

  Total

  6,759

  7,165

  7,190

  The intention of the HPSS reforms is to create more effective management of the services and a consequent improvement in patient client care.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will lay before Parliament copies of the annual report of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Commission's report for 1993, which is the sixth annual report to be produced by the Commission since its establishment in 1988, has been laid before Parliament today. It provides a detailed account of the Commission's oversight of police conduct, including the supervision of complaints against the police and the Commission's role in disciplinary proceedings once a complaint has been investigated.

  It is essential that the community has confidence in the integrity of the police, and the Commission has a vital role in ensuring that complaints are fairly and properly investigated and that appropriate action is taken. Throughout the report, by providing detailed explanations of its work in investigating actual complaints, the Commission demonstrates the high standards and dedication which it applies to its task.

  I am grateful to the Commission for all its work. I have no doubt that it will continue to contribute significantly to the enhancement of public confidence in the RUC. In this it has my full support.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Telephone Inquiry Service
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many requests have been received for copies of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information" on the dedicated telephone line set up for that purpose; what organisations are responsible for operating the telephone inquiry and document distribution service; what required standards have been set down for timeliness of response to telephone inquiries; what is the performance of the telephone inquiry service to date; how many complaints have been received about non-delivery or late delivery of the document following a telephone request; and what has been the total cost to date of operating the service.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In all, there have been some 440 calls to the inquiry service on 0345 223242 regarding the code of practice. In addition, my own office has received a further 120 calls. Copies of the code and a leaflet explaining its operation have been sent out in response.

  IBM operates the service. Its contract with OPSS states that the service shall operate between 8 am and 8 pm daily; that 90 per cent. of calls received in a day—80 per cent. of calls received in any one hour—shall be answered within 10 seconds; and that 98 per cent. of all calls shall be answered within 20 seconds. The operators have consistently met their targets.

  I am aware of only four complaints—less than 1 per cent. of requests—of late or non-delivery, and understand that these have now been dealt with to the satisfaction of those involved.

  Dealing with open government inquiries was an addition to the existing service, which deals with inquiries on the 1994 charter mark scheme and the guide to the citizens charter second report, and as such incurred no start-up costs. The cost of responding to open government calls amounted by 12 May to £814.88—just under £2 per call. This figure includes the cost of posting material to callers.

  Electronic Publishing
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his assessment of the environmental benefits that could result from the electronic publishing of(a) Government press releases and (b) other Government information instead of using paper.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No assessment of environmental benefits has been carried out.

  Government Information
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current income earned by the Exchequer from, or costs charged to, the Exchequer by electronic information providers who make available(a) Government Press releases and (b) other Government documents on a commercial basis as a result of contracts or arrangements for the publishing electronically of Government information by (i) the Central Office of Information and (ii) other Government bodies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In 1993–94 the Central Office of Information was able to offset the cost of distributing Government press releases by £35,186 earned from electronic information providers. The information providers made no charges to the Exchequer for this service.

  During 1993–94 the Central Office of Information also earned £14,641.49 from the electronic publication of other Government documents. The information providers made no charges to the Exchequer for this service.

  Income earned and costs incurred by other Government bodies are a matter for individual Departments.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the full Internet names of the newsgroups on which the Central Office of Information makes available Government press releases and other information; and whether each of those newsgroups is available to members of the public with Internet access without additional charge.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No central list is kept of the Internet names that might be accessible through the many distributors, some of them overseas, involved in handling the Hermes files of Government press notices.

  All distributors charge users for access.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department will instruct the Central Office of Information to make available more Government information on the Internet and bulletin board systems in order that citizens with computer and modem access can monitor Government decisions and announcements without further charges.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Central Office of Information already makes available a large amount of information on behalf of Government Departments through on-line database files Hermes and Hermes Daily. The COI is always open to representations about demand for additional information which might be made available in this way.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will examine the feasibility of setting up a Central Office of Information electronic bulletin board system covering(a) Government press releases and (b) other Government information for free public access.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Central Office of Information's Hermes database of Government press releases is already available to the public via a number of on-line services. Charges for access are determined by the database hosts. I have no plans to examine the feasibility of setting up a Central Office of Information bulletin board system for free public access.

WALES

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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 on to an agency chief executive; and, in each case, what percentage of the total number of questions asked this constituted.

  Mr. Redwood
  Based on a text search on the POLIS database, 114 parliamentary questions answered by Ministers in this Department in the period 1 November 1992 and 31 March 1993 were either given a response that the information requested was not held centrally, or that the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. This represents 6.2 per cent. of all written answers given in the same period. Five questions were referred to agency chief executives.

  Housing
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy concerning the purchase by housing associations in Wales as part of the housing acquisitions initiative, of properties which were in the private sector as a result of earlier sale under the right-to-buy provisions.

  Mr. Redwood
  Under the housing acquisition initiative in 1992–93 housing associations were asked to purchase properties from the private sector on a cost-effective basis so as to maximise the beneficial impact on the market.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how much public subsidy was involved in the purchase in 1993–94 by housing associations in Wales of properties which were in the private sector as a result of earlier sale under the right-to-buy provisions;

  (2) how many houses bought by housing associations in Wales in 1993–94 had previously been owned and let for rent by local authorities and housing associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of former local authority houses purchased by housing associations in 1993–94 is not available centrally.

  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the guidance mechanism for FEOGA grants has been triggered with Wales in the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  Reimbursement of expenditure by the Welsh Office is made, usually a year in arrears, from the guidance section of the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund on receipt of claims from the Welsh Office for the relevant calendar year.

  Schemes that attract reimbursement in this way, and the proportion of expenditure reimbursed by FEOGA, are as follows:
  Hill livestock compensatory allowances, up to 25 per cent. reimbursed.
  Capital grants (mainly the farm and conservation grant scheme), up to 25 per cent. reimbursed.

  477
  Receipts of £6.122 million are anticipated in 1994–95 in respect of expenditure incurred on these schemes in the calendar year 1993.
  The marketing and processing projects scheme and grants for the restructuring of the inshore fishing industry are 100 per cent. reimbursed in-year. Total expenditure on these schemes in 1993–94 is planned to be £0.981 million.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) schools, (b) primary schools and (c) secondary schools there are in each county and in Wales as a whole;

  Numbers of schools in Wales1

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Clwyd

  245

  32

  277

  Dyfed

  313

  31

  344

  Gwent

  213

  33

  246

  Gwynedd

  191

  23

  214

  Mid Glamorgan

  305

  42

  347

  Powys

  108

  13

  121

  South Glamorgan

  159

  26

  185

  West Glamorgan

  164

  27

  191

  Total

  1,698

  227

  1,925

  1 Number of schools as at January 1994.

  Schools that have held ballots on opting out2

  Number of schools

  Percentage of all schools

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Clwyd

  4

  6

  10

  1·6

  18·8

  3·6

  Dyfed

  1

  1

  2

  0·3

  3·2

  0·6

  Gwent

  1

  4

  5

  0·5

  12·1

  2·0

  Gwynedd

  1

  0

  1

  0·5

  0·0

  0·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  0

  1

  0·3

  0·0

  0·3

  Powys

  1

  1

  2

  0·9

  7·7

  1·7

  South Glamorgan

  1

  3

  4

  0·6

  11·5

  2·2

  West Glamorgan

  0

  3

  3

  0·0

  11·1

  1·6

  Total

  10

  18

  28

  0·6

  7·9

  1·5

  2 Number of ballots up to 30 April 1994.

  Number of schools voting to opt out LEA control

  Number of schools

  Percentage of all schools

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Clwyd

  2

  4

  6

  0·8

  12·5

  2·2

  Dyfed

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Gwent

  1

  4

  5

  0·5

  12·1

  2·0

  Gwynedd

  1

  0

  1

  0·5

  0·0

  0·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  0

  1

  0·3

  0·0

  0·3

  Powys

  1

  0

  1

  0·9

  0·0

  0·8

  South Glamorgan

  0

  3

  3

  0·0

  11·5

  1·6

  West Glamorgan

  0

  1

  1

  0·0

  3·7

  0·5

  Total

  6

  12

  18

  0·4

  5·3

  0·9

  General Development Orders
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review the process of granting licences or permission to carry out developments under long-standing general development orders or interim development orders to conform with environmental safeguards introduced during the last 20 years; what representations he has received on the efficacy of such orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The provisions of the general development order are kept under continual review. My
  478
  how many schools (i) have held ballots to decide whether or not to opt out of local education authority control and (ii) decided to opt out of local education authority control; and what was (i) and (ii) as a percentage of (a), (b) and (c) for each county and for Wales as a whole.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The data requested are given in the following tables.

  right hon. Friend proposes to ensure that "permitted development" rights are not in breach of the habitats and environmental impact assessment directives. The Welsh Office received eight representations following public consultation on these proposals. The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 required holders of mineral permissions granted under interim development orders to apply for registration of the permissions and subsequently to apply for determination of the conditions to which the permissions are to be subject. Minerals planning guidance note 9 gives advice on the preparation and determination of such conditions, and the Welsh Office received six representations following public consultation on the draft.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 771, how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by Ministers in his Department; and how much this cost.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]A total of 1,062 Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by Ministers in this Department, costing £1,154.93, including postage.

  I am very sorry for the long delay in answering. We were held up by delays in invoices and then the question did not receive the prompt attention that it should have.

TREASURY

  Tortoise Imports
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of tortoises and tortoise products seized at ports of entry in each of the past three years; and what were the countries of origin.

  Sir John Cope
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise made 57 such seizures over the period. The details for 1991, 1992 and 1993 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of live tortoises

  Number of derived items

  1991

  67

  44

  1992

  59

  3

  1993

  37

  1

  It is not always possible to determine the origin of goods, although the countries of consignment of the seized items—which in most cases are likely to have corresponded with the countries of origin—were Antigua, Argentine, Brazil, Canary Islands, Colombia, Egypt, Ghana, Iran, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, USA and Venezuela.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the total value of funds attracted to the former business expansion scheme in each year for construction-related investments; and if he will list by category how many buildings were constructed or are still under construction;

  (2) how many dwellings were built in each year or are still being built, as a result of the business expansion scheme, for the provision of housing in the privately rented market.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Available information is in the table. This relates to BES investments in companies in the construction industry and the numbers of new lettings from investments in private renting companies.

  Year

  Investment in construction companies (£ million)

  Number of new lettings1

  1983–84

  7

  —

  1984–85

  7

  —

  1985–86

  10

  —

  480

  Year

  Investment in construction companies (£ million)

  Number of new lettings1

  1986–87

  12

  —

  1987–88

  17

  —

  1988–89

  2

  6,400

  1989–90

  neg

  3,100

  1990–91

  1

  5,700

  1991–92

  neg

  9,300

  1992–932

  neg

  24,000

  1993–942

  neg

  28,000

  1 Estimates rounded to nearest 100.

  2 Provisional.

  EC Anti-Fraud Funding
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money is available from the European Commission for anti-fraud work; and how much money the British Government have claimed in cash and percentage terms for each of the past five years.

  Sir John Cope
  In addition to the administrative resources within the Commission, the budgetary authority allocated 139.14 million ecu, £105 million, in the 1994 budget to programmes to fight fraud. This compares with an outturn of 115.285 million ecu, £87 million, in 1993, 67.245 million ecu, £51 million, in 1992, 69.626 million, ecu, £53 million, in 1991 and 50.842 million ecu, £38 million, in 1990. The budget for anti-fraud programmes includes both funds spent directly by the Commission and funds available to member states to co-finance new controls and anti-fraud mechanisms.

  United Kingdom receipts from the EC budget for anti-fraud programmes are included with other departmental receipts. This information is not held centrally. However, the United Kingdom does take advantage of Community financing. For example, following the introduction of the integrated control and administration system, some £2.9 million was claimed in 1993 to meet part of the cost of introducing a computer database to record details of areas and livestock numbers subject to support. An application for a further £4.5 million has been made for 1994. The United Kingdom has also taken advantage of the provision for computer systems in the CAP export refund area, where Customs have claimed £110,768 and £74,250 in 1992 and 1993 respectively. Customs have also applied for £248,993 for the same purpose in 1994.

  Revaluations, North Kent
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in how many cases of appeal in north Kent against the 1990 revaluation list, such appeal has resulted in an increase in the assessment;

  (2) how many representations have been received since the adoption of a different basis of zoning by the Valuation Office after the new list came into force on 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]The information requested is not available centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many council tax banding appeals have been(a) submitted to date, (b) settled without a hearing and (c) settled at appeal.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]A total of 945,795 council tax proposals for alteration of council tax bandings in England and Wales had been received as at 31 March 1994; 107,818 have been settled without referral to the valuation tribunals and 660,384 have been referred to the valuation tribunals within six months of receipt as required by law.

  Of the 660,384 appeals referred to the tribunals, 189,944 have been settled without a hearing and 2,868 have been determined as a result of a hearing.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many current and former officials and Ministers in his Department have been asked to give written or oral evidence to the Scott inquiry; and what have been the total costs to his Department of the Scott inquiry broken down by major expenditure heading;

  (2) 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.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 12 and 13 May 1994]Five current or former Treasury Ministers—the Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe 482
  (Mr. Clarke), Lord Howe, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) and the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) have been asked to give written or oral evidence to Lord Justice Scott's Inquiry. Only one of these Ministers—the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—gave evidence in respect of his time as a Treasury Minister. One current Treasury official and 17 current and former officials of HM Customs and Excise have been asked to give written and/or oral evidence to the Scott inquiry. They have given this evidence on a personal basis and have not been supervised by the Department in its preparation. There is therefore no central record of the time spent or cost incurred in the provision of such evidence; serving officials prepared and gave their evidence as part of their official duties.

  The direct central cost of providing evidence and information from HM Treasury to the inquiry is estimated to be £90,800 between November 1992 and March 1994. This represents the cost of staff time spent in providing information to the inquiry and the costs of photocopying and general presentation of the information. Four officials plus clerical and secretarial staff have been involved on a full or part-time basis as required. A separate liaison unit has not been created.

  The total cost of Customs and Excise Scott liaison unit has been to date, £423,400 which consists of £420,000 on personnel; £2,700 on transcripts of the oral evidence, and £700 for photocopying. The Scott liaison unit in HM Customs and Excise consists of seven posts which are filled on a full or part-time basis. The unit was set up in the middle of November 1992 and its work will continue until the Department judges that it has been completed.

EDUCATION

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many graduates trained as secondary school teachers at each college in South Yorkshire in the past 10 years and the subjects studied; how many new graduate teachers were employed per local authority in that time; what occupations each graduate qualifying in secondary school teaching has entered in the last 10 years; and what has been the cost of training graduate secondary school teachers in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Table 1 shows the number of students entering postgraduate courses at Sheffield university and Sheffield Hallam university to train as secondary school teachers in each year from 1983 to 1993. Table 2 shows the main subjects being studied for those entering such courses in 1993. Further details of individual subjects being studied in these institutions are available from the final reports of each survey held in the House of Commons Library.

  Table 1

  Recruitment to Secondary PGCE courses

  Year

  Sheffield University

  Sheffield Hallam University

  1983

  153

  73

  1984

  138

  77

  1985

  126

  63

  1986

  118

  98

  1987

  140

  100

  1988

  137

  112

  1989

  153

  98

  1990

  138

  96

  1991

  182

  164

  1992

  180

  155

  1993

  186

  164

  Table 2

  Secondary PCGE students by subject 1993

  Sheffield University

  Sheffield Hallam University

  Business Studies

  —

  34

  Design and Technology

  —

  28

  English

  36

  25

  Geography

  28

  —

  History

  14

  —

  Modern Languages

  37

  15

  Mathematics

  20

  23

  Biology

  14

  —

  Chemistry

  7

  —

  General/Integrated Science

  26

  39

  Physics

  5

  —

  The total number of new entrants to teaching in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in England and Wales for each year from 1983 to 1992 is given in table 3. Separate information for graduate teachers is not readily available.

  Table 3

  New entrants to teaching in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector

  Year to March

  Numbers

  1983

  14,000

  1984

  13,400

  1985

  11,900

  484

  Year to March

  Numbers

  1986

  12,000

  1987

  12,600

  1988

  12,500

  1989

  14,200

  1990

  15,300

  1991

  15,300

  1992

  15,800

  Information on the occupations taken up by successful initial teacher training students is not centrally available, although an analysis carried out by the Department shows that about 90 per cent. of completers go on to enter some form of teaching within five years after qualifying. Information on the cost of training secondary school teachers is not available.

  Schools (Harrogate and Knaresborough)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the pupil:teacher ratio in Harrogate and Knaresborough schools in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on pupil:teacher ratios in schools in Harrogate and Knaresborough is not available centrally. The overall pupil:teacher ratio for maintained schools in North Yorkshire local education authority for the years 1978 to 1993 is shown in the table.

  Overall pupil: teacher ratio in maintained schools in North Yorkshire LEA Postion in January each year

  Year

  Overall Pupil: Teacher Ratio1

  1978

  19·5

  1979

  19·0

  1980

  18·7

  1981

  18·4

  1982

  18·4

  1983

  18·1

  1984

  18·0

  1985

  18·0

  1986

  18·0

  1987

  17·9

  1988

  17·6

  1989

  17·4

  1990

  17·3

  1991

  17·2

  1992

  17·1

  1993

  17·0

  1 The overall PTR is calculated using the full-time equivalent (FTE) of all teachers employed by the LEA for service in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools with the FTE numbers of pupils attending those schools.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the amount deducted for the provision of central support services by each local authority in England prior to the allocation of funds to grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Annual maintenance grant for grant-maintained schools is calculated in one of two ways. The Government have introduced a common funding formula to fund GM secondary schools in five local
  485
  education authority areas in 1994–95. This takes as its starting point the education standard spending assessment, not including the fifth sub-block which relates to services provided outside the school sector.

  From this SSA-derived total, an amount is first deducted for the LEA's continuing responsibilities. Secondly, an amount is deducted for spending on primary schools, according to the relationship between the authority's spending on primary and secondary education in 1993–94. The remaining total forms the basis of allocations between all secondary schools within the area. The two deductions are shown in the table as percentages of the four schools-related sub-blocks of the SSA.

  Continuing responsibilities

  Primary education

  Bromley

  13·79

  39·16

  Calderdale

  12·41

  45·10

  Essex

  17·41

  39·92

  Gloucestershire

  20·00

  40·06

  Hillingdon

  18·02

  42·08

  For GM schools not funded under the CFF, AMG consists of three separate sums. The first is what the GM school would have received under the local management of schools scheme of its former maintaining LEA. The second consists of an amount for school meals. The third is an amount for services which LEA schools receive free of charge but for which GM schools assume direct responsibility, and is a simple percentage of the first sum. The percentages applying, separately for primary and secondary schools, in 1994–95 in those LEA areas in which there are GM schools are as follows:

  Local education authority

  Primary

  Secondary

  Avon County Council

  14·0

  9·7

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  11·0

  8·4

  London Borough of Barnet

  13·6

  9·8

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  15·2

  9·8

  Bedfordshire County Council

  15·3

  11·6

  Berkshire County Council

  10·6

  7·2

  London Borough of Bexley

  11·9

  8·0

  Birmingham City Council

  14·5

  10·2

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  14·4

  9·8

  Bradford City Council

  11·8

  9·4

  London Borough of Brent

  9·4

  6·7

  London Borough of Bromley

  13·6

  9·5

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  16·1

  11·3

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

  12·5

  9·1

  Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  12·0

  8·4

  London Borough of Camden

  13·6

  10·1

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  11·4

  7·9

  Cheshire County Council

  12·3

  8·4

  Common Council of the City of London

  17·2

  n/a

  Cleveland County Council

  18·0

  11·7

  Cornwall County Council

  10·6

  7·4

  Coventry City Council

  15·5

  10·3

  London Borough of Croydon

  10·4

  8·3

  Cumbria County Council

  10·4

  7·5

  Derbyshire County Council

  14·1

  8·9

  Devon County Council

  10·9

  7·5

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  15·9

  10·5

  Dorset County Council

  13·7

  9·6

  Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

  9·1

  6·6

  Durham County Council

  13·5

  9·4

  London Borough of Ealing

  9·2

  6·9

  East Sussex County Council

  15·4

  10·2

  London Borough of Enfield

  11·9

  8·4

  Essex County Council

  13·3

  8·7

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  16·8

  11·9

  Gloucestershire County Council

  13·7

  10·8

  London Borough of Greenwich

  18·1

  13·9

  486

  Local education authority

  Primary

  Secondary

  London Borough of Hackney

  19·8

  13·5

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  22·1

  16·5

  Hampshire County Council

  14·0

  9·8

  London Borough of Haringey

  16·5

  12·0

  London Boroughof Harrow

  13·5

  9·8

  London Borough of Havering

  12·5

  8·0

  Hereford and Worcester County Council

  11·5

  8·8

  Hertfordshire County Council

  7·8

  5·3

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  13·4

  9·9

  London Borough of Hounslow

  11·6

  8·7

  Humberside County Council

  15·1

  10·7

  The Council of the Isles of Scilly

  15·0

  7·5

  Isle of Wight County Council

  17·2

  13·0

  London Borough of Islington

  5·9

  4·7

  The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  18·8

  13·1

  Kent County Council

  15·6

  10·4

  The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

  12·7

  8·7

  Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

  14·9

  10·2

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  13·7

  9·6

  London Borough of Lambeth

  16·4

  11·1

  Lancashire County Council

  12·9

  8·6

  Leeds City Council

  10·8

  8·2

  Leicestershire County Council

  12·7

  8·9

  London Borough of Lewisham

  15·3

  11·2

  Lincolnshire County Council

  11·6

  7·6

  Liverpool City Council

  17·1

  10·3

  Manchester City Council

  11·3

  7·1

  London Borough of Merton

  12·5

  9·0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council

  14·1

  9·5

  London Borough of Newham

  11·2

  7·3

  Norfolk County Council

  13·6

  9·2

  North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  12·4

  8·9

  Northamptonshire County Council

  11·0

  7·7

  Northumberland County Council

  10·2

  7·8

  North Yorkshire County Council

  15·8

  10·6

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  16·2

  12·0

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  17·4

  11·3

  Oxfordshire County Council

  10·8

  8·1

  London Borough of Redbridge

  17·2

  10·7

  London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

  15·1

  11·9

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  11·7

  7·6

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  15·9

  11·3

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  12·6

  8·5

  Salford City Council

  10·9

  7·3

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  17·2

  11·7

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  13·7

  8·8

  Sheffield City Council

  11·3

  8·1

  Shropshire County Council

  12·1

  7·8

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  7·0

  5·1

  Somerset County Council

  13·5

  9·3

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  15·0

  11·1

  London Borough of Southwark

  13·5

  10·0

  Staffordshire County Council

  13·3

  9·7

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  12·2

  8·4

  Suffolk County Council

  11·9

  8·7

  Sunderland Metropolitan Borough Council

  13·3

  9·6

  Surrey County Council

  14·6

  10·8

  London Borough of Sutton

  13·5

  9·4

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

  13·8

  9·7

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  12·4

  9·2

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  15·3

  8·7

  Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

  16·1

  9·9

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  13·5

  9·6

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  15·6

  10·6

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  17·0

  10·0

  Warwickshire County Council

  13·7

  9·4

  Westminster City Council

  9·6

  7·5

  West Sussex County Council

  14·0

  9·9

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  17·6

  11·7

  Wiltshire County Council

  13·8

  8·8

  487

  Local education authority

  Primary

  Secondary

  Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

  11·6

  8·0

  Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council

  12·0

  7·7

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) schools, (b) primary schools and (c)

  Schools are parental ballots on the question of seeking grant-maintained status

  LEA Area

  Schools

  Total Ballots

  All Schools Percentage

  "Yes" Votes

  Percentage

  Avon

  429

  11

  2·6

  2

  0·5

  Barking

  63

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Barnet

  110

  17

  15·5

  12

  10·9

  Barnsley

  111

  3

  2·7

  1

  0·9

  Bedfordshire

  289

  22

  7·6

  14

  4·8

  Berkshire

  334

  27

  8·1

  20

  6·0

  Bexley

  82

  10

  12·2

  8

  9·8

  Birmingham

  413

  35

  8·5

  23

  5·6

  Bolton

  121

  4

  3·3

  4

  3·3

  Bradford

  253

  18

  7·1

  13

  5·1

  Brent

  77

  19

  24·7

  17

  22·1

  Bromley

  95

  21

  22·1

  19

  20·0

  Buckinghamshire

  335

  22

  6·6

  18

  5·4

  Bury

  85

  2

  2·4

  1

  1·2

  Calderdale

  107

  17

  15·9

  13

  12·1

  Cambridgeshire

  310

  34

  11·0

  24

  7·7

  Camden

  52

  3

  5·8

  2

  3·8

  Cheshire

  522

  20

  3·8

  10

  1·9

  Cleveland

  247

  4

  1·6

  0

  0·0

  Cornwall

  281

  1

  0·4

  1

  0·4

  Corporation of London

  1

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Coventry

  128

  1

  0·8

  0

  0·0

  Croydon

  118

  16

  13·6

  12

  10·2

  Cumbria

  348

  44

  12·6

  37

  10·6

  Derbyshire

  511

  42

  8·2

  25

  4·9

  Devon

  506

  20

  4·0

  8

  1·6

  Doncaster

  161

  6

  3·7

  4

  2·5

  Dorset

  256

  18

  7·0

  15

  5·9

  Dudley

  105

  10

  9·5

  8

  7·6

  Durham

  341

  1

  0·3

  0

  0·0

  Ealing

  99

  12

  12·1

  10

  10·1

  East Sussex

  253

  3

  1·2

  0

  0·0

  Enfield

  87

  10

  11·5

  6

  6·9

  Essex

  686

  157

  22·9

  145

  21·1

  Gateshead

  95

  1

  1·1

  0

  0·0

  Gloucestershire

  305

  57

  18·7

  48

  15·7

  Greenwich

  94

  2

  2·1

  1

  1·1

  Hackney

  73

  2

  2·7

  1

  1·4

  Hammersmith

  48

  2

  4·2

  2

  4·2

  Hampshire

  674

  45

  6·7

  37

  5·5

  Haringey

  86

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Harrow

  64

  2

  3·1

  1

  1·6

  Havering

  93

  9

  9·7

  4

  4·3

  Hereford and Worcester

  364

  10

  2·7

  5

  1·4

  Hertfordshire

  520

  47

  9·0

  39

  7·5

  Hillingdon

  87

  26

  29·9

  25

  28·7

  Hounslow

  76

  3

  3·9

  2

  2·6

  Humberside

  414

  9

  2·2

  3

  0·7

  Isle of Wight

  67

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Isles of Scilly

  5

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Islington

  66

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  31

  3

  9·7

  3

  9·7

  Kent

  706

  102

  14·4

  96

  13·6

  Kingston upon Thames

  46

  5

  10·9

  5

  10·9

  Kirklees

  192

  8

  4·2

  3

  1·6

  Knowsley

  79

  3

  3·8

  1

  1·3

  Lambeth

  87

  13

  14·9

  13

  14·9

  Lancashire

  711

  24

  3·4

  13

  1·8

  Leeds

  295

  6

  2·0

  2

  0·7

  Leicestershire

  414

  12

  2·9

  5

  1·2

  Lewisham

  85

  3

  3·5

  1

  1·2

  Lincolnshire

  356

  63

  17·7

  58

  16·3

  Liverpool

  234

  8

  3·4

  4

  1·7

  Manchester

  202

  1

  0·5

  0

  0·0

  Merton

  60

  4

  6·7

  1

  1·7

  488
  secondary schools there are in England and in each county; how many schools have (i) held ballots to decide whether or not to opt out of local education authority control and (ii) decided to opt out of local education authority control; and what are (i) and (ii) as a percentage of (a), (b) and (c) for each county and for England.

  Robin Squire
  The information requested is given in the table for each local authority in England.
  489

  LEA Area

  Schools

  Total Ballots

  All Schools Percentage

  "Yes" Votes

  Percentage

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  102

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  Newham

  81

  1

  1·2

  1

  1·2

  Norfolk

  448

  37

  8·3

  29

  6·5

  North Tyneside

  87

  5

  5·7

  3

  3·4

  North Yorkshire

  451

  5

  1·1

  1

  0·2

  Northamptonshire

  335

  37

  11·0

  26

  7·8

  Northumberland

  204

  3

  1·5

  1

  0·5

  Nottinghamshire

  508

  11

  2·2

  4

  0·8

  Oldham

  119

  1

  0·8

  0

  0·0

  Oxfordshire

  284

  3

  1·1

  1

  0·4

  Redbridge

  71

  2

  2·8

  1

  1·4

  Richmond upon Thames

  47

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Rochdale

  90

  13

  14·4

  8

  8·9

  Rotherham

  133

  1

  0·8

  0

  0·0

  Salford

  106

  4

  3·8

  1

  0·9

  Sandwell

  132

  5

  3·8

  2

  1·5

  Sefton

  116

  1

  0·9

  0

  0·0

  Sheffield

  196

  25

  12·8

  21

  10·7

  Shropshire

  250

  12

  4·8

  12

  4·8

  Solihull

  83

  3

  3·6

  2

  2·4

  Somerset

  266

  8

  3·0

  5

  1·9

  South Tyneside

  69

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Southwark

  90

  10

  11·1

  10

  11·1

  St. Helens

  79

  2

  2·5

  1

  1·3

  Staffordshire

  497

  16

  3·2

  9

  1·8

  Stockport

  124

  2

  1·6

  0

  0·0

  Suffolk

  332

  1

  0·3

  0

  0·0

  Sunderland

  122

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Surrey

  423

  39

  9·2

  36

  8·5

  Sutton

  57

  13

  22·8

  11

  19·3

  Tameside

  100

  6

  6·0

  3

  3·0

  Tower Hamlets

  89

  2

  2·2

  1

  1·1

  Trafford

  94

  6

  6·4

  4

  4·3

  Wakefield

  169

  2

  1·2

  2

  1·2

  Walsall

  125

  14

  11·2

  9

  7·2

  Waltham Forest

  77

  3

  3·9

  2

  2·6

  Wandsworth

  82

  13

  15·9

  10

  12·2

  Warwickshire

  281

  16

  5·7

  12

  4·3

  West Sussex

  287

  4

  1·4

  1

  0·3

  Westminster

  50

  1

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  Wigan

  146

  1

  0·7

  1

  0·7

  Wiltshire

  338

  45

  13·3

  34

  10·1

  Wirral

  127

  4

  3·1

  2

  1·6

  Wolverhampton

  121

  7

  5·8

  5

  4·1

  England

  22,533

  1,486

  6·6

  1,116

  5·0

  Primary schools

  LEA area

  Schools

  Total ballots

  Percentage

  "Yes" votes

  Percentage

  Avon

  369

  6

  1·6

  0

  0·0

  Barking

  55

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Barnet

  89

  6

  6·7

  2

  2·2

  Barnsley

  96

  1

  1·0

  1

  1·0

  Bedforshire

  218

  3

  1·4

  3

  1·4

  Berkshire

  275

  10

  3·6

  7

  2·5

  Bexley

  65

  4

  6·2

  3

  4·6

  Birmingham

  334

  11

  3·3

  6

  1·8

  Bolton

  105

  1

  1·0

  1

  1·0

  Bradford

  165

  9

  5·5

  7

  4·2

  Brent

  64

  5

  7·8

  5

  7·8

  Bromley

  78

  7

  9·0

  6

  7·7

  Buckinghamshire

  290

  11

  3·8

  8

  2·8

  Bury

  71

  2

  2·8

  1

  1·4

  Calderdale

  91

  6

  6·6

  5

  5·5

  Cambridgeshire

  267

  9

  3·4

  7

  2·6

  Camden

  41

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Cheshire

  454

  9

  2·0

  6

  1·3

  Cleveland

  203

  1

  0·5

  0

  0·0

  Cornwall

  250

  1

  0·4

  1

  0·4

  Corporation of London

  1

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Coventry

  109

  1

  0·9

  0

  0·0

  Croydon

  98

  5

  5·1

  3

  3·1

  Cumbria

  306

  29

  9·5

  22

  7·2

  Derbyshire

  450

  16

  3·6

  9

  2·0

  490 491

  LEA area

  Schools

  Total ballots

  Percentage

  "Yes" votes

  Percentage

  Devon

  442

  10

  2·3

  2

  0·5

  Doncaster

  127

  5

  3·9

  4

  3·1

  Dorset

  200

  2

  1·0

  1

  0·5

  Dudley

  83

  1

  1·2

  1

  1·2

  Durham

  298

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Ealing

  87

  4

  4·6

  4

  4·6

  East Sussex

  219

  1

  0·5

  0

  0·0

  Enfield

  70

  4

  5·7

  1

  1·4

  Essex

  581

  79

  13·6

  73

  12·6

  Gateshead

  82

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Gloucestershire

  262

  21

  8·0

  18

  6·9

  Greenwich

  79

  1

  1·3

  1

  1·3

  Hackney

  63

  1

  1·6

  1

  1·6

  Hammersmith

  38

  1

  2·6

  1

  2·6

  Hampshire

  580

  21

  3·6

  18

  3·1

  Haringey

  77

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Harrow

  54

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Havering

  74

  2

  2·7

  0

  0·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  288

  2

  0·7

  0

  0·0

  Hertfordshire

  432

  15

  3·5

  12

  2·8

  Hillingdon

  72

  11

  15·3

  11

  15·3

  Hounslow

  62

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Humberside

  354

  5

  1·4

  3

  0·8

  Isle of Wight

  46

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Isles of Scilly

  4

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Islington

  57

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  27

  2

  7·4

  2

  7·4

  Kent

  570

  27

  4·7

  25

  4·4

  Kingston upon Thames

  36

  1

  2·8

  1

  2·8

  Kirklees

  158

  3

  1·9

  0

  0·0

  Knowsley

  68

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Lambeth

  77

  8

  10·4

  8

  10·4

  Lancashire

  605

  7

  1·2

  4

  0·7

  Leeds

  249

  3

  1·2

  1

  0·4

  Leicestershire

  335

  2

  0·6

  0

  0·0

  Lewisham

  72

  1

  1·4

  1

  1·4

  Lincolnshire

  293

  32

  10·9

  28

  9·6

  Liverpool

  198

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Manchester

  174

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Merton

  49

  1

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  80

  1

  1·3

  0

  0·0

  Newham

  67

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Norfolk

  396

  21

  5·3

  17

  4·3

  North Tyneside

  61

  2

  3·3

  1

  1·6

  North Yorkshire

  392

  3

  0·8

  1

  0·3

  Northamptonshire

  271

  16

  5·9

  12

  4·4

  Northumberland

  143

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Nottinghamshire

  426

  1

  0·2

  0

  0·0

  Oldham

  104

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Oxfordshire

  240

  1

  0·4

  1

  0·4

  Redbridge

  56

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Richmond upon Thames

  39

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Rochdale

  76

  9

  11·8

  6

  7·9

  Rotherham

  115

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Salford

  88

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Sandwell

  112

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Sefton

  94

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Sheffield

  165

  17

  10·3

  15

  9·1

  Shropshire

  213

  5

  2·3

  5

  2·3

  Solihull

  70

  1

  1·4

  1

  1·4

  Somerset

  227

  5

  2·2

  3

  1·3

  South Tyneside

  58

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Southwark

  76

  5

  6·6

  5

  6·6

  St. Helens

  67

  1

  1·5

  1

  1·5

  Staffordshire

  412

  5

  1·2

  4

  1·0

  Stockport

  110

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Suffolk

  255

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Sunderland

  105

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Surrey

  372

  23

  6·2

  21

  5·6

  Sutton

  43

  5

  11·6

  3

  7·0

  Tameside

  82

  1

  1·2

  0

  0·0

  Tower Hamlets

  74

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Trafford

  78

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Wakefield

  131

  2

  1·5

  2

  1·5

  Walsall

  104

  3

  2·9

  2

  1·9

  Waltham Forest

  61

  1

  1·6

  0

  0·0

  Wandsworth

  72

  5

  6·9

  3

  4·2

  Warwickshire

  244

  7

  2·9

  4

  1·6

  492 493

  LEA area

  Schools

  Total ballots

  Percentage

  "Yes" votes

  Percentage

  West Sussex

  246

  1

  0·4

  1

  0·4

  Westminster

  42

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Wigan

  125

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Wiltshire

  294

  21

  7·1

  18

  6·1

  Wirral

  106

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Wolverhampton

  101

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  England

  18,879

  589

  3·1

  450

  2·4

  Secondary Schools

  LEA Area

  Schools

  Total Ballots

  Secondary Schools Per cent.

  "Yes" Votes

  Per cent.

  Avon

  60

  5

  8·3

  2

  3·3

  Barking

  8

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Barnet

  21

  11

  52·4

  10

  47·6

  Barnsley

  15

  2

  13·3

  0

  0·0

  Bedfordshire

  71

  19

  26·8

  11

  15·5

  Berkshire

  59

  17

  28·8

  13

  22·0

  Bexley

  17

  6

  35·3

  5

  29·4

  Birmingham

  79

  24

  30·4

  17

  21·5

  Bolton

  16

  3

  18·8

  3

  18·8

  Bradford

  88

  9

  10·2

  6

  6·8

  Brent

  13

  14

  107·7

  12

  92·3

  Bromley

  17

  14

  82·4

  13

  76·5

  Buckinghamshire

  45

  11

  24·4

  10

  22·2

  Bury

  14

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Calderdale

  16

  11

  68·8

  8

  50·0

  Cambridgeshire

  43

  25

  58·1

  17

  39·5

  Camden

  11

  3

  27·3

  2

  18·2

  Cheshire

  68

  11

  16·2

  4

  5·9

  Cleveland

  44

  3

  6·8

  0

  0·0

  Cornwall

  31

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Coventry

  19

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Croydon

  20

  11

  55·0

  9

  45·0

  Cumbria

  42

  15

  35·7

  15

  35·7

  Derbyshire

  61

  26

  42·6

  16

  26·2

  Devon

  64

  10

  15·6

  6

  9·4

  Doncaster

  34

  1

  2·9

  0

  0·0

  Dorset

  56

  16

  28·6

  14

  25·0

  Dudley

  22

  9

  40·9

  7

  31·8

  Durham

  43

  1

  2·3

  0

  0·0

  Ealing

  12

  8

  66·7

  6

  50·0

  East Sussex

  34

  2

  5·9

  0

  0·0

  Enfield

  17

  6

  35·3

  5

  29·4

  Essex

  105

  78

  74·3

  72

  68·6

  Gateshead

  13

  1

  7·7

  0

  0·0

  Gloucestershire

  43

  36

  83·7

  30

  69·8

  Greenwich

  15

  1

  6·7

  0

  0·0

  Hackney

  10

  1

  10·0

  0

  0·0

  Hammersmith

  10

  1

  10·0

  1

  10·0

  Hampshire

  94

  24

  25·5

  19

  20·2

  Haringey

  9

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Harrow

  10

  2

  20·0

  1

  10·0

  Havering

  19

  7

  36·8

  4

  21·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  76

  8

  10·5

  5

  6·6

  Hertfordshire

  88

  32

  36·4

  27

  30·7

  Hillingdon

  15

  15

  100·0

  14

  93·3

  Hounslow

  14

  3

  21·4

  2

  14·3

  Humberside

  60

  4

  6·7

  0

  0·0

  Isle of Wight

  21

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Islington

  9

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4

  1

  25·0

  1

  25·0

  Kent

  136

  75

  55·1

  71

  52·2

  Kingston upon Thames

  10

  4

  40·0

  4

  40·0

  Kirklees

  34

  5

  14·7

  3

  8·8

  Knowsley

  11

  3

  27·3

  1

  9·1

  Lambeth

  10

  5

  50·0

  5

  50·0

  Lancashire

  106

  17

  16·0

  9

  8·5

  Leeds

  46

  3

  6·5

  1

  2·2

  Leicestershire

  79

  10

  12·7

  5

  6·3

  Lewisham

  13

  2

  15·4

  0

  0·0

  Lincolnshire

  63

  31

  49·2

  30

  47·6

  Liverpool

  36

  8

  22·2

  4

  11·1

  Manchester

  28

  1

  3·6

  0

  0·0

  494 495

  Secondary Schools

  LEA Area

  Schools

  Total Ballots

  Secondary Schools Per cent.

  "Yes" Votes

  Per cent.

  Merton

  11

  3

  27·3

  1

  9·1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  22

  1

  4·5

  0

  0·0

  Newham

  14

  1

  7·1

  1

  7·1

  Norfolk

  52

  16

  30·8

  12

  23·1

  North Tyneside

  26

  3

  11·5

  2

  7·7

  North Yorkshire

  59

  2

  3·4

  0

  0·0

  Northamptonshire

  64

  21

  32·8

  14

  21·9

  Northumberland

  61

  3

  4·9

  1

  1·6

  Nottinghamshire

  82

  10

  12·2

  4

  4·9

  Oldham

  15

  1

  6·7

  0

  0·0

  Oxfordshire

  4

  2

  4·5

  0

  0·0

  Redbridge

  15

  2

  13·3

  1

  6·7

  Richmond upon Thames

  8

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Rochdale

  14

  4

  28·6

  2

  14·3

  Rotherham

  18

  1

  5·6

  0

  0·0

  Salford

  18

  4

  22·2

  1

  5·6

  Sandwell

  20

  5

  25·0

  2

  10·0

  Sefton

  22

  1

  4·5

  0

  0·0

  Sheffield

  31

  8

  25·8

  6

  19·4

  Shropshire

  37

  7

  18·9

  7

  18·9

  Solihull

  13

  2

  15·4

  1

  7·7

  Somerset

  39

  3

  7·7

  2

  5·1

  South Tyneside

  11

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Southwark

  14

  5

  35·7

  5

  35·7

  St. Helens

  12

  1

  8·3

  0

  0·0

  Staffordshire

  85

  11

  12·9

  5

  5·9

  Stockport

  14

  2

  14·3

  0

  0·0

  Suffolk

  77

  1

  1·3

  0

  0·0

  Sunderland

  17

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Surrey

  51

  16

  31·4

  15

  29·4

  Sutton

  14

  8

  57·1

  8

  57·1

  Tameside

  18

  5

  27·8

  3

  16·7

  Tower Hamlets

  15

  2

  13·3

  1

  6·7

  Trafford

  16

  6

  37·5

  4

  25·0

  Wakefield

  38

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Walsall

  21

  11

  52·4

  7

  33·3

  Waltham Forest

  16

  2

  12·5

  2

  12·5

  Wandsworth

  10

  8

  80·0

  7

  70·0

  Warwickshire

  37

  9

  24·3

  8

  21·6

  West Sussex

  41

  3

  7·3

  0

  0·0

  Westminster

  8

  1

  12·5

  0

  0·0

  Wigan

  21

  1

  4·8

  1

  4·8

  Wiltshire

  44

  24

  54·5

  16

  36·4

  Wirral

  21

  4

  19·0

  2

  9·5

  Wolverhampton

  20

  6

  30·0

  5

  25·0

  ENGLAND

  3,654

  897

  24·5

  666

  18·2

  Notes:

  1. Numbers of schools shown are of maintained primary and secondary schools, eligible for GM status, currently recorded in the DFE Index of Educational Establishment.

  2. The numbers of ballots are as 10th May 1994. They may change daily.

  3. A small number of schools have held more than one ballot.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children at each grant-maintained school in 1993 had a statement of special educational needs.

  Mr. Forth
  A table giving the number of pupils with statements of special educational needs in each of the 337 grant-maintained schools operating in January 1993 has been placed in the Library.

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if the meetings of the Funding Agency for Schools and its committees and sub-committees will be open to members of the public; if the reports discussed by 496
  the agency and its committees and sub-committees will be available to members of the public; and if he will be represented at meetings of the board.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend wrote to the chairman of the Funding Agency for Schools, Sir Christopher Benson, on 11 April setting out a framework of accountability for the agency. In that letter he made it clear that it would be for the agency itself to develop a strategy for making itself publicly accountable. My right hon. Friend has chosen not to exercise his right to be represented at board meetings at the present time.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which grant-maintained schools, under section 93 of the Education Act 1993, have been transferred from one former maintaining local education authority to another for the purpose of the calculation and recovery of annual maintenance grant by the Funding Agency for
  497
  Schools; what were the local education authorities in each case; and what was the effect on the annual maintenance grant of each school concerned.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Only one operating grant-maintained school has been affected by section 93 of the Education Act 1993. All Hallows RC school, formerly maintained by Hampshire local education authority, is located within the boundaries of Surrey. The Funding Agency for Schools is currently considering the basis for the determination of the school's grant for 1994–95.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he has taken on aid to Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We will be providing £15 million of balance-of-payments assistance this financial year to support Zimbabwe's economic structural adjustment programme. In addition, we are launching a £9 million project to help strengthen Zimbabwe's health services and access to them for the poor.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution is being made or is planned by the Overseas Development Administration and the European Union to family planning work in Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our bilateral contribution is approximately £0.217 million over four years via Marie Stopes International. We are also contributing £7 million in 1994–95 to the United Nations Population Fund worldwide. Its programme includes a $3.5 million programme for Sierra Leone. Our share of EC spending on family planning in Sierra Leone is approximately £80,000 over three years.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current British and European Union distribution to humanitarian work in Liberia; and what is being done to rehabilitate child soldiers.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 1 January 1993, we have provided more than £1.6 million in bilateral humanitarian assistance. In the same period, European Community humanitarian assistance has totalled almost £7 million.

  The United Nations Children's Fund has done much towards rehabilitation of child soldiers: 133 counsellors have been trained in delivering war trauma counselling services to children; in addition, local community-based rehabilitation activities, integrated with the supply of water and sanitation and health care facilities have been established to assist demobilised child soldiers.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Attendants
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 5 May,Official Report, column 601, if he will make a statement explaining why the number of attendants has been reduced.

  Mr. Beith
  [holding answer 17 May 1994]Following a staff inspection of the attendant grades throughout the House in 1992 and a detailed review of attendants' posts in the Serjeant at Arms' Department in the first part of 1993, the House of Commons Commission agreed that the Department's staffing level of attendants should be reduced by three. This reduction was subsequently achieved by natural wastage. The current staffing levels are being kept under review by the Department and the staff inspector will be reviewing them formally at the end of this year.

DEFENCE

  Defence Accounts Agency
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation he has undertaken over the proposal for market testing of the Defence Accounts Agency in Liverpool.

  Mr. Aitken
  Normal and wide-ranging consultation has taken place and regular meetings have been held with both local trade unions and staff. In addition, national trades unions, trade associations and the agency's "customers", among others, have been consulted.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation he has undertaken concerning questions of national security in the proposal for market testing of the Defence Accounts Agency in Liverpool.

  Mr. Aitken
  All security considerations will be taken fully into account when reaching a decision on the proposal to market-test the Defence Accounts Agency, Liverpool.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision over market testing of the Defence Accounts Agency in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am currently evaluating the findings of the feasibility study into the possible market test of the Defence Accounts Agency, Liverpool. I am conscious of the need to end uncertainty and I will announce a decision as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  Directorate of Contracts
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs were incurred in moving the Directorate of Contracts from Liverpool and Harrogate to Huntingdon.

  Mr. Aitken
  Collocation of the related staff of the Directorate of Contracts at RAF Brampton and RAF Wyton will improve the efficiency with which the RAF's support management business is handled and follows a detailed investment appraisal. The Harrogate contracts
  499
  posts are due to transfer in 1995 and the majority of the Liverpool posts in the RAF's Support Management Group in 1996. The costs incurred in these moves can be assessed only when the number of staff moving is known.

  EU Security Links
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reductions in defence preparedness and defence expenditure will be made following the decision of the EU to establish closer security links with nine additional nations in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Hanley
  No such reductions are planned.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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 on to an agency chief executive; and, in each case, what percentage of the total number of questions asked this constituted.

  Mr. Hanley
  Based on figures available from the House of Commons POLIS system, of 1,304 written parliamentary questions answered by my Department between 1 November 1992 and 31 March 1993, full answers could not be given to 34 because of disproportionate cost or because information was not held centrally; and 29 were referred to an agency chief executive for answer.

  Low Flying
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date Royal Air Force Tornadoes first carried out instrument low flying, using automatic terrain following radar, from Goose Bay, Labrador.

  Mr. Hanley
  In October 1983.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities were provided to UK-based United States air force F111 units to maintain an instrument low flying capability prior to the establishment of the highlands restricted area.

  Mr. Hanley
  Prior to the introduction of the highlands restricted area in 1981 there were no facilities for flying in instrument meteorological conditions within the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects US air force F15E aircraft to commence using the highlands restricted area for instrument low flying training.

  Mr. Hanley
  United Kingdom-based USAF FI5E aircraft began using the highlands restricted area for instrument low flying training in January 1994.

  Canadian Forces Base, Goose Bay
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deployments of forward air control personnel have been made to Canadian forces base Goose Bay in each year since 1990; and what was the purpose of each deployment.
  500
  Mr. Hanley
  There have been no deployments of RAF forward air controllers to Goose Bay.

  Coulport Armaments Depot
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nuclear accident exercise which took place at the Royal Naval Armaments Depot Coulport on 22 March.

  Mr. Hanley
  The purpose of the exercise was to test the procedures that would be employed in the unlikely event of an accident involving the reactor of a nuclear-powered submarine while berthed at RNAD Coulport. It was part of a programme of routine exercises held each year to test the effectiveness of the MOD's nuclear accident response organisation.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the United Kingdom Polar Medal Assessment Committee.

  Mr. Hanley [holding answer 28 January 1994]
  To ensure that the advice from members of honours committees is fair and impartial, and to avoid lobbying of members, it is Government practice not to publish details of the composition of committees responsible for the awards of honours. This particular committee is made up of a small group of scientists and academics associated with work in the Arctic and Antarctic.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the National Employer Liaison Committee.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]Members of the National Employers Liaison Committee for the Reserve Forces are as follows:

  Sir Alexander Graham, GBE (Chairman)

  Sir Michael Angus

  Professor J. S. Bridgeman

  Sir Dermot de Trafford, Bt

  Mr. A. J. Gooding, OBE

  Mr. F. C. Graves, OBE

  Mr. N. A. Johnson, OBE

  Mr. D. A. C. Lambert

  Mr. D. M. Middleton, CBE

  Mr. J. Miller, CBE

  Baroness O'Cathain, OBE

  Mr. P. D. Orchard-Lisle, CBE

  Mr. D. G. C. Webster

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the Defence Scientific Advisory Council and committees.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January]The members of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council are as follows:

  Professor G. G. Roberts (Chairman)

  Dr. D. S. Aldwinckle

  Dr. A. D. Appleton

  Professor A. Bailey

  Mr. D. R. Barron

  Professor A. C. Baynham

  Dr. A. R. Begg

  Dr. L. Bennett

  Mr. K. P. Blair

  Professor D. Bloor

  Professor R. K. Burcher

  Dr. D. Butler

  501

  Dr. I. L. Buxton

  Professor J. A. Carruthers

  Professor J. E. Castle

  Professor P. C. Chatwin

  Mr. G. M. Churchhouse

  Professor P. J. Clarricoats

  Professor R. Coats

  Professor E. C. Cocking

  Professor R. B. Cundall

  Mr. D. J. Daniels

  Professor K. E. Davies

  Dr. A. A. Denton

  Professor G. B. Donaldson

  Dr. D. Driver

  Professor H. A. Dudley

  Professor P. E. Dyer

  Professor C. S. Easmon

  Professor R. Eatock Taylor

  Professor B. G. Evans

  Professor J. Ferguson

  Dr. J. E. Field

  Mr. P. D. Forrest

  Professor J. H. Freer

  Professor G. S. French

  Professor D. Gardner

  Mr. P. N. Goddard

  Professor B. T. Golding

  Professor F. A. Goldsworthy

  Dr. J. E. Green

  Professor R. L. Grimsdale

  Professor K. B. Haley

  Mr. F. R. Harris

  Professor R. M. Harrison

  Professor P. J. Heggs

  Mr. J. R. Hennessy

  Professor C. Hilsum

  Mr. J. Hough

  Professor C. I. Howarth

  Dr. I. M. Hutchings

  Professor K. R. Jennings

  Professor D. J. Jeffries

  Dr. D. M. Jones

  Professor N. Jones

  Dr. A. J. Keane

  Dr. A. J. Kearsley

  Professor L. J. King

  Dr. R. H. King

  Professor J. F. Scott

  Professor M. H. Lader

  Dr. I. Levack

  Professor A. G. Lockett

  Professor J. B. Long

  Professor M. V. Lowson

  Mr. M. Meek

  Professor J. Melling

  Dr. J. F. Miles

  Mr. M. H. Mills

  Professor D. V. Morgan

  Dr. R. D. Mulligan

  Dr. P. O'Brien

  Dr. M. H. Ogle

  Professor R. M. Ogorkiewicz

  Professor T. F. Page

  Dr. D. J. Price

  Professor W. G. Price

  Dr. S. Primrose

  Professor B. Randell

  Dr. B. M. Richards

  Professor M. W. Roberts

  Mr. P. C. Ruffles

  Dr. S. J. Rushforth

  Dr. J. W. Scadding

  Professor N. Shadbolt

  Professor K. S. Sing

  Sir Joseph Smith

  Dr. L. L. Smith

  Mr. P. J. Stein

  Mr. T. Truman

  Mr. R. V. Turner

  Professor M. J. Underhill

  502

  Professor R. Voles

  Professor I. M. Ward

  Professor K. Warwick

  Professor R. G. White

  Dr. D. P. Wilkinson

  Mr. M. R. Williams

  Dr. N. Williams

  Professor S. Williamson

  Professor J. Yarwood

  There are 14 further members of the DSAC who have asked to remain anonymous as they are associated with sensitive areas of research. Those involved are all members of the scientific and academic community.

EMPLOYMENT

  Workfare
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evaluation he has made of the options for introducing a workfare system for unemployed people aged between 18 and 24 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  "Workfare" is usually taken to mean large-scale, all-embracing compulsory work schemes. The Government do not believe that there can be a single approach to meeting the needs of unemployed people and therefore they reject "workfare" schemes. The more effective approach is to target the individual needs of particular groups and help them back into work. That is why the Government introduced in April two new pilot schemes designed to help 18 to 24-year-olds who have been unemployed for over a year to get back to work. The pilots are: Workwise, a four week personal development and jobsearch course; and 1–2–1, a series of individual advisory interviews. Both pilots are mandatory for people who have declined all other offers of help.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Nichlas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed in the United Kingdom film industry.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest reliable information is from the 1991 census of employment. In September 1991, there were 24,200 jobs in the United Kingdom in film production, distribution and exhibition—activity heading 9711 of the 1980 standard industrial classification.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (I) what steps he is taking to improve the training of technicians within the United Kingdom film industry;

  (2) how many trainees are currently undergoing apprenticeship courses related to the skills of technicians in the film industry; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is his policy on the maintenance of the technical skills base for the British film industry;

  (4) what assistance is made available by Her Majesty's Government for training technicians for the film industry.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Oversight of training in the broadcast, film and video industry is the responsibility of Skillset, the recognised industry training organisation. In partnership with the Open university, Skillset has already developed nine national vocational qualifications at levels 2 to 4 covering camera, lighting and sound, and is working with the BBC, ITV and training and enterprise councils to implement them.
  503
  The results of a joint Employment Department and Skillset project on training needs in the industry will be announced at ITV Network in London on 19 May 1994. Officials will be working closely with Skillset on their implementation. We are already supporting an industry database of information on training courses.

  There are currently 60 trainees on a film and television scheme. I am also hoping that the film industry will shortly be developing, with Government support, a modern apprenticeship model scheme to include technician training for introduction in September 1995.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of the undertakings sought from training and enterprise council secondees in(a) England and (b) Wales, in relation to the obligation to retire early, for those civil servants applying for his Department's voluntary early retirement scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]There is no specific form of undertaking to place in the Library. Regional directors were instructed that training and enterprise council secondees would qualify for early retirement only if they intended to return to the Department at the end of their secondment. Secondees were required to confirm their intention in writing and our guidance required our regional offices to send a letter to the TEC telling it of the secondee's intention to return to the Department at the end of their secondment.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in each region were in receipt of unemployment benefit only(a) in total and (b) who had been unemployed for more than six months at the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to her reply, 12 April 1994, c. 57]I regret that my reply to the hon. Lady of 12 April was incorrect. The information requested is available for Great Britain, and is given in the following table. The figures relate to 11 November 1993.

  Number of Unemployed Claimants

  Receiving Unemployment Benefit only

  Receiving Unemployment Benefit only for more than 6 months (thousands)

  South East

  148

  56

  East Anglia

  17

  5

  South West

  37

  13

  West Midlands

  47

  19

  East Midlands

  33

  12

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  44

  13

  North West

  52

  17

  North

  34

  10

  Wales

  22

  6

  Scotland

  49

  14

  GREAT BRITAIN

  483

  165

  Sources: DSS Quarterly Analysis of Unemployment Claimants.

  DSS Half Yearly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants.

ENVIRONMENT

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been allocated to the east midlands in the first year of the new single regeneration budget; and how much was allocated to the same areas under the urban programme over each of the last five years.

  Sir George Young
  Planned expenditure in the east midlands through the single regeneration budget in 1994–95 is £68 million. Under the urban programme, the east midlands was allocated £11.4 million in 1989-90, £11.5 million in 1990–91, £11.7 million in 1991–92, £11.2 million in 1992–93 and £7.5 million in 1993–94.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to reduce harmful levels of air pollution.

  Mr. Atkins
  The quality of air in the United Kingdom is generally good and it is improving. Our recent discussion paper "Improving Air Quality" set out for consultation proposals for maintaining and extending this improvement.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the currently envisaged time scale for the stabilisation of emissions of greenhouse gases.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under the United Nations framework convention on climate change, the United Kingdom and other developed countries are committed to taking measures aimed at returning emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000. The adequacy of the convention's commitments is due to be reviewed by the conference of parties to the convention in 1995 and again by 1998.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the local authority associations to discuss capping regulations.

  Mr. Curry
  The local government associations have made representations on capping on a number of occasions during the course of the annual cycle of consultations on the local government finance settlement.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of local authority revenue accounts is received from central Government grants; and what were the comparable figures for 1980–81 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Curry
  Comparable figures are not available at an England-only level for years prior to 1981–82.

  The available information is as follows:
  505

  England

  1Revenue Expenditure £ million

  2Government Grants £ million

  Government Grants as percentage of Revenue Expenditure

  1981–82

  20,106

  11,234

  56

  1986–87

  26,630

  13,402

  50

  31993–94

  42,654

  23,582

  55

  1In 1981–82 and 1986–87 local authority expenditure is taken to be "relevant expenditure" plus expenditure on certain non-relevant items such as net expenditure on mandatory student awards. It represents spending to be financed by rate support grant, relevant specific grant, rates and balances. This measure of expenditure is net of sales, fees and charges, interest receipts etc. For 1993–94 local authority expenditure is "revenue expenditure to compare to TSS" which is expenditure to be met from revenue support grant, specific and special grants inside Aggregate External Finance, Non-Domestic Rates, council tax and appropriations from reserves.

  2In 1981–82 and 1986–87 Government Grants comprise Aggregate Exchequer Grant and Rate Rebate Grants. In 1993–94 Government Grants included Revenue Support Grant, Specific and Special Grants in Aggregate External Finance, Council Tax Benefit Grant and Council Tax Transitional Relief Scheme Grant.

  3Budget data.

  Local Government Contracts
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many councils he has instructed to re-tender for contracts in the last three years.

  Mr. Baldry
  Twelve councils have been required to re-tender 14 contracts since January 1991.

  M25
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the development of motorway service areas on green-belt land adjoining the M25 motorway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Approval should not be given for a motorway service area within a green belt except in very special circumstances.

  Deregulation
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to the deregulation programme.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department is taking substantial deregulation action to reduce unnecessary controls on business while maintaining environmental standards and public safety. We have identified several repeals and simplifications, two of which are included on the face of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill and others which are suitable for the general power if enacted. We have also indentified several changes in secondary legislation. We are also taking administrative action aimed at clarification and simplification of bureaucracy, particularly in integrated pollution control and waste management.

  Mineral Planning Guidance
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the new opencast guidelines, MPG3, will be published.
  506
  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) earlier today.

  Beaches
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the cleanness of beaches.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities are under a duty to keep amenity beaches, down to high water mark, clear of litter and refuse. The Tidy Britain Group has surveyed the amenities and cleanliness of all British resort beaches and will shortly publish a league table to highlight which are the best and which are the worst.

  Tower Hamlets Council
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has instituted into the way in which Tower Hamlets council is run.

  Mr. Curry
  None. Its internal management arrangements are a matter for the local authority working within the statutory framework.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to bring forward proposals to change the current homelessness legislation.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to bring forward proposals to change the current legislation regarding local authority obligations in respect of housing the homeless.

  Sir George Young
  I hope to announce the Government's conclusions before the summer recess.

  Radiation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to reduce the public's exposure to radiation.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is already the Government's policy that exposure of the public to radiation from man-made sources should be as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken into account.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to establish the United Kingdom Environment Agency.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are committed to establishing an Environment Agency for England and Wales and a Scottish Environment Protection Agency as soon as possible. Paving provisions were announced in the Queen's Speech and we will introduce a Bill shortly.

  Construction Industry
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific steps he is taking to lift burdens of over-regulation from the United Kingdom construction industry.
  507
  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are taking substantial deregulation action to reduce unnecessary controls on the construction industry in the United Kingdom. We have identified several repeals and simplifications, such as the proposed changes to building regulations and waste regulations, which are included in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. We are also responding positively to the recommendations on construction set out in "Deregulation Task Forces—Proposals for Reform".

  Subsidiarity
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to apply the principle of subsidiarity to local government.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government have consistently made clear their commitment to the principle of subsidiarity, both between central and local government and beyond; subsidiarity does not stop at the local authority but continues to whatever level is most consistent with competence, practicality and cost-effectiveness.

  River Doe Lea
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure that the River Doe Lea is cleaned up.

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Rivers Authority is responsible for ensuring that river quality is protected and for dealing with water pollution problems.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to monitor the effects of water privatisation.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since their privatisation in 1989, the monitoring of water and sewerage companies in England and Wales has been the responsibility of the Director General of Water Services, who has a duty to ensure that the companies can finance and carry out their statutory water supply and sewerage functions. He is also responsible for the protection of customers' interests, ensuring that services are provided economically and efficiently, and facilitating competition. The director general publishes an annual report which is presented to Parliament.

  Local Authority Services
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken to improve the quality of local authority services.

  Mr. Curry
  As part of the citizens charter initiative, local authorities are required, starting this year, to publish details of their performance against a wide range of performance indicators. For the first time, citizens will be able to make effective judgments about the quality of services provided by their local council compared to other local authorities of a similar background, and over successive years. Many local authority services are also subject to compulsory competitive tendering. This has led to better services at lower costs, and CCT is now being extended to a wide range of further services, including housing management, legal, finance, IT, personnel, architectural, engineering and property management services.

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the total accumulated local authority housing capital receipt from the sale of council housing in England at 31 March, by local authority and by Department of the Environment region;

  (2) what is the projected total accumulated local authority housing capital receipts at 31 March 1995, by local authority and by Department of the Environment region.

  Sir George Young
  The total discounted values of all council dwellings sold between April 1980 and December 1993, as reported by each local authority in England, are in the table. The information shown includes reported data on receipts from large-scale voluntary transfers. No estimates have been made for those periods where data have not been supplied by a local authority or were incomplete. Actual cash receipts for the period will depend on the extent to which sales had been financed by loans from the authorities. Data are not yet available for the period January to March 1994.

  No estimates are available by local authority or by Department of Environment regions of projected capital receipts during the calendar year 1994 or the financial year 1994–95.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 443, what guidelines his Department issues in relation to quality and technical competence when contracts are being considered by Government Departments for work which was formerly undertaken by the Property Services Agency.

  Sir George Young
  The DOE issues a range of relevant guidance, dealing with the contracting process, standard forms of contract, managing building works, client requirements for Government office buildings, the special needs of historic buildings, and how fire standards and precautions should be approached. When selecting contractors and consultants for particular works projects, Departments have access to computerised DOE pre-qualification systems that assess the technical and financial standing of contractors and consultants seeking Government work. The Treasury's central unit on procurement has also issued guidance on particular aspects of works procurement, including quality assurance and the selection of works contractors.

  Housing Subsidy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities have a negative housing subsidy entitlement.

  Sir George Young
  We have not yet received all the first claims from local authorities for the current financial year. However, from the claims received up to now—excluding the 30 authorities which have conducted large-scale voluntary transfers of their stock, the following authorities have indicated that they will have an overall —negative entitlement to housing revenue account subsidy in 1994–95:

  Crawley

  Dacorum

  509

  Daventry

  Forest Heath

  Isles of Scilly

  Mid Bedfordshire

  North Dorset

  Runnymede

  South Northamptonshire

  St. Edmundsbury

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Tandridge

  Wansdyke

  West Oxfordshire

  All claims are subject to revision and to external audit validation.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities have a negative housing entitlement for housing revenue account subsidy purposes in the latest financial year; and what is the cash value of this negative entitlement.

  Sir George Young
  We have not yet received all the first claims from local authorities for the current financial year. However, from the claims received up to now—excluding the 30 authorities which have conducted large-scale voluntary transfers of their stock—290 authorities have indicated that they will have a negative entitlement on the housing element of their housing revenue account subsidy. In total this amounts to £889,671,987. All the claims are subject to revision and to external audit validation.

  As soon as I have complete list of the authorities and the sums involved I will write to the hon. Member with the details.

  Local Government Staff
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people served on(a) rural, (b) urban, (c) borough and (d) metropolitan county boroughs and county councils in 1964; and how many currently serve on (i) district, (ii) London borough, (iii) county and (iv) other councils.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1964 the numbers of councillors in England and Wales were:

  1Numbers

  Rural districts

  14,633

  Urban districts

  9,368

  County boroughs

  5,056

  Metropolitan boroughs

  1,738

  Municipal boroughs

  8,445

  Counties

  5,346

  Parish councils (England only)

  57,000

  1 Separate figures for England and Wales are not available.

  In 1994 the numbers of councillors in England are:

  Numbers

  District councils

  13,459

  London boroughs

  1,914

  County councils

  2,998

  Metropolitan districts

  2,481

  Parish councils

  71,600

  In 1994 the numbers of councillors in Wales are:

  Numbers

  County councils

  502

  District councils

  1,475

  510
  Figures are not available for councillors serving on community and town councils in Wales.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of(a) housing association tenants on assured lettings and (b) secure housing association tenants were in receipt of (i) full housing benefit and (ii) partial housing benefit on 31 March 1993, and at any subsequent date for which figures are available.

  Sir George Young
  An estimated 60 per cent. of housing association tenants on assured lettings and also 60 per cent. of secure housing association tenants were receiving housing benefit in 1993. A breakdown between full and partial benefit is not currently available.

  The proportions are provisional estimates from the "Survey of English Housing" for the period April to December 1993.

  Rent Assessment Panels
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost of administering rent assessment panels in the last year for which figures are available.

  Sir George Young
  The provisional figure for cost of the rent assessment panels in England for 1993–94 was £5,446,000.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of council houses sold to tenants of Harrogate borough council.

  Sir George Young
  Harrogate borough council has reported the sale of 2,300 dwellings to sitting tenants between April 1980 and December 1993. Information is not available on the number of these sales before 1980–81.

  Living-over-the-shop Initiative
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority(a) the address, (b) the date of approval by his Department's officials, (c) the overall scheme cost, (d) the date of withdrawal, (e) the level of subsidy, (f) the date of completion and (g) the letting date of each completed property for which a supplementary credit approval has been agreed under the LOTS—living-over-the-shop— initiative since its inception.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 17 December 1993,Official Report, column 1097. Details of the allocation of 1993–94 flats-over-the-shops supplementary credit approvals will not be available until the final claims have been received from local authorities. They have six months after the end of the financial year in which to submit claims.

  Eco-labelling
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been spent in the United Kingdom on setting up and running the
  511
  Eco-Labelling Board; how many products have received an eco-label; and how many items of each labelled product have so far been sold.

  Mr. Atkins
  Total expenditure, to date, in setting up and running the United Kingdom Eco-labelling Board amounts to £1.7 million. This expenditure covers the costs of setting up the board, promoting the scheme nationally, assisting the European Commission in developing ecological criteria and processing applications from United Kingdom manufacturers.

  To date, the eco-label has been awarded to seven models of washing machine in Hoover's "New Wave" range. We do not have any information on the number of eco-labelled products sold.

  Waste Water Treatment Directive
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to identify sensitive areas as required by the urban waste water treatment directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following discussions with appropriate bodies, the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today placed in the Library of the House, a map of the 33 areas in England and Wales that we have identified, on advice from the National Rivers Authority, as sensitive areas on the basis of the eutrophic status—SAs(E). We have also placed in the Library a list of these areas along with the sewage treatment works at which the installation of phosphorus removal plants will be required in SAs(E) by the end of 1998 in accordance with the directive. These decisions will make a significant contribution to safeguarding our fresh waters.

  We have accepted the NRA's advice that further monitoring is needed in the case of at least 20 other sites to establish whether they meet the criteria for identification as SAs(E). We have also concluded that current data do not support the case for the identification of nine other candidate SAs(E) proposed by the NRA, and that, before reaching a decision in these cases, further monitoring should be carried out. These cases, along with the 20 areas recommended by the NRA, will be reviewed within the four-year period prescribed by the directive. A list of these areas has also been placed in the Library of the House.

  The map and lists will also be available for inspection at NRA headquarters and their main regional offices.

  Mr. Richard Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to identify high natural dispersion areas, less sensitive areas, as required by the urban waste water treatment directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following discussions with appropriate bodies, the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today placed in the Library of the House a map showing those areas in England and Wales which we have identified as high natural dispersion areas. The map shows all 58 areas around the English and Welsh coastline which the National Rivers Authority has advised meet the criteria in the directive. On the basis of available information, the NRA believes that the provision of primary treatment for the named discharges into these areas will be sufficient and that no further environment benefit will accrue from the provision of additional levels of treatment. We have accepted this advice.
  512
  Comprehensive studies will now be carried out at each location. The NRA must be satisified, before they issue a discharge consent, that the study demonstrates that the proposed discharge of primary treatment effluent will not adversely affect the environment.

  The NRA is also preparing maps defining the outer boundaries of estuaries as required by the directive. In all cases except for the Humber, the Severn and Swansea bay the boundaries are the same as those used by the NRA for other purposes.

  Our decisions will ensure that sewage discharges are properly treated; that the quality of our coastal waters and estuaries will continue to improve, and that costs to water charge payers are kept within acceptable limits.

  The map will be available for inspection at NRA headquarters and their main regional offices.

  Waste Deposits, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what records are kept, and by whom, concerning toxic or other chemical waste deposits on former industrial sites in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is not held centrally. It is for the owner of any site to decide what records to hold in order to meet its needs or legal obligations. It is for public authorities—including, in particular, the London waste regulation authority, London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London—to decide what records to hold in connection with the exercise of their pollution control or planning powers, which could impinge on the type of site described.

  Energy Conservation Bill
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many amendments and new clauses tabled at report stage of the Energy Conservation Bill were drafted by parliamentary counsel.

  Mr. Atkins
  Seven new clauses and 216 amendments tabled at Report stage of the Energy Conservation Bill were drafted by Parliamentary Counsel.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hours of civil servants' time, and at what cost, was spent in drafting amendments and new clauses to the Energy Conservation Bill.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not available. Civil servants carried out work on the Bill in the course of their normal business and no records are kept of the time spent on individual tasks.

  Housing Management
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether authorities which will be restructured following the local government review will have sufficient time to implement the compulsory competitive tendering of housing management.

  Sir George Young
  I am keen that local authorities in the shires should press ahead with their preparations for housing management CCT without delay. Where they can, authorities should let contracts before reorganisation. Where they cannot, their preparatory work will not be wasted but will stand restructured authorities and their tenants in good stead.
  513
  However, as I said in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 15 December 1993, Official Report, columns 733–34, I recognise that restructured authorities will need some extra time to complete the competition process. In my answer, I confirmed the arrangement whereby such authorities will benefit from an exemption of 18 months following reorganisation to complete the first round of competitive tendering. This should give most authorities sufficient time, having regard to the time that their predecessors will have had to prepare.

  Some restructured authorities may, nevertheless, have difficulty in completing the process in the 18-month period. I have therefore decided to extend the exemption to 24 months in certain limited circumstances. The authorities which will benefit from this extension will be those which inherit more than 1,000 dwellings from an outgoing authority which is below the proposed de minimis threshold—and does not, therefore, have to prepare for housing management CCT—and those with a total housing stock of more than 15,000 dwellings. This extension will be granted automatically to restructured authorities meeting one or both of those criteria.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the designation of nitrate-vulnerable zones under the EC nitrate directive.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales and I issued today a consultation document giving details of the areas in England and Wales which it is proposed to designate as vulnerable zones under the terms of the EC nitrate directive. Following proposals from the National Rivers Authority, 72 zones, with a total area of about 650,000 hectares, have been identified in accordance with criteria laid down in the directive.

  The designation that we are proposing represent the latest stage in a broad package of measures that the Government are taking to control nitrate pollution from agriculture. Four years ago, we established 10 nitrate sensitive areas and we expect to open a further 22 such areas to applicants very shortly. At the national level we have already anticipated the requirement in the nitrate directive to publish and promote a code of good agricultural practice to help farmers reduce nitrate pollution in water. The Government also maintain a substantial programme of nitrate research and development which helps to provide the basis for a comprehensive range of advice to farmers on sensible nitrate practice through such publications as the Ministry of Agriculture's fertiliser recommendations. A fully revised and updated edition of this publication will be available next week.

  The designations that we are proposing today reflect the fact that the problem of nitrate pollution in England and Wales is largely confined to a number of discrete areas. In due course the directive requires us to introduce measures in these areas to control certain agricultural activities with the aim of reducing nitrate pollution. Considerable care has been taken to ensure that the zones are as precise as possible, thereby ensuring the measures will be effectively targeted and produce the desired environmental benefit. The consultation document provides a preliminary indication of the type of measures that might be introduced in the zones.
  514
  The measures must be established by December 1995 and come into effect at a date to be decided between then and the end of 1999. The resulting reductions in nitrate leaching in vulnerable zones will add to reductions already taking place because of recent changes in agriculture and voluntary application of the code of good agricultural practice for the protection of water issued by MAFF and Welsh Office Agriculture Department.

  I am placing copies of the consultation document in the Library.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what criteria it is determined whether a property occupied by a disabled person should receive a one-band reduction for the purposes of assessing council tax payments.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 16 May 1994]Disabled persons may be entitled to a one-band reduction in council tax if they need extra rooms or more space as a result of their special needs. Reductions apply to dwellings where any one of the following special features is present; an additional kitchen or bathroom, or special room required because of a resident's disability, or extra floorspace where a wheelchair is required to be used indoors. Reductions are determined in accordance with The Council Tax (Reductions for Disabilities) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/554.

  Benzene
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding levels of benzene in vehicle exhaust emissions.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have received several representations, from hon. Members and others, about the benzene content of petrol and levels in vehicle emissions.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of changes to the community charge register in England and Wales in the latest available year; and what was the estimate of the level of under-registration for the community charge.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not available centrally. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has published an estimated percentage turnover on the community charge register in England and Wales for 1992–93 in the results of its "Revenue Collection Statistics 1992/93 Actuals" survey published in January 1994. From a response of 305 out of 403 local authorities in England and Wales, CIPFA gives an estimated percentage turnover on the community charge register for England and Wales of 34 per cent. This represents the total number of additions to, plus deletions from, the register in the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, expressed as a percentage of the number on the register at 1 April 1992.

HEALTH

  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 failing to meet their capital return targets, by what percentage and sum each such trust failed to meet its three financial targets.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested for the years 1991–92 and 1992–93 will be placed in the Library. Information for 1993–94 will not be available until the annual accounts of trusts for that year have been audited.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many surgeons have been struck off the British Association of Cosmetic Surgeons register in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the British Association of Cosmetic Surgeons.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualifications are required for a person to carry out a liposuction operation.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not illegal for an unqualified person to perform cosmetic surgery procedures as such, as long as that person does not falsely claim to be a doctor or carry out any procedures without the patient's permission.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints her Department has received related to liposuction surgery in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the year ending 30 April 1994 there have been three complaints; in the four preceding years there were none.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received alleging negligence during liposuction surgery.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Complaints of medical negligence are a matter for the General Medical Council.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to regulate the advertising of cosmetic treatment by private cosmetic surgeons.

  Mr. Sackville
  Restrictions on advertisements are already in force and regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority and the Office of Fair Trading.

  HIV/AIDS
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of the effect of changes in NHS funding in respect of the voluntary sector, with particular reference to groups assisting those with HIV/AIDS;

  (2) what asssessment she has made of the effect of changes in local authority funding on voluntary groups assisting those with HIV/AIDS.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service funding for HIV and AIDS increased from £214 million in 1993–94 to £225 516
  million in 1994–95, and local authority funding from £14.9 million to £15.4 million. Changes in allocating these funds came into effect only from 1 April. It is too soon to assess any effect that this may have on the voluntary sector.

  Health Education Authority Publications
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Health Education Authority titles have been withdrawn from circulation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Health Education Authority has withdrawn "Your Pocket Guide to Sex" in the light of ministerial advice.

  Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by her Department of the provision of services for people suffering obsessive compulsive disorder; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for each district health authority to decide what range and type of services to provide based on their assessment of local needs. This will include services for people suffering from obsessive compulsive disorders.

  Immigration Control
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for increased medical checks or medical screening on people subject to immigration control and travellers entering United Kingdom airports and ports for the detection of tuberculosis, cholera and typhoid; who will be subject to these measures; on what basis people will be chosen; what diseases or conditions will be checked; under what authority these checks will be made; what will be the outcome for persons found to be suffering from any of the prescribed conditions or diseases; what changes there will be in statutory instruments and immigration rules; and what co-operation there has been with the Home Office on the immigration implications of increased screening and checks.

  Mr. Sackville
  Current policy is that new immigrants from countries with a high prevalence of tuberculosis entering the United Kingdom for six months or more are screened for tuberculosis. The aim of this policy is not only to identify those with active disease so that they can be referred for further investigation and treatment, but to be able to offer the protection of BCG immunisation where appropriate. The Department, in consultation with the Home Department and within the remit of the inter-departmental working group on tuberculosis, is reviewing the procedures in order that the policy may be more effectively implemented.

  The Department has no plans to screen travellers or new immigrants to the United Kingdom for cholera or typhoid.

  Breast-feeding
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the amount spent on promoting breast feeding; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health continues to support breast-feeding as the best way of feeding a baby. Spending on the promotion of breast-feeding, including grant aid to voluntary organisations, publicity, surveillance and research, reached £118,000 in 1993–94 and is expected to increase to £125,000 in 1994–95.

  Hospitals, London
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of, and how many, patients treated in London teaching hospitals had their main place of residence outside Greater London in the last year for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not available in the precise form requested.

  Caesarean Births
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year for the last 10 years the number of Caesarean births.

  Mr. Sackville
  The estimated figures for England for the years 1982 to 1985 and 1988–89 to 1991–92 are shown in the table. These figures relate to deliveries in hospitals and not to the number of babies born.

  Data are unavailable for the years 1986 to 1987–88 because of changes to the data collection system.

  Year

  Estimated Number of Deliveries

  Estimated Number of Caesarian Section

  Percentage by Caesarian Section

  1982

  574,620

  58,110

  110.1

  1983

  578,300

  58,370

  110.1

  1984

  586,110

  59,140

  110.1

  1985

  605,120

  63,270

  110.5

  1988–89

  642,000

  64,000

  210.0

  1989–90

  643,000

  77,000

  212.0

  1990–91

  659,000

  86,000

  213.0

  1991–92

  649,000

  84,000

  213.0

  Source:

  1 Hospital in-Patient Enquiry.

  2 Hospital Episode Statistics (These estimates are based upon incomplete data, and are rounded to the nearest 1,000).

  Newly Qualified General Nurses
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses completed their registered general nurse qualification in 1993; and how many of them are now employed by the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of admissions from England to the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting register for the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993 is shown in the table. The total figure represents an increase of 3 per cent. on the previous year.

  Number

  Part 1—First level nurses trained in general nursing

  15,042

  Part 12—First level nurses trained in adult nursing (Project 2000)

  635

  TOTAL

  15,677

  Information relating to nurses qualifying in particular years and employed by the national health service is not available centrally.

  Wandsworth Health Authority Chairman
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the yearly salary of the chairman of Wandsworth health authority.
  518
  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is £19,285.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of measures taken to reduce hours worked by junior hospital doctors in each year since 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Annual figures, since 1991–92, for the central funds spent on measures to reduce junior doctors' hours of work are shown in the table. Action taken includes creating 750 extra senior doctor posts and other local projects to reduce hours and improve living conditions.

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  6,202,000

  1992–93

  24,466,000

  1993–94

  37,048,000

  1994–95

  50,015,000

  TOTAL

  117,731,000

  Note: Figures at cash for each year.

  In addition, authorities and trusts will have devoted their own funds to local measures to reduce hours. Information on the level of such local funding is not available centrally.

  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health authorities purchase IVF treatment;

  (2) what plans she has to ensure that those health authorities which are currently not purchasing IVF treatment are able to offer the same service to patients as those health authorities which have decided to purchase IVF treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of health authorities that provide IVF treatment is not available centrally.

  The national health service provides a wide range of treatments for sub-fertility. Decisions about the resources to be made available for these services must be left to individual health authorities as they are in the best position to determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances. Advice is available to health authorities and clinicians in two publications drawn to the attention of the national health service in 1992:

  (a) The Effective Health Care Bulletin on management of subfertility, published for the NHS Management Executive by a consortium of Leeds and York Universities and the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians.

  (b) The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists publication "Infertility—Guidelines for Practice".

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Stomach Ulcers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated for stomach ulcers in each of the last three years; and what percentage of these patients were treated with maintenance therapy.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information shown in the table relates to finished consultant episodes where the primary diagnosis was for gastric ulcer. Details of medication given to individuals are not available centrally.
  519

  Year

  Number

  1989–90

  24,717

  1990–91

  23,469

  11991–92

  24,075

  1 Preliminary estimate.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research her Department has undertaken into the cause of stomach ulcers and the link with the bacteria helicobacter pylori;

  (2) what research her Department has undertaken into the use of triple therapy through the use of antibiotics as a means of treating stomach ulcers.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health has not undertaken any research on either topic.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The MRC is an independent body deciding what research to do on its own expert judgment. The council is always willing to consider for support soundly based new scientific proposals in competition with other applications.

  In 1992–93 the MRC spent £1.44 million on research into the gastro-intestinal tract, and a further £9 million on research which may have some relevance to the gastro-intestinal tract.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the NHS drugs bill is accounted for by the prescribing of Tagamet and Zantac; and how much the NHS spends on these drugs per year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information cannot be published in the form requested because of commercial confidentiality.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April,Official Report, column 396, what areas have been selected for internal charging; what system of charging is proposed; and how the transaction costs of internal charging will be allocated.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's internal management consultancy unit's services were fully internally charged from 1 April 1993 and the unit competes with commercial management consultancy firms. In addition, for a number of services now contracted out, such as printing and travel, expenditure is charged out within the Department to the point of consumption. For services being market-tested, and any provided to other Government Departments or

  Total is £

  Average real value of benefit at April 1993 prices over the period £

  Equivalent value of benefit at April 1993 prices at date of uprating £

  As a percentage of all adults average earnings %

  April 1988

  79.10

  102.19

  104.26

  36.2

  April 1989

  84.80

  103.86

  106.12

  35.4

  April 1990

  89.65

  102.39

  105.51

  34.1

  April 1991

  96.90

  103.86

  105.10

  34.0

  520
  executive agencies under service level agreements, a system of overhead allocation has been developed. The Department is considering further developments in internal charging in areas where this makes management sense, and where the benefits of introduction clearly outweigh the costs of implementing and maintaining the internal charging systems.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April,Official Report, column 396, what was the outcome of the market-testing programme for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's 1993–1994 market-testing programme runs from October 1993 to September 1994 and was published in the citizens charter second report 1994, copies of which are available in the Library. To date the following market tests have been completed:Reprographic service on the London estate—contract awarded to Libra Business Services.
  Building management in certain Department of Health buildings—contract awarded to Procord Facilities Management.
  Survey of infant feeding practices—contract awarded to Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) of 18 April,Official Report, column 396, what areas the market-testing programme for 1994–95 will cover; and what are the personnel consequences.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department will shortly be agreeing its 1994–1995 programme with the efficiency unit of the Cabinet Office.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures similar to those in his answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) of 25 January,Official Report, column 186, on unemployment benefit, showing the value of income support for a couple with two children under the age of 11 years giving figures for April and using estimates for April prices.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table. It shows that, since 1988, the level of income support as a proportion of full-time adult earnings has fallen but that its value in real terms has risen. In the period covered by the table, average earnings have risen faster than prices. Similar information on supplementary benefit is not readily available.
  521

  Total is £

  Average real value of benefit at April 1993 prices over the period £

  Equivalent value of benefit at April 1993 prices at date of uprating £

  As a percentage of all adults average earnings %

  October 1991

  98.15

  102.98

  103.62

  33.4

  April 1992

  105.00

  107.47

  108.13

  34.5

  April 1993

  108.75

  107.99

  108.75

  34.3

  Notes:

  1. Source: Abstract of Statistics for Social Security Benefits and Contributions and the Indices of Retail Prices and Average Earnings; Social Security Statistics.

  2. Earnings are derived from the Employment Departments New Earnings Survey estimates of all adult, full time, earnings.

  3. Real value comparisons have been made using the Retail Prices Index of all items excluding certain housing costs (ROSSI).

  4. Income Support was introduced in April 1988. Estimates for entitlement to Supplementary Benefit (which was replaced by Income Support) are difficult as assessment varied with personal circumstance. For example, in addition to the ages of any children, household status, accommodation type, health and other factors were all relevant.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish estimates of the average numbers receiving benefits at any one time on the same

  Figures are shown in thousands (000s)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Retirement pension

  10,094

  10,056

  10,073

  10,122

  Widows benefit

  335

  331

  328

  324

  Unemployment benefit

  620

  625

  623

  558

  Sickness benefit

  142

  142

  142

  142

  Invalidity benefit

  1,536

  1,702

  1,691

  1,578

  Maternity allowance

  11

  11

  11

  11

  Non contributory retirement pension

  28

  28

  28

  28

  War pension

  304

  281

  281

  281

  Attendance allowance

  1,244

  1,371

  1,493

  1,618

  Invalid care allowance

  227

  262

  294

  324

  Severe disability allowance

  311

  318

  326

  333

  Disability living allowance

  1,401

  1,606

  1,772

  1,954

  Disability working allowance

  5

  9

  12

  14

  Industrial injuries disability benefit

  204

  204

  204

  204

  Reduced earnings allowance

  157

  157

  157

  157

  Other industrial injuries scheme

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Industrial death benefit

  23

  22

  21

  20

  Income support

  5,426

  5,605

  5,777

  5,982

  Child benefit—Number of children

  12,718

  12,930

  13,139

  13,336

  Child benefit—Number of families

  6,948

  7,048

  7,146

  7,237

  One parent benefit

  903

  950

  999

  1,047

  Family credit

  410

  448

  491

  521

  Housing benefit—rent allowance

  1,439

  1,432

  1,483

  1,536

  Housing benefit—rent rebate

  3,117

  3,186

  3,230

  3,279

  Council tax benefit/Community charge benefit

  5,252

  5,365

  5,455

  5,519

  Note:

  The forecasts are based on economic and unemployment assumptions published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95.

  Housing Benefit cases.
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated costs in 1994–95 and 1995–96 of increasing disregarded earnings for housing benefit purposes for single people to £10 per week and for couples to £25 per week; and how many claimants would benefit from such a change.

  Mr. Hague
  The cost in 1994–95 is estimated to be £120 million and would benefit some 370,000 claimants. There is insufficient information to calculate figures for 1995–96.

  Source:

  The reply is based on the Family Expenditure Survey data from
  522
  basis as table 6 of the Social Security departmental report giving figures for (a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1996–97.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  1989, 1990 and 1991, uprated to 1994–95 prices and caseloads. Figures are rounded down to the nearest £10 million and 10,000 cases.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated costs in 1994–95 and 1995–96 of reducing the housing benefit taper to 50 per cent.; and how many claimants would benefit from such a change.

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated cost in 1994–95 is £730 million and it is estimated that 1,955,000 housing benefit recipients would benefit from such a change. Figures for 1995–96 are not available.

  Source:

  Estimate uses data drawn from the 1989-90–91 Family Expenditure Surveys and modelled at 1994–95 prices and benefit levels. Costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million and numbers of claimants rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he or Ministers in his Department or their parliamentary private secretaries had with the hon. Members who tabled amendments for consideration at the Report stage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill prior to and following the tabling of those amendments.

  Mr. Lilley
  My ministerial colleagues and I meet hon. Members from time to time on matters relating to our departmental responsibilities.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer of 12 May,Official Report, columns 212–13, on what date the Minister for Disabled People authorised his Department to instruct Parliamentary Counsel on the drafting of the amendments tabled to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill by five hon. Members on 3 May.

  Mr. Scott
  On 20 April 1994, I authorised my officials to instruct Parliamentary Counsel to draft amendments.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent parents whose cases were taken on by the Child Support Agency during 1993–94 were on income support; of these how many were(a) exempt from the £2.20 deductions made from income support in lieu of child maintenance, (b) subject to the £2.20 deductions; and how many of the maintenance assessments calculated using the child support formula issued by the end of March were (i) nil assessments, other than those for absent parents on income support and (ii) minimum assessment of £2.20 a week, as opposed to deductions from income support.

  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. Adam Ingram, dated 17 May 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about benefit deductions.
  Not all of the information you have requested is available. To the end of March 1994, 40,446 assessments involved cases where the absent parent was in receipt of income support.
  I understand that for the quarter ending 28 February 1994, the Benefits Agency had made deductions from income support in 16,413 cases.
  In addition to those cases involving an absent parent on income support, a further 6,981 assessments resulted in the absent parent being assessed as unable to pay more than the minimum contribution which is now £2.30.
  I am sorry that this reply is not more helpful.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases dealt with by the Child Support Agency in 1993–94 the alleged absent parent disputed paternity; how many of these cases have been resolved without reference to court and in how many of these paternity was established; how many disputed paternity cases have been referred to court by the agency; how many cases have been heard to date and in how many paternity has been established by the court; and how many disputed paternity cases are unresolved to date.
  524
  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. Adan Ingram, dated 17 May 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about disputed paternity cases. I am grateful to you for raising the matter of disputed paternity again as I was about to write to you on the subject, following further information which has now come to light.
  When I wrote to you on 31 March in response to Question 1482, Official Report column 1026, I inadvertently provided incorrect figures. I am sorry that the information quoted, which was based on computerised information, was not accurate. We are undertaking immediate action to rectify the error.
  The current position based on clerical checks is that from April 1993 to the end of March 1994, the absent parent disputed paternity in 3,006 cases. Of these, 657 cases were resolved without reference to court and 80 were withdrawn as paternity investigations were progressing. Information is not available on the establishment of paternity in those cases which were resolved without reference to the courts.
  At the end of March 1994, 2,269 cases remained to be resolved and some 23 cases have been referred to the courts but none has yet completed a full hearing.
  I hope this reply is helpful and I apologise again for providing incorrect information earlier.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many section 18 and section 17 reviews of child support officers were requested during 1993–94; how many of each were outstanding at the end of the financial year; in how many of those resolved in each case the decision had been revised; and what is the average number of weeks that the outstanding reviews have been awaiting decison in each Child Support Agency centre.

  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. Adam Ingram, dated 17 May 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about child support reviews.
  Not all of the information you have requested is available. I can however tell you that during 1993–94 the Agency processed 20,211 Section 17 reviews. The assessment was revised in 19,952 of those. I am also able to provide you with some of the information about Section 18 reviews. During 1993–94 there were requests for 25,013 such reviews of which 13,281 were cleared leaving 11,732 reviews outstanding.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the maintenance application forms issued by the Child Support Agency during 1993–94 have been issued to(a) non-benefit claimants, (b) family credit claimants, (c) new income support claimants and (d) existing income support claimants; and how many have been issued to absent parents.

  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. Adam Ingram, dated 17 May 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the issue of maintenance application forms.

  525
  During the period from April 1993 to the end of March 1994, a total of 858,000 maintenance application forms were issued. Of these, 29,600 were issued to clients who do not receive any of the prescribed benefits; 223,800 were issued to parents with care in receipt of either Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance; 320,400 were issued to new and repeat applicants for Income Support and 284,200 were issued to parents with care in receipt of Income Support before 5th April 1993.
  Information is not recorded on the number of application forms issued to Absent Parents.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 1026, if he will make a statement on the relationship between deductions from earnings orders issued by the Child Support Agency by the end of February and the number of accounts in arrears.

  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. Adam Ingram, dated 17 May 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the deductions from earnings orders which have been issued by the Child Support Agency, and the number of client accounts in arrears.
  I regret that validated data on accounts in arrears is not currently available. The Child Support Computer System is being upgraded to provide additional information. The Agency had however issued an estimated 1,400 deductions from earnings orders by the end of February 1994.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the maintenance assessments issued by the Child Support Agency during 1993–94 were interim assessments; how many of these interim maintenance assessments have been subsequently replaced by final maintenance assessments, and how many interim assessments remained in force at 31 March; whether the final maintenance assessment for cases where an interim assessment is originally made appears in the monthly Child Support Agency statistics as another assessment made, and whether the monthly statistics could differentiate interim and final assessments; and when he will be able to give a breakdown of the number of category A interim assessments and category B interim assessments.

  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. Adam Ingram, dated 17 May 1994:
  526
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about interim maintenance assessments.
  From April 1993 to the end of March 1994, 73,300 interim maintenance assessments were issued, of which 25,000 were converted to final maintenance assessments. 48,300 interim maintenance assessments remained in place at the end of the period. A breakdown of these figures by category is not available.
  When an interim assessment is included in statistical reports it is excluded on conversion to a full maintenance assessment. Total assessments reported for statistical purposes therefore refer to the number of cases where initial assessments have been made.
  Information on the number of interim maintenance assessments issued will be included in future monthly reports placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 1025, regarding the Child Support Agency, in how many section 6 cases the issue of the requirement to co-operate has been considered by the Child Support Agency during 1993–94; in how many of these cases he agreed that the parent with care need not be required to co-operate; in how many of these cases the agency accepted that there was a risk of harm or undue distress, and what was the range of other reasons accepted for not requiring co-operation; how many parents with care subsequently gave the authorisation or information; how many reduced benefit directions were issued in 1993–94; and when the agency will begin to monitor the number of applicants who have given authorisation but subsequently seek to withdraw it.

  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. Adam Ingram, dated 17 May 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the requirement to co-operate.
  During the period April 1993 to March 1994, the requirement to co-operate was considered in 64,800 cases. After investigation, good cause not to co-operate was accepted in 31,700 cases. Of these, 8,400 were cases where the parent with care was unable to name the parent of the child; 15,800 were cases where there was a risk of violence and 7,500 were cases where other reasons such as emotional distress, mental illness or concern for the welfare of the child were accepted. After interview, 14,200 parents with care subsequently provided their authorisation or the necessary information.
  In the same period, 627 Reduced Benefit Directions were referred to the Benefits Agency for implementation.
  The Agency keeps its management information systems in this area under review. At this stage there are no firm plans to record routinely the number of applicants who provide authorisation and subsequently withdraw it.

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

Housing: Policy
Lord Jacques Lord Jacques asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept that improvements to housing create empioyment and tend to reduce crime; and, if so, whether they will increase the proportion of public money spent on housing.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government recognise that the design of the built environment and improvements to housing contribute to the tight against crime. Local authorities and housing associations invested an estimated £4.7 billion of public money on housing in the year 1993–94.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. Do the Government accept that a positive housing policy, involving both private and public finance, could be a preferable alternative to a reduction in the rate of interest, because the materials used in housing are materials which are produced mainly in this country and consequently there would be no adverse effect upon our balance of payments? Will the Government also bear in mind that bed and breakfast in a boarding house which has seen better days is not a satisfactory home for any family? In the long run it may mean that the community pays a higher price for hornelessness than it would by providing homes?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, to answer the last question of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, first, of course bed-and-breakfast accommodation is an unsatisfactory way to house people. That is why we encourage local authorities to phase out its use. I am happy to be able to say that the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is now some 63 per cent. below its peak two-and-a-half years ago. Lower interest rates would of course help all sectors of the housing market. It would help the public sector by reducing the rate at which local authorities and housing associations have to borrow funds, and in the private sector it would do much to help people who require mortgages.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was found that the design of some housing projects was at fault, and that walkways or runways made it easy for vandals and criminals to escape? Where those estates have been modified in such a way as to do away with those quick escape routes, that has been a great benefit to the people living there.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The police, through the work of dedicated architectural liaison officers, and the "secure by design" scheme, have already been successful in encouraging
240
planners and others in the building industry to design housing and housing estates so that the opportunities for crime are reduced.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend and colleague Lord Jacques was correct? If the Government had allowed the enormous sums of money that have been spent on bed-and-breakfast accommodation to have been made available to local authorities to build houses for rent, that would have had an extremely beneficial effect on homeless people and people desperately in need of housing. Is the Minister also aware that everyone dealing with this problem at the sharp end, such as Shelter and CHAR and all the non-profit-making housing associations, are of the opinion that we are still building only 50 per cent. of the homes necessary if we are to deal with the situation in anything like an acceptable manner?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, housing associa-tions are the main suppliers; of new subsidised housing for rent. The Housing Corporation estimates that the approved development programme for 1994–95 of over £1.5 billion will enable housing associations to provide over 58,000 new lettings in 1994–95. That brings the total over the period 1992–93 to 1994 to 178,000, which more than meets the manifesto commitment of 153,000 homes over that period.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is there not a logical fallacy behind this discussion and Question? Granted that improved housing on a bigger scale would have the advantages claimed for it by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques; so would improved expenditure on health, education, training, crime prevention schemes, construction projects and, above all, the production efficiently of more goods and services. Is not it a fallacy to single out the advantages of one form of expenditure as against another when the real problem is the allocation of limited resources to unlimited requirements?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble and learned friend's general assumption is correct, but I can assure your Lordships that housing remains a high priority for the Government.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham? I believe that the question of housing is of crucial importance. There is no perfect solution to it; but as one gets nearer to finding a solution to the housing problem, other problems will become fewer. I ask the Government to bear in mind that providing houses also gives rise to a demand for furniture and equipment, which will speed the recovery. I hope that will cause the Government to think again about housing.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I must advise the noble Lord that we do not have to think again because everything that he has said is at the forefront of our minds when considering housing policy.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend give us an idea of how many houses are unoccupied in the areas with the worst crime rates?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I do not have an answer to my noble friend's question; but if I can find one, I shall write to him.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that our local authorities play a very important role in providing homes for people, and that a good home is the basis for creating a good society? In as much as the problems vary from one local authority to another, can the Government consider giving some degree of priority to those local authorities that need help more than others?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the noble Lord will find that those priorities are assessed in the standard spending assessments that are applied to local authorities.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, first, that some months ago—it must have been 18 or 24 months ago—one of his noble colleagues who has since moved to another department wrote to me pointing out that several local authorities did not spend up to their allowed proportion of capital receipts? Secondly, some time ago now, the Department of the Environment had a policy on hostels and on the building of hostels by local authorities which would be suitable for several members of the housing clientele we are talking about in this Question. Can my noble friend update us on the department's hostel policy?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I cannot update your Lordships on the department's hostel policy; but I shall write to my noble friend on that point. As to the first part of his question, it is for local authorities to decide their priorities on local needs.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the major need at the moment is for affordable houses—that is, for houses that can be afforded by people on low incomes? Is he further aware that housing associations, which are doing a good job (certainly in London; I am quite happy to grant them that), are worried about the level of grant which is forcing them to increase rents to beyond the limit that can be afforded by people on low incomes? You already have to be on full income support and full housing benefit before you can afford their lowest rents. Therefore, unless we can get the rents down to an affordable level, we will never find a solution to the problem.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the Government do everything to make certain that their housing policy provides houses that are affordable.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Government, through the noble Viscount, whether they support the housing policies pursued by the City of Westminster, in the borough of which we now sit.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I have no comment to make on the situation as regards Westminster City Council.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in these days of party political truce, can we at least accept—will the noble Viscount accept?—that there is an established relationship not just between housing design and the crime rate, but also between the level of unemployment and the crime rate? Is it not the case, as my noble friend Lord Jacques said, that the most effective way to reduce unemployment at the moment, without balance of payments effects, is to put the building industry to work building houses? Is it not also the case that the finance for doing so is available in the capital receipts that are held in the balances of local authorities?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the best way to encourage long-term improvements in the nation's housing and employment is to secure the conditions necessary for sustained economic growth.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, with regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, is the noble Viscount aware that on Victoria Street, almost opposite Westminster City Hall, a small block of flats has been kept empty for years and years? It was invaded by squatters a few weeks ago and is now boarded up. Cannot the Government take over that block for the homeless—or how many more years is it to be kept empty?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to answer the noble Lord's question.

Domestic Workers from Overseas
2.50 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many domestic workers admitted to the United Kingdom under the 1980 Home Office concession have to their knowledge suffered abuse, exploitation and quasi-slavery at the hands of their employers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers):My Lords, I am afraid that the information is not available.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am bound to be disappointed by that reply. Is the noble Earl aware that during the past four years at least 1,000 cases of abuse have been known to voluntary bodies in London alone? When will the Government bring in safeguards for those domestic workers so that they receive adequate food, their wages are paid and they have reasonable employment conditions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is quite clear that if there are cases of abuse, that is much to be regretted. But anyone who comes to this country has the protection of the law of this country. If employees find that their employers are misbehaving, they can go to the police or

243
to a citizens advice bureau. We shall certainly keep under review the arrangements for the admission of those people.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of the victims of this kind of abuse speak little English and do not know how to make complaints to the agencies which he mentioned? Is he not aware from his experience at the Home Office that there is an enormous amount of anecdotal evidence of widespread abuse by employers after resident domestics have been brought into the country under the concession? In view of that evidence, is it not time for a review of an exemption of a particular category of worker from the controls which apply to every other kind of worker in this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, people who come to this country under those special arrangements must have been in the employ of the employer for either six months or 12 months before they arrive. The noble Lord says that they do not speak English. But I remind him that when the domestic workers apply for entry clearance they are given a leaflet explaining where to go for help and advice. They are interviewed separately from their employer in a language which they can understand and in which they are told what their rights are. That is the position. We have gone a long way towards ensuring that people know what they are in for when they come to the United Kingdom. I assure the noble Lord that they come here only when they are already in the employ of people whom they know.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, that reply makes me wonder why we cannot have an answer to the first Question. All these people are interviewed on arrival or afterwards. You would think if somebody was found in the street it would be associated with the accent. When we debated this matter in November 1990. we were told that there were about 3,000 such people. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said that it was not possible to check the figure. I do not know whether it has been checked, but it should be. It is time that we had a few facts, because the allegations are extremely disagreeable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Question asked whether we have any information about people who have: "suffered abuse, exploitation and quasi-slavery".
We do not have that information in relation to domestic servants, any more than we have it in relation to turf accountants, ironmongers, dog handlers or anyone else. Statistics are not kept in that form.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of employment in the domestic field entirely apart from the people about whom he has spoken? People come to this country without a work permit and they work in the domestic field on the black economy. Following the earlier Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would it not be marvellous if employment in the domestic field were treated like any other employment? It would then be possible to employ people legitimately to help the elderly, those who have young children or those who themselves need help for some reason.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to tell my noble friend that no work permits are issued for domestic servants, and that has been so since 1980.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of these young people are told by their employers that if they complain to anyone they will be sent to prison? Of course, they believe that. Since we permit them to be brought here not for their own benefit but as part of the baggage of their employers, are we under no obligation to monitor what happens to them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that it is slightly abusive to refer to human beings as being part of the baggage of their employers.
Noble Lords: Well, they are.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, they are employed by their employers. If an employer comes to this country on a visit, the employee will be here for six months. If the employer is coming here to lake up permanent work, the employee will be here for 12 months. The employee must have been in the employ of the employer for some time before coming to this country. Therefore, the relationship between the employer and the employee is known. In order to ensure that those individuals know what is happening, the entry clearance officer sees them individually away from their employers, as I explained earlier. They are told their rights and they are given a leaflet to take with them. If the employer then says, "If you speak, you will go to prison", by reading the explanation in the leaflet the employee will be able to readdress his mind as to what action can be taken.
Lord Morris: My Lords, what can the term "quasi-slavery" possibly mean?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite sure, but I sometimes wonder whether it might not apply to Members of the Government Front Bench.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister accept that from his replies to the questions that have been put from all sides of the House he gives the impression that he does not believe that there is a problem? However, all those who have asked questions are convinced that there is a major problem, and I am among them. Would it not be fair to the House as well as to the people about whom we are speaking for the Government to agree to some kind of inquiry or study rather than using a somewhat "brushing-off" manner?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to give the impression that I am brushing the matter off. But how can there be an inquiry without each employer who has brought an employee into the country being asked whether the employee is being treated properly? And I do not believe that that is the right action to take. It would be extremely bureaucratic and expensive. There is a problem with regard to anyone who breaks the law. Anyone in this country, either an employer or an employee, has the right of recourse to the law of this country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, how can the Minister say, as he did a few moments ago, that the matter is always being kept under review when there is no evidence available to sustain such a review? How can he say that when he does not know and does not propose to find out how many cases of abuse there are?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are keeping under review the terms and conditions under which such people are allowed into this country. We are looking at that closely. One possibility is that before the servant travels to the United Kingdom there may be a requirement that a written statement is drawn up with regard to his maintenance and accommodation. We are keeping those matters under review.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned legal remedies. Can he explain to the House how they can be applied by a worker who is living on an employer's premises, who is locked into those premises and whose passport has been withheld by the employer?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the withholding of a passport by an employer, the leaflet which the employee is given advises him that he should keep his passport in a safe place and that it is an offence to take a passport. The withholding of a passport may fall within the terms of the Theft Act if the employer is regarded as having the intention permanently to deprive another person of his property and if it is his intention to treat the thing as his own to dispose of, regardless of the other person's rights. Therefore, in that situation an employer is acting against an employee's interests. It is explained to the person concerned in the leaflet that he should go either to the police or the citizens advice bureau. The noble Lord gives an example of a person who is locked up and cannot get out of the house. That in itself is an offence.

Scottish Curriculum: History Subjects
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether appointed advisers are to make recommendations on the history subjects in the Scottish curriculum.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, there are no plans for a specific centrally co-ordinated review of history subjects. Responsibility for the content of the curriculum in Scottish schools rests with individual education authorities and headteachers. However, advice is provided from time to time both by the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum and the Scottish Office education department.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply. However, will the Scottish curriculum, which is separate from the national curriculum which applies only to England and Wales, include Scottish kings before 1603; for example, Robert
246
the Bruce? Further, will British monarchs after 1603 be included? If so, children in Scotland are likely to learn more about them than those south of the Border.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is a clear interest in ensuring that Scottish history before either the union of the Crowns or the union of the Parliaments is understood by Scottish children. Certainly they will learn about Scottish kings and queens. However, I believe that we enter a point of controversy at the point of changeover as to whether in Scotland King James is to be known as James VI or James I.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has done the House a favour in asking the question, especially as the Scottish press has over the past year been most concerned about what sort of history should be taught in Scotland. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is a member of a clan which is well represented in Scottish history. I believe that he will appreciate more than most of us that a great deal of such history is very much shrouded in mystery. In other words, I am not sure that Glencoe really happened in the way in which people suggest.
However, although I feel that we must have a general feeling for kings and queens, I hope that we do not spend too long on it. To most of the Scots, the part of history about which they are most proud involves the ships and the railway engines that we built and also the machinery and engineers that we sent all over the world. That is a much more important part of Scottish history than much of the stuff that I was taught in school.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I agree with the first part of the noble Lord's observation. But certainly, once we have a shared history—for example, if children are being taught about the Industrial Revolution—there are clearly significant events in Scotland to which children's attention should be drawn. Their understand-ing of that particular period of history could be well based on what happened in Scotland itself.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will Scottish children be able to have the opportunity of becoming proud of the part which Scots have played in the building of the British Empire and, later, the Commonwealth?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, my Lords; very much so. I hope that they might even be taught that we had a domination of influence in all of it. As I said, once we have that shared history, there is clearly a Scottish emphasis to be given to the events of British history. However, we certainly do not want to treat them as separate subjects. We want to treat them in a way that shows that we do have that shared inheritance and that the Scots did have an important part to play.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that, according to my father, I am a direct descendant of John Knox who wrote a pamphlet entitled, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women? Does my noble and

247
learned friend agree that it is time that the word "monstrous" was expunged from any new history curriculum in Scotland?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is for individual education authorities to determine whether or not they draw attention to that pamphlet. However, as a descendant of John Knox, my noble friend may be disappointed that that particular pamphlet certainly no longer forms part of our religious education.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord bear in mind that the Scottish descendants of Robert the Bruce, having come originally from Norman France, are more than capable of dealing with the President of the Commission?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I can only compliment the noble Lord on a quite exceptional exercise of ingenuity in bringing such a matter into a Question on Scottish education.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that a forebear of mine was so incensed by the pamphlet referred to by my noble friend Lord Davidson that she upped and threw her stool at the said priest?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I certainly hope that the tradition of the Geddes family is well known to Scottish children.

Hong Kong
3.4 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to call attention to matters affecting Hong Kong; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now some 18 months since the House last debated the broader issues affecting Hong Kong. There have been a number of developments in that time, some positive and some disappointing. Your Lordships bring considerable direct experience of Hong Kong and China to any consideration of the subject—and at a time when the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of another place has just been published which explores relations between the UK and China up to and beyond 1997, it seems wholly appropriate for the views of the House to be placed on record. A further backdrop for the debate is, as I hope my noble friend Lady Chalker will be able to confirm, that the dialogue between Britain and China over Hong Kong is beginning to show more encouraging signs than for some time.
I hope that the debate will be constructive and forward-looking; indeed, I am sure that it will be. But it would not wholly surprise me if some contributions will question some of the decisions taken. That is perfectly legitimate and is a proper role for your Lordships. The one universally positive view that I am sure will be expressed from all quarters of the House is that it is the wish of us all to see Hong Kong prosper and thrive up to 1997 and beyond.
As the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong approaches, an increasingly awesome responsibility
248
rests upon the shoulders of those who are striving to make that change a success. That responsibility lies upon the shoulders of the British Government and upon the People's Republic of China Government. Hong Kong has weighty responsibility. I am sure that all those features will be addressed this afternoon.
One note of sadness tinges today's debate, and I am sure that the House would like me to mention it. One of the first to put his name down to speak was Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke. His sad death leaves us all the poorer. He had great experience of China, and a firm grasp of those things which really matter to Britain in her relationship with China, not only over Hong Kong but in a more general economic sense. We shall miss his counsel; and we shall, I know, have his family very much in our thoughts.
I do not propose to dwell too much on the history of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. But I think that it is worth reminding ourselves that it was a hugely significant achievement. Its signing was a moment of considerable diplomatic success, which the world looked upon with cautious optimism. It is a pity that my noble friend Lady Thatcher and my noble and learned Lord Howe of Aberavon, who were very much its architects on the British side, are not able to be here today: I know that they would have liked to have been. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe is in Hong Kong which is, as he said himself in a letter to me explaining why he would not be able to speak, a perfect alibi. My noble friend Lady Thatcher hopes to be here later after fulfilling important engagements elsewhere.
The Joint Declaration was a prize hard won; no one was under any illusion about the difficulties that might emerge in carrying it forward to fruition. Those difficulties have, over the years, manifested themselves in many ways: lack of real progress in the JLG on many technical issues; increased concern about democracy in Hong Kong; and extraneous factors, such as the Vietnamese boat people. Those are just some examples. Yet all of this at a time when Hong Kong has continued to be a hugely vibrant success story, confounding those who believed that the approach of 1997 would cause a spiralling down of her success.
I think that we should remind ourselves of the interests that we are trying to serve in bringing the Joint Declaration to fruition. First among them of course must come Hong Kong. We are all looking for the continued stability, prosperity and security of her people. We want to see her continued success, not just as an integral part of China, but as a real economic powerhouse in the Asia-Pacific region. We look for the continued motivation of her people at a time which is bound to generate uncertainty and doubt. And we look more widely for the international community to play its part in helping to encourage China to live up to the obligations enshrined in the Joint Declaration and in the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
So far as Britain's interests are concerned, we must be seen to have achieved honourably and in good faith the best possible future for Hong Kong in all the circumstances. We must be looked upon as having discharged our obligations in a way which is transparent

249
and properly considered. We shall want to maintain considerable economic interest in Hong Kong's future success. We shall want to be strongly represented there in commercial and consular matters. We shall want to continue to uphold our responsibilities to British Nationals (Overseas) passport holders and British dependent territory citizens. We shall wish to preserve and develop our interest in China through Hong Kong as well as directly, and we shall want to work towards a progressively sounder relationship with China as her own political and economic future unfolds.
What of China's interest post-1997? She will, I am sure, want to see a successful and entrepreneurial Hong Kong. She will wish to see this not just because of Hong Kong's geographical and economic ties with mainland China, but because of the wider perspective. Hong Kong has a catalytic effect for China's interests involving the rest of South-East Asia and beyond. Hong Kong can help serve China's needs into the future. I believe that at the end of the day China will want international acclaim for what has been achieved on her part by successful implementation of the Joint Declaration. She will be aware that upon her shoulders will rest considerable responsibility. She may find midnight on June 30th 1997 a proud moment in her history. I hope she will feel that, with the eyes of the world upon her, it is also a rather daunting responsibility.
China will have clearly in her mind the revulsion that the free world felt at the excesses of Tiananmen Square. It was that dreadful business which did more than anything else to provoke very understandable concerns about Hong Kong and her future. It was the horror of those scenes in June 1989 which made it inevitable that confidence in and about Hong Kong in relation to the Joint Declaration would be much harder to achieve. Tiananmen Square has been a catalyst for many of the tensions on all sides over the past few years—a backdrop of blood if you like, against which plans for the future of Hong Kong were to be developed and ultimately were bound to be judged. It was those events which reinforced pressure for increased numbers of directly elected seats to LegCo as a buttress to what some feared could transpire after 1997. At the same time concerns arose about the compatibility between existing electoral laws in Hong Kong and what the Basic Law envisages.
The "through train" (those elected to LegCo in 1995 being able to remain in office through 1997 until elections in 1999) was always regarded as an important concept in retaining confidence in Hong Kong—a concept hitherto endorsed by China. But at all times it had been recognised as a tender plant. The arrival of a new Governor, a difference of pace and style, and a more vociferous clamour for sustainable democracy by Hong Kong people, very probably gave the impression in Peking of a change of policy, particularly when coupled with the Governor's 1992 proposals for electoral and constitutional changes to take place before the 1994 elections to municipal and district boards, and the 1995 elections to LegCo. That is an understandable Chinese reaction. Despite the Governor's comment that
250
the eight or so main changes proposed were only that —proposals—many would say that China's reaction to them was predictable.
One could argue that what had all along amounted to an extremely slow, complex and frustrating set of negotiations was bound to reach a climax in some sort of major dispute with China. But my suspicion is that, having worked our way round, through or over many of the obstacles over the years, democratic issues were those of the greatest sensitivity. I believe therefore that, despite the Government's stated position of it being discourteous to Hong Kong to consult first with China privately about the proposals, this is what should have happened in this exceedingly sensitive area. International law may have nothing to say about the spirit of the Basic Law, or the Joint Declaration, but this spirit is a human feature we all recognise too well.
Such an approach, however risky, might have paved the way for the admittedly limited degree of change proposed and lessened the risk of the dislocation of our efforts over Hong Kong which we have faced in recent months. The Government's case against doing so— argued in the White Paper and supported by the Foreign Affairs Committee report —seems to me more a question of fitting the circumstances to the facts in a rather beguiling way, than the other way round.
Hong Kong's views in this matter are of huge importance. She, after all, has to live with the outcome; and the changes are pretty unexceptional, designed in part to maintain confidence in the probity of Hong Kong as a place to do business. But the proposals touched a very raw nerve with China, partly because of their content, but more, I suspect, because of the manner of their promulgation. The events of 1989 were, as I have said, bound to give rise to an air of increased expectation about safeguards for Hong Kong—both in the territory and at home. I do not find anything exceptional in that. What I am concerned about is the manner in which those expectations can be brought effectively to fruition.
China is an emerging economic power; she has a seat in the permanent 5. She is oriental in custom and approach. She has her pride—as we have ours—but I wonder sometimes whether we do not judge her just a little too harshly when she reacts indignantly to the somewhat adjusted pace and style of our apparently very belated democratic proposals. I am left asking myself whether, in carrying forward these proposals, which of course we have every right to do—and which LegCo may well amend—we fulfilled every sentiment attached to the meaning of the word "diplomatic", and may have imposed limitations on our own wish for a successful "through train" and all that that should bring in terms of confidence.
The reaction of the PRC Government to the Governor's proposals has been brittle, to say the least. It has included some very public snubs to the Governor —most recently over Lu Ping's visit to Hong Kong. I hope that the Chinese Government realise that this sort of reaction does not do them any good. It also seems to run markedly counter to the encouraging views expressed by many senior figures in Peking, and I think

251
elsewhere, that the need to keep talking about wider aspects, whatever the strong views held about the democracy package, is essential.
Another reaction was an outspoken threat to United Kingdom companies wishing to do business with China. Here I must declare an interest as deputy chairman of Hanson Pacific Limited, a subsidiary of Hanson PLC; and as an adviser to British Aerospace. While the threats were real enough, I must tell the House that when I visited Hong Kong and China in early March, I found thankfully no evidence of any trade discrimination. This was exceedingly reassuring. The EC Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, took a very strong line when he went to Peking, and Her Majesty's Government were rightly not to be intimidated. The threats would in any case hardly be conducive to China's membership of GATT or possibly even to renewed most favoured nation status. And since then Prime Minister Li Peng has made it clear that there will be no discriminatory policy towards British companies.
Having said that, I believe it is perfectly possible for us to maintain our principles while driving a hard bargain for the benefit of Hong Kong, without tarring ourselves with charges of sleight of hand. Britain has enormous future economic benefits to be derived from China—and China has enormous future economic benefits to derive from Britain as her economic reforms gather pace. She has a very real wish to engage in dialogue about commercial matters. So I think that a little enlightened self-interest is no bad thing and need not conflict with our obligations to Hong Kong.
There are two other subjects on which I must touch: human rights in China and the United Kingdom's responsibilities towards certain minorities in Hong Kong who do not have right of abode in the United Kingdom. International concern about human rights in China is considerable and understandable. It is all very well to adopt a "holier than thou" attitude, but again it is important to encourage self awareness in China about how a fundamental, if gradual, reappraisal of their position can help them. We should be encouraged by an understanding that China is, as the Foreign Affairs Committee report states, coming to recognise the legitimacy of debate on the subject. We should go on encouraging China—bilaterally, multilaterally, private-ly and publicly—as that report suggests. I very much support the tone that the report strikes.
When read across to Hong Kong, I very much hope that the preservation—indeed, development—of human rights in the territory can be enshrined post 1997. That seems a fundamental aspect of assurance which her people will need, and it will have to be addressed by Her Majesty's Government with great care as they consider their response to the FAC report.
As to the second matter—non-ethnic Chinese British dependent territory citizens and war widows—here I must, not for the first time, strike a critical note. Circumstances have changed since 1986 when the Hong Kong nationality order was before your Lordships. I gave certain assurances then on behalf of the Government. I gave them in good faith. The words that
252
I used were drafted by me personally and reflected the circumstances as far as we could see them at that time and looking into the future.
By refusing to acknowledge the current climate affecting some 7,000 non-ethnic Chinese BDTCs and a mere 52 wives and widows of ex-servicemen, or doing so grudgingly, and not allowing them full British citizenship as the Foreign Affairs Committee report recommends, I believe—and I do not like to say so— that the Government are not only acting meanly but also dishonourably. I honestly believe that the Government's position is unsustainable. Those people are special cases and do not raise a thin-end-of-the-wedge immigration argument. They are special to Hong Kong's unusual circumstances. I believe that the Government have a duty to these people. Fudged assurances about unrestricted access do not properly address that duty.
Let me end on a more upbeat note. It is very easy to be critical. It is quite another thing to be charged with the responsibility for discharging the immensely complex transition for Hong Kong which both Britain and China face. China's position as a world power and as a developing economic power is a fact with which we have to come to terms. She is a different, yet vastly exciting country. We should not expect to find affinity with every aspect of her politics or her culture, any more than her people find total affinity with ours.
Hong Kong, as part of China, but with her own unique set of special arrangements, is better poised than most to be a catalyst for China's development; and China for Hong Kong's future prosperity.
The omens are not discouraging—quite the opposite. We should continue to discharge our obligations to Hong Kong cautiously and honourably. We should do so clearly bearing in mind the fact that a long-term developing relationship of Britain with China is as much part and parcel of Hong Kong's interests as it is of our own. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, all who care about Hong Kong are glad that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has initiated this debate. I am pleased to see many in the House today whose acquaintance with Hong Kong is much longer and deeper than my 14 years. Your Lordships will understand if I single out the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, who has travelled far to be with us, and the noble Lords, Lord MacLehose and Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, who both did so much to lay the foundations for Hong Kong's present success.
Today's debate is naturally an occasion for taking stock and for looking back at developments since this House last debated Hong Kong in December 1992. I hope that we can also use it as an opportunity to look forward at the 1,100 or so days remaining of the British administration of the territory and particularly at the prospects for Hong Kong beyond 30th June 1997.
First, however, a few words of history. Britain's policy has always been, in the words which Sir Richard Luce used in another place in December 1984, to build up a firmly based democratic administration in Hong

253
Kong in the years between 1984 and 1997, but to do so in ways which are consistent with our obligations under the Joint Declaration and with the Basic Law and any other agreements and understandings between Britain and China on the pace of democratic development in Hong Kong.
None of that changed in 1992. What was new, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said, was the mounting pressure in Hong Kong for faster progress towards a legislature returned wholly by direct election. Much of that pressure can be traced back to the tragic events of June 1989 in Peking and their traumatic effect on Hong Kong people. A new political awareness was expressed in successive Motions passed by the Legislative Council. The British and Hong Kong Governments had a clear responsibility to respond.
In 1992, moreover, the existing electoral law in Hong Kong was in many respects quite different from the arrangements envisaged in the Basic Law and the associated texts. If there was to be any prospect of the final legislature under British rule metamorphosing at midnight on 30th June 1997 into the first legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, it would have to have been returned under arrangements similar or identical to those envisaged in the Basic Law. Doing nothing in respect of the arrangements for the 1994–95 elections in Hong Kong was never, therefore, an option. The Hong Kong Government had to legislate.
I know that your Lordships are familiar with the package of proposals that followed. By any objective standard they were modest, exposing us to criticism for their timidity as well as their boldness. Their purpose was and is to establish in Hong Kong fair and open election arrangements acceptable to the people of Hong Kong and consistent with our obligations under the Joint Declaration. They are intended to minimise the process of manipulation of Hong Kong's legislature and to underpin the rule of law and the free society which are so crucial for the people of Hong Kong and for the territory's importance as a centre for international business.
In presenting those proposals to LegCo in October 1992 the Governor made clear that we had to take account of the opinions of both the present and future sovereign powers. But he also pointed out that it was not an option in modern Hong Kong to try, behind the back of an increasingly confident and assertive legislature, privately to agree with China on that legislature's further development. If nothing else LegCo would ultimately have to pass the necessary legislation.
We nevertheless wanted, if at all possible, to move ahead in agreement with China. Last year we spent more than eight months and 17 rounds of talks in Peking trying to reach agreement with China on the way forward for constitutional development in the territory. We were prepared to offer substantial changes to our original proposals in a sincere effort to find a middle way acceptable to both sides. But our interlocutors were unwilling to compromise, so reluctantly we decided to put proposals to LegCo which had not been agreed with China.
254
We cannot at this stage predict with certainty what the outcome of the Legislative Council's present deliberations on the arrangements for the 1995 elections will be when they conclude, we hope by the end of the LegCo session in July. It is for the members of LegCo to make up their own minds. As the Governor has often said, we cannot force the Hong Kong people to go further than they would wish; nor would it be right for us to oblige them to go less far.
Those of your Lordships who have recently been in Hong Kong will confirm that the sky has not fallen in as a result of developments over the past two years. There is widespread support for the Governor and for the inspiring lead which he has given to the territory. Only last week a poll showed that nearly 70 per cent. of senior British businessmen in the territory believed that the general public would benefit from the Governor's proposals. Much credit must go to the people of Hong Kong and those who represent them for the calm and confident way in which they have tackled the business of democratic development.
Some of those who have been sceptical of the Government's approach to constitutional development —like my noble friend Lord Glenarthur—have given the impression that deep and irreversible damage has been done to all co-operation with China. The truth is rather different. Chinese Ministers and officials have stressed that co-operation in other areas will continue. We, too, attach the highest importance to working with China over the range of Hong Kong issues. More widely still, Britain and China share important interests— diplomatic, economic and in the area of international security. Indeed, my noble friend was quite right to say that there is no shortage of enlightened interest.
Most of the issues now outstanding between Britain and China over the future of Hong Kong are technical, not political. But solving them all is very much in the interests of Hong Kong and of China. With good will and common sense, no issue is insoluble. And solving them is what needs to be done if Hong Kong's remarkable success story is to be sustained.
Many of your Lordships are well familiar with the symptoms of that success. But a few facts may help put it in perspective. Over the past decade Hong Kong's average growth has been some 6.5 per cent., more than double the rate for OECD countries. Hong Kong is now the world's eighth largest trading economy. In his most recent budget in March, Hong Kong's Financial Secretary was able simultaneously to cut taxes, raise expenditure, notably on social services and education, and increase the reserves—a feat which, for all his many skills, my right honourable friend the Chancellor has not yet managed to perform in another place.
A significant feature over the past decade has been the growing interdependence between the economies of China and Hong Kong. Hong Kong is now said to account for about two-thirds of foreign investment in China. Some 24 per cent. of China's exports go to or through Hong Kong. Hong Kong has the largest container port in the world handling a great deal of traffic in and out of China. None of that has been affected by our difficulties with China over constitution-al development.

255
Nor is there any evidence that those difficulties have damaged Britain's trade with China. Our exports rose by over 70 per cent. last year. They continued to grow in the first three months of this year. One example of the continuing pattern of business was the notably successful mission to China earlier this year led by my noble friend Lord Howe, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture.
Chinese Ministers and officials have said that they wish trade and politics to be kept separate. We welcome that approach. We are confident that together Britain, China and Hong Kong will continue to profit from the extraordinary scale and pace of economic exchanges between them. And we welcome China's re-entry into the international bodies governing the world trading system just as soon as China can show that it is prepared to accept their principles.
There are many other issues that my noble friend raised, and I am sure that they will be raised again in debate. If I may, I shall leave a response on those until the end. However, in the short time left before sovereignty over Hong Kong passes from Britain to China there is much to be done. No one imagined that this transfer of sovereignty was going to be an easy exercise. But we will not be, nor are we being, deflected from our duty to the people of Hong Kong. They have turned their territory into one of the wonders of the modern world. We mean to help them complete the task in good faith, and successfully, in accordance with the Joint Declaration. It is a unique enterprise of truly historic significance. It is one on which the United Kingdom and China are together embarked; and we are embarked for the benefit of all the people of Hong Kong.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, not only all sections of your Lordships' House but the people of Hong Kong will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for enabling us to debate the matter for the first time in 18 months. From these Benches, perhaps we may echo what he said: that this debate will be the poorer for the absence of Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke.
Over the past few months it has become clear that there are two views as to the policy which might be pursued in relation to Hong Kong. It will be surprising if they do not emerge in the course of the debate. The first is that the British Government are still the trustee for the people of Hong Kong and under an obligation to maintain so far as possible their claims to representative government and to the standards of human rights established by the international community. We must, so the argument runs, assert those claims firmly even though they are unlikely to receive the sympathetic response of the Chinese Government.
The alternative view is that there is nothing which the United Kingdom can achieve in the face of Chinese intransigence. Our right of audience in the matter will expire after three years; and all the cards are in Chinese hands. If the Chinese refuse to concede what we ask, there are no sanctions available to us, and we will merely be left looking ridiculous. So, the argument proceeds. Meanwhile we forfeit any prospect of at least some minor concessions by agreement.
256
As so often, each view contains a germ of validity which means that we would do well, if possible, to avoid a stark choice between confrontation and surrender.
There are three elements in the situation worth bearing in mind. First, while clearly we have no sanctions which would bring China to her knees, the Chinese Government are not wholly indifferent to the good opinion of the rest of the world, first, because every government likes to be loved—it is a psychological need of those in government, democrats or tyrants, that they want the good opinion of the world public—and, secondly, because China would have much to lose, for example, by losing membership of GATT. China would have much to lose if the United States were to withdraw preferential trading status. While it is true that the American Government have their own agenda in the matter, they are not wholly indifferent to the future of Hong Kong.
The second element is that the Chinese Government are not homogeneous. The messages which have been emerging from the Xinhua News Agency are to the effect that with the ending of negotiations on the constitution, all agreements between China and the United Kingdom are abrogated. But in March Mr. Lu Ping, the director in Beijing of the Hong Kong desk, was saying that the Basic Law is still in place, and he added that some senior Chinese officials did not quite understand the Basic Law—which some have construed as a rebuke for Mr. Zhou, the director of the Xinhua News Agency. At a recent meeting of the National People's Congress, a resolution recommending the abolition of Hong Kong's political structure was firmly squashed.
Attitudes to Britain are not unanimous. Clearly, there are those within Government in China who think of Britain as the colonial power of 150 years ago, still intent on humiliating China. But again and again I speak with British people who have visited China with delegations of various kinds, and in virtually every case they report not only that they met with generous hospitality but that they were questioned as to why Britain does not have a higher profile in China. They would like to see more British books, more British academic delegations and more British companies selling their goods as vigorously as their European and American counterparts. I have no means of knowing whether their comments are justified. I mention it only to suggest that the Chinese Government are not universally anti-British and we would do well in the style of our dealings with China to strengthen the hands of our friends.
The third factor is one which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that Hong Kong's economy is extremely buoyant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said. The GDP per head is now higher than that of the United Kingdom. The Chinese Government are not likely to wish to see that trend reversed. Of course, we should not overrate the importance of Hong Kong in the whole spectrum of Chinese concerns; but Hong Kong, with its present way of life, is likely to be an economic asset to China. The fear expressed by the pro-Beijing press in Hong Kong that the colony would be bled of its assets has proved to

257
be unfounded. The reserves have transpired to be not only what was predicted by the Hong Kong Government but greater than that prediction.
The only sensible conclusion from all this is that we are not condemned to impotence, but that genuine dialogue is likely to achieve more than gesture politics. I suggest three corollaries. First, Mr. Qian Qichen, the Foreign Minister, recently confirmed that the break-down of the constitutional discussions did not preclude co-operation in other matters which a moment ago the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, described as technical, not political. There are a number of areas where patient, detailed negotiation, particularly within the Joint Liaison Group, may be well repaid. An obvious example is the construction of the airport.
Perhaps I may mention a different one. There is a great deal to be done on agreeing what amendments, if any, are needed to the legal system to make it consistent with the Basic Law under which Hong Kong will be ruled after the transfer. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us at the conclusion of the debate what progress is being made in relation to that. But it is encouraging that the Chinese Government consider it important to clarify the law. Clearly, the intention is that the law will be observed.
There is work to be done on the details of land disposal and on the future of the Civil Service and a number of other matters which may never merit a chapter in the history books, but are of great importance to the individuals who are affected by them.
Secondly, there is how we seek to influence China's policy in the field of human rights. No one can pretend that the Chinese Government have a commendable record. The International Society for Human Rights has only this week published a horrifying study of the forced labour system in China. I have never believed that in the international fora where human rights are discussed, we should soften our judgments towards any country because we may have other fish to fry. I hope that we, together with the remainder of the international community, will judge China by the same standards as we would judge anyone else. If the Chinese Government expect any dispensations as a price of concessions in the negotiations, they misunderstand the purpose of international human rights institution instruments.
As to human rights in Hong Kong itself, the Chinese authorities have hardly increased confidence by the 12-year sentence recently passed on Xi Yang, the reporter for the Hong Kong newspaper, the Ming Pao Daily News. That is bound to cast a question mark over the guarantee of future press freedom under the Basic Law.
It is hardly surprising that Miss Anna Wu is seeking to introduce into the Legislative Council her Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Bill, and that a substantial number of members of the council seem to wish to discuss it. I venture no opinion on the merits of the Bill, but I hope that the Governor, who, despite all the arguments about democracy, still appears to have a veto over what Bills are discussed, will reconsider his decision not to permit the Bill to be
258
discussed, particularly in view of the recommendation for a human rights commission in the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee report.
Should we not also address those human rights which lie within our own competence, in particular the matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, as to British citizenship for the special cases which he mentioned?
Finally, there is the future of electoral reform. It is hardly surprising that the Chinese comment that, after 150 years in which the British expressed little enthusiasm for electoral reform in the colony, their Damascus road conversion seems to have come before they leave. But recriminations about the past are academic. Any move forward must be from where we are now.
As the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, pointed out, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, emphasised, it is the people of Hong Kong who will benefit or suffer from any decisions about Hong Kong's constitutional future. I believe that we should be guided by their views as to where their welfare lies. Having accorded them a Legislative Council and sought to make it more representative, surely we should listen to the opinion of the Legislative Council as to whether and how it wishes to see future negotiations.
I believe that all parties in this House wish well to the people of Hong Kong for the future, a future in which we hope to participate. How we translate those good wishes into action must be largely a matter of listening to them.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, we all have reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for this chance to discuss Hong Kong. I suppose it could be said that there is never the right moment to have such a discussion; things in Hong Kong always move on, and that is one of its great virtues. However, surely it must be right that every now and then we should try to stop and take stock of what is happening. It is right that we should do it now when it is only slightly over three years before British administration of Hong Kong comes to an end and, therefore, the end of the story of Britain's largest surviving and historically most successful dependent territory.
There is a useful by-product in having a debate of this kind: it is an opportunity to hear from my noble friend Lady Dunn who has come especially from Hong Kong. She has a unique blend of direct personal experience and wisdom which will be of great benefit to the House. However, that pleasure is tainted by sadness about those who cannot be with us, like Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke.
There are certain specific points on which we can take stock. One of them is arrangements for the Legislative Council. We have come to, or indeed passed, a turning point with the breakdown in negotiations with China on the arrangements for the Legislative Council through 1997. I do not intend to dwell on how we got into that position; I prefer to look ahead to see where we go from here.
The first need is to clear our own minds on the consequences of where we are now. The Chinese have

259
said that if there is no agreement with them and if the proposals now before the Legislative Council, or LegCo, go through—and I think we must assume that that means the present proposals or something like them —then those arrangements will not survive 1997. There will be new elections for a new Legislative Council, in accordance with the Chinese interpretation of what is laid down in the Basic Law. That statement, I believe, needs to be taken seriously. If it is formally confirmed, after the legislation is passed, then it would be wrong to assume that things will somehow be different when it comes to the day in 1997. If so, it will be a great pity that the so-called "through train" does not apply to LegCo in 1997. That "through train" concept was one of the significant and positive achievements in the period immediately following the success of the Joint Declaration in 1984.
Nevertheless, a through train does, after all, have more than one carriage. If the LegCo carriage is not to go through, then there are other carriages which must and should go through. One of those is arrangements for members of the Civil Service. They are a key group in the success of Hong Kong. An enormous amount depends on their skill and knowledge and the commitment that they have always given to Hong Kong. Arrangements badly need to be made to ensure that there is continuity of jobs, and continuity in the people who are doing them through the change of sovereignty in 1997.
The law is another area where much needs to be done. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, just said, a mass of legislation needs to be localised before 1997 so that it can survive; and a mass of international agreements have to be adjusted so that they can survive through 1997. Air service agreements are perhaps just one example among many, but they are very important indeed to the economic prosperity of Hong Kong.
All of that will mean an immense amount of hard work for the Joint Liaison Group that was set up specifically to carry out that task, and whose work, sadly, has been all too bogged down recently in a political quagmire. That cannot be good for the future of Hong Kong.
The airport is another area where there is need for a great deal of hard effort and practical common sense. It is good to see that there is now to be a meeting of the airport committee later this week. The post-1997 Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), and indeed the economy of the whole of southern China, have a great need for that new airport as soon as possible. All of that means, and needs, co-operation with China. Such co-operation is not an optional extra. It is a very real necessity for Hong Kong and for its future.
In the difficult political situation which Hong Kong faces it is fortunate that the economy is doing so well. As always, that is a credit to the energy, initiative and determination of the people of Hong Kong. But it is the phenomenal growth of the economy of southern China that has enabled the people of Hong Kong to use their talents so successfully—to use them, indeed, so successfully that per capita GDP in Hong Kong now exceeds that of the United Kingdom.
260
Tribute should also be paid to the work of successive financial secretaries in Hong Kong. One of the most distinguished of those, Sir John Bramridge, died less than two weeks ago. He served Hong Kong well. The work that he and other financial secretaries did made it possible this year for the present financial secretary, as the noble Baroness the Minister just said, to announce in his budget both expenditure increases and tax decreases. That is surely something for which most finance Ministers around the world would give their eye teeth.
Despite economic success, Hong Kong inevitably faces political strains and difficulties over the next few years. This was always going to be a difficult period. Recent arguments have made it harder. At such a time it will be very important to avoid artificial divisions in Hong Kong society. What matters after all is the interests of Hong Kong as a whole, and of the Hong Kong people as a whole. This should not be a time for withdrawing into rival bastions of those who may be for or against the Hong Kong Government or for or against the Chinese Government. What is needed is the skill and commitment of all those who are capable of bridging the gap between the present Hong Kong Government and China, and capable of doing it for the future of Hong Kong and of its people. What is needed at all levels is contact, not isolation.
Some of those who will be influential in the future of Hong Kong may know little about the detailed administration of Hong Kong. After all, it is not too easy to know. But it is in the interests of all concerned that they should know more. There is a saying from the Chinese classics:
'Those who know don't speak;
Those who speak don't know".
Perhaps it could be adapted to read:
'Those who know can't advise;
Those who advise can't know".
Ways, informal if necessary, should surely be found to make sure that those who give advice to the Chinese Government on the future administration of Hong Kong are well-informed on how the present administration works. Of course, that has to be done in a way that does not undermine the work of the Joint Liaison Group, and in a way that does not do damage to the fact that it is the task of Britain and of the present Hong Kong Government to administer Hong Kong right up to the end of June 1997. But where there is a will, there is always a way. Hong Kong has always been particularly good at finding a way round if the direct route proves to be impassable.
Despite all the difficulties, I remains optimistic about the future of Hong Kong, and about the important economic role that it will continue to play after 1997, to the benefit of the people of Hong Kong and indeed of the whole of China. The economic growth of China—of the Pearl River delta in particular, but also of Shanghai and the Yangtze Valley—will be one of the key economic facts of the next few decades. Hong Kong will have a crucial part to play in all of that.
To get from here to there will not be easy. But we have a very real responsibility to ensure that that process is as smooth as possible. When there are practical things that can be done—for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur referred to the plight of the non-Chinese

261
ethnic minorities in Hong Kong—which may be relatively small but which are enormously important to those who are concerned, then surely we should do them. In everything that we do our guiding star must surely be not the short term, but the medium and long term. We must do as much as we possibly can, wherever possible in co-operation with China, to achieve what is right and beneficial for the people of Hong Kong and for the success of the Hong Kong SAR after 1997.
3.58 p.m
Lord Geddes: My Lords, it is conventional on such occasions to thank the proposer of the Motion for bringing the subject matter to our attention. Even without such conventions, I would—and indeed I do —thank my noble friend Lord Glenarthur most sincerely for a very timely Motion on Hong Kong. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, it is nearly 18 months since we had the last one, and it becomes an increasingly important topic.
I feel like a pupil thorn between two gubernatorial roses. But I am sure that both such outstanding previous governors of Hong Kong will agree with me—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, has already said so—that the paramount issue at stake is the future of Hong Kong's people. That, and that alone, is the subject of overriding importance.
Britain's unique duty and opportunity are to ensure that Hong Kong's prosperity remains intact and that it retains the greatest state of stability that can realistically be achieved. That surely is the only way in which Britain can acquit itself honourably and Hong Kong can look toward life under China's sovereignty with the reasonable hope and expectation of continuity.
In my submission, in this context there are two elements to be examined which for convenience can be called the concrete and the abstract. By the former I mean the practical and predominantly economic matters which make Hong Kong so outstandingly successful —for that is what Hong Kong is: a highly successful international business community. Without such business success it could be said that Hong Kong would revert to being a rocky outcrop. But to continue to be so successful, the environment, particularly for business, must remain stable; and to ensure that, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the freedom of the press must be assured. The safeguards provided by the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law must at all costs be preserved. There is too much at stake to sacrifice them on the altar of temporary political gain.
I turn to what I loosely termed abstract matters. I regret that at this point I must part company with the Government. Of course democracy is the ideal to which we aspire; but I seriously question whether a fully fledged Western-style democracy is either attainable or appropriate for Hong Kong. One could say that in Asia it is an alien concept, and certainly not one that can be imposed overnight. In my opinion, the language and expertise of Westminster cannot be imported into such a different culture without considerable adaptation. Change must be a gradual development from within in order to be of permanent value.
262
The arguments over whether the Governor's proposals for electoral reform accord with the Basic Law and what was agreed in correspondence between the Foreign Secretaries have been so well rehearsed that it would be superfluous to repeat them. It is clear that the Chinese believe strongly that the proposals do not comply with the agreements. That is the essence of the matter—the enormous difference between the literal construction of a document according to English legal principles and the oriental regard to the complete picture, the "spirit" of it. Both sides have now become so firmly entrenched in their positions that I doubt whether the parties can extricate themselves and make progress.
The idealism of the Governor, much though I applaud it, needs to be tempered by realism. Attainable and sustainable targets should be the objective. Only then can the people of Hong Kong acquire the necessary self-confidence and feeling of security, for uncertainty and fear are not good building blocks for stability and prosperity.
At all costs we must avoid undermining what has already been achieved. What was gained for Hong Kong in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law was and is valuable. It should not lightly be put at risk. The degree of its potential fragility and the best—or perhaps I should say worst—example of the breakdown in understanding between the British and Chinese sides is given in paragraph 171 of the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of another place. The whole paragraph refers to an exchange of correspondence between the committee and the present Chinese ambassador in London, Mr. Ma Yuzhen, in February 1994 (incidentally, not in 1993, as printed in the report).
In a letter dated 8th February 1994, Ambassador Ma wrote:
'The return of Hong Kong to China, far from being merely a geographical concept, is to be understood in its full sense. In other words, it is a full recovery of sovereignty consisting of returning sovereignty and administrative power".
In its report, the committee stated that it found those words "even more disturbing" than some contained earlier in the same letter. In my opinion, the committee failed to hoist on board the fact that China insists that full, not partial, control of Hong Kong must be transferred on 1st July 1997 from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China; but—this is the important point and was strongly emphasised by Mr. Lu Ping in his speech in Hong Kong only 12 days ago— China has undertaken that she would then immediately "pass" to Hong Kong all the "rights" specified in the 1984 Joint Declaration as reinforced and expanded in the 1990 Basic Law. Both those documents specify a high degree of local autonomy for Hong Kong for 50 years, including separate legislative, legal, economic, administrative and social systems and the continuance of the "current social and economic system in Hong Kong" and its "lifestyle".
In his speech of 6th May, Mr. Lu Ping stated quite categorically that:
"we have to adopt the policy of letting Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong and allowing Hong Kong to enjoy a high degree of autonomy … as stipulated in the Basic Law. After 1997, Hong Kong will enjoy its own administrative, legislative and judicial powers".

263
It is interesting that he brings up that word "administrative". He continued:
"All daily affairs, except those concerning foreign affairs and national defence, will be managed by Hong Kong itself. In that same speech he went further and stated:
"I foresee that the principle of one country, two systems, will not change not only within 50 years but much longer".
The abstract and concrete elements need to be fused to ensure Hong Kong's future. The reported attitude of some of Hong Kong's business community that business is booming and politics irrelevant is, in my view, potentially dangerous. Business must understand how important it is to get the politics right and politicians need to understand what business needs and wants. The same goals are not enough. They need to work together to achieve them.
I believe that the two factions, contrary to some popular belief, are not totally separable. It is heartening that Mr. Lu Ping said in that same speech of 12 days ago (I thought that I had finished quoting but there is one more quotation to come) that:
"cities like Shanghai can never take the place of Hong Kong because, no matter how developed Shanghai becomes, it will remain socialist. Shanghai will serve the country"—
that is, the People's Republic—
"as a socialist metropolitan, while Hong Kong will play a different role in its capacity as a capitalist Special Administrative Region. We have been repeatedly told by our leaders that Hong Kong shall not be dealt with as we did with Shanghai".
Such statements must be of considerable encourage-ment to Hong Kong. Nevertheless, practical reason must prevail and in that context I endorse Sir Percy Cradock's view, given in evidence before the Select Committee, that failure to pursue a policy of co-operation with China will leave Hong Kong worse off.
I am sure that I am not the only one to have heard the suggestion that trade with China can continue unaffected by the diplomatic impasse. But, equally, good diplomatic relations make better trade relations. We cannot rely on third parties to apply pressure solely on our behalf. Now is not the time for expensive principles or abstract idealism. We should not even consider jeopardising Hong Kong's future by viewing her as an instrument by which to bring about change in China. Hong Kong may lead the way by example; but she cannot be burdened with the responsibility and cost of being the catalyst.
The inestimable value of Hong Kong to China lies in its economy. What China is looking for is an economic but not a political bridge. We have three years left to get it right and we cannot depend upon or look to anyone else to do it for us. Without doubt it is an important element of the process that as much as possible of the rest of the world be "on side", not least to help ensure that whatever is achieved now is preserved. It is up to us to put a workable and acceptable framework in place which has the capability to survive the handover and allow business to continue to flourish under both our and the Chinese regime. Only thus can we fulfil our duty towards Hong Kong, to whom our moral responsibility extends far beyond midnight on 30th June 1997.
It is to me of the greatest sadness that political relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China are at their lowest ebb for three years. Rightly or wrongly, Beijing is thoroughly disillusioned
264
with what it regards as the antics of Her Majesty's and Hong Kong's Government. In my limited experience of China, and particularly of Hong Kong, it is quite extraordinarily difficult for an occidental mind to understand that of an oriental, and vice versa. It is, at the very minimum, of immense sadness that there appears to exist a diplomatic impasse at the top level. By quiet diplomacy, and particularly that of listening, it just may be possible to break that impasse. But if it is not, please allow the lower political and diplomatic levels to speak with each other just as all business levels have done so successfully.
4.12 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I too thank: the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for introducing the Motion. It is indeed most timely and he made an excellent speech. I might add that he was an extremely successful Minister responsible for Hong Kong and it was his good work which reopened negotiations with the Vietnamese resulting eventually in the return of Vietnamese boat people to Vietnam. Like previous speakers I want to begin by laying some stress on the economy of Hong Kong because it is such good news in a picture too often dominated by bad news on the political side. Inevitably I shall deal with that.
To most people in Hong Kong, as with most people here, it is the economy—their livelihood—which matters most. The continuing economic success of Hong Kong is closely bound up with the even greater success, indeed staggering growth, created in China by Deng Xiaoping's policy of opening to the West and general economic liberalisation. Such growth in a country as vast and disparate as China is bound to lead, from time to time, to problems. It may be that such problems are appearing at this time. But the general thrust of Deng Xiaoping's policy of reform seems now to be irreversible. Moreover, the rising tide of economic activity in China has been accompanied by the great swell of increasing trade throughout the western Pacific. Hong Kong and its people are well placed and likely to continue to prosper from both those aspects.
I am glad that the noble Baroness did not think that the prosperity of Hong Kong would be affected by present political problems. That is indeed good news. The report of the Foreign Affairs Committee referred to the,
"seriousness of the breakdown in negotiations and the probability of the disbanding of the Legislative Council in 1997".
I venture to add that, assuming the proposals before the Legislative Council are passed, the council's disbanding in 1997 is not so much a probability as a certainty. It is as well therefore to face squarely what that implies. It is that in 1997 things will simply be managed according to the decision of the National People's Congress of 4th April 1990 attached to the Basic Law; that is to say, the chief executive of the SAR will be responsible for forming the new government and for elections to a new Legislative Council. The proportion of seats allocated to geographic and functional constituencies and to persons returned by an election committee will be as set out in the Basic Law. But the details of the elections, about which we have been negotiating for so long, will be

265
settled by him without further reference to us. In other words, failure to agree in the negotiations means that China will proceed unilaterally in 1997 just as we are preparing to proceed unilaterally this year. That is sad. Instead of a Sino-British relationship that would have favoured quiet dialogue over the points of detail that the change in sovereignty gives rise to, one must expect a period during which there is all too little contact, all the details being worked out without reference to us. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the planning processes for the SAR are already starting in the PWC; that is, the preliminary working party of the Preparatory Committee.
The prospect now is two-and-a-half years of uncertainty, speculation and rumour—thoroughly undesirable in itself and daunting to say the least to the public services that must carry the work of administration through to the new government of the SAR? I was not surprised that my noble friend Lord Wilson, a previous Governor like myself, also focused on the situation of the public services. Those in Hong Kong are, in my experience, second to none and their members, like ours, are essentially apolitical. The work that they do and the professionalism with which they do it are an invaluable asset to the peace of mind of people in Hong Kong and to the businessmen and investors who supply the motor for the territory's prosperity and livelihood.
Because the breakdown of negotiations over elections means there will be no "through train" in the legislature, it is upon the public services that the public and the new government must rely to preserve the necessary continuity. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will say what the Government are doing to maintain the morale and the confidence of those services. I hope that she will also explain to what extent the deep expertise of the members of those services is being made available to the preliminary working party of the Preparatory Committee where no doubt it will be badly needed. I hope she will be able to deny a report I have had that members of the public services have been forbidden from having any contact with the committee.
The Joint Declaration left many points of detail to be settled by discussion, and in the comparatively benign atmosphere of 1984 that was a reasonable expectation. Indeed, a certain amount was settled at that time. Then came Tiananmen. Understandable reaction in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom made the Chinese leaders profoundly suspicious of British intentions, and the benign attitude stopped dead. My noble friend Lord Wilson took the shock of the new and desperately disappointing situation. But after a pause, a dialogue re-commenced—with some results and an expectation of more. But because of the suspicion in Peking, the strongly awakened fears in Hong Kong, and the generally tense situation, it was a time when extreme caution was called for in any move we made.
I remember that when I left for Hong Kong my predecessor's parting words to me were, "Murray, remember, in Hong Kong, if you move a stone you never will know what will come out from underneath it." That could well be written above the desk of any
266
new Governor. The fact was that at that time, if we were to maintain a relationship with China that would enable us to agree with them the practical details relevant to the transfer of sovereignty so necessary for the well-being of Hong Kong, we had to proceed with extreme caution. Instead in October 1992 this whole high-profile, constitutional move, against Chinese objections, was made—if not, legally speaking, in breach of previous agreements, near enough to make the Chinese feel a deliberate trick had been played on them.
The last time we debated this issue in December 1992, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, described what had been done as too clever by half. That is about right. I would say that, however sincerely the spirit in which this move was made, however good the intentions, it has proved a very serious mistake. I have already described how alternative arrangements will be made by the new chief executive for elections without reference to us. Our actions, which are likely to achieve that result, may be honourable in intention and acceptable in parliamentary terms but they seem unlikely to do the people of Hong Kong any good. We shall have raised their expectations to a level that we are unable to realise for them. But there are other matters with an immediate and practical implication for the administration of the territory and livelihood of the people. In fact, there is a long list of things awaiting settlement with the Joint Liaison Group if there is not to be uncertainty or a vacuum in 1997. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will let us know how things are progressing in the Joint Liaison Group with regard to the airport and container terminal, franchises straddling 1997, adaptation of laws and so on. I realise that some progress has been made, and indeed is being made now, but it is small in terms of what is needed. It is like approaching Becher's Brook the first time round. To some extent this slow and frustrating progress is due to bad relations over the electoral issues. While those electoral issues appear insoluble at present it does not mean that we cannot make progress over practical issues.
I am critical of the manner in which the attempted reforms have been approached at this time. I realise that I am out of date, and I know that there is considerable support for the reforms in Hong Kong. But I wonder whether that support is not more a tribute to Chris Patten's personal, deserved popularity and his ability as a communicator; and perhaps, in some part, to an assumption that the British Government can deliver on the expectations they have encouraged him to raise. Moreover, there is naturally a closing of ranks behind a popular and sincere Governor under such scurrilous attack from Chinese officials and media. I wonder whether the implications of what is being done now for what will follow in 1997 are fully realised. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend Lady Dunn has to say. I fear that there may be a mood of disillusionment with Britain and with the British Government when it becomes apparent that all these activities on the constitutional front, sadly, have so little practical content for the people of Hong Kong. I hope

267
my noble friend Lady Dunn will say that that is rubbish and that there is full confidence in the British Government in Hong Kong.
The buoyant economy and the prospect of that continuing in Hong Kong and China must help to keep up confidence among the people. They are indeed prospering, and I only hope that the political considerations will not be allowed to interfere with that, as indeed I think they will not. There was an excellent speech by Lu Ping, from which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, quoted, which I think is very relevant to Hong Kong's future. He said:
"I would like to stress that the value of Hong Kong to China has been and will be its economic value. Hong Kong has always been an economic city, never a political city. If you ask anyone in the street what he or she is most concerned with, I bet over 90 per cent. will say it's their livelihood.
It is precisely on the basis of Hong Kong's economic value that China formulates its present policy towards Hong Kong. Of course there are always a handful who are so naive to think that they can turn Hong Kong into a political city in order to influence the mainland in the sense of politics. If that were the case, Hong Kong would be of negative value instead of positive value to China. This is disastrous for Hong Kong".
We should take that speech very seriously. It is by taking account of these facts of life in the unique and by no means comfortable situation of Hong Kong that over the years it has survived and prospered.
Chris Patten made exactly the same point about the limitations that apply to Hong Kong's freedom for political manoeuvre in his first speech to the Legislative Council in October 1992. After explaining his own personal adherence to democratic principles, he said:
"I bring those opinions to the task of governing Hong Kong, where the ink of international agreements and the implacable realities of history, geography and economics shape and determine the way in which… views can be applied. That is a fact well understood by men and women in this Territory, better understood by them perhaps than by many … who would like the people of Hong Kong to be the heroic pawns of their own doubtless well meaning preconceptions".
That was brilliantly said by Chris Patten, like so many things he says. My fear is that Hong Kong people are in danger of becoming "heroic pawns" in Sino-British quarrels. In particular, on this electoral issue, it has cost quite enough already. Now the two governments should concentrate on solving as many as possible of the practical business issues that will remove other uncertainties about the transition. That should have been our priority from the outset. It is not too late to revert to it to the great benefit of this wonderful city and its people.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, it appears that whenever we have a debate on Hong Kong the tenor is that Hong Kong is a success story, but there is always a "but". This seems to be the case again today. As we have heard, and no doubt as we shall hear again, the success story is evident and astonishing. There is an annual and forecast growth of between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent.; the gross domestic product is higher per head than in this country; it has Asia's largest stock market; and it has the world's largest container port. Hong Kong remains the place of choice from which to do business in the Far East.
268
That somewhat erratic barometer of confidence, the Hang Seng Index, more than doubled during the year following Mr. Patten's electoral proposals. If nothing else, that must say something about whether these proposals were quite so damaging as some of his critics have claimed.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for initiating this debate today because, as he said, this is an opportunity to remind ourselves of the many points which still remain outstanding and which have to be decided before the handover in 1997. China's internal problems, whether of inflation, mass unemployment or corruption, are of the utmost concern to Hong Kong, given the importance of trade with China to Hong Kong's economy. The question of where power lies now and where power will lie in three years' time is also extremely important, as is whether the focus will be on stability, or on reform, or on a form of government coalition rather than a change of dynasty.
Given the tensions which are apparent now, or may become apparent soon, it is all the more disappointing that the disagreement with China over the Governor's electoral reform proposals has been seized on by the Government of the People's Republic of China as an excuse to go into slow gear over other and unrelated matters—matters which will affect the everyday lives of Hong Kong citizens and which are as much in China's interests to resolve as in Hong Kong's.
From high profile projects such as the new airport and its associated rail link and the enlargement of Hong Kong's container terminal, to the more mundane details that need to be thrashed out by the Joint liaison Group, these are all either at stop or at very slow ahead. There are other matters that come in that group which still need resolution, as many noble Lords have said, notably the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, who mentioned, for example, the conditions of service and pensions in the Civil Service. Other matters include the contracts which straddle 1997, the local legislative framework, passport and immigration issues such as the provision of visa-free travel for special autonomous region passport holders and, vitally of course, the issue of the court of final appeal in Hong Kong. Progress in these matters is essential if the 1997 deadline is to be met. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to let us know whether progress is being made in accelerating the work of the Joint Liaison Group.
Under the terms of the Joint Declaration, China has a responsibility to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government to ensure a smooth and effective transfer of power. The current delaying and blocking tactics are not only damaging to Hong Kong's best interests but are effectively in breach of the Joint Declaration. As my noble friend Lord Glenarthur went on to say, there is also an understandable anxiety in Hong Kong over the question of human rights and their effective implementation after 1997.
The Joint Declaration states that UN covenants and civil and political rights will apply in Hong Kong. It appears that by signing the Joint Declaration, China is committed to full enforcement of these international

269
covenants. Given their abysmal record on human rights in Tibet in particular, this commitment might seem to offer some comfort.
But the position at the moment is that China is not a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights. If China has not ratified these covenants before 1997, how will it meet the commitments to which it put its name in 1984? Can my noble friend the Minister please clarify what the Government believe China's obligations are and say whether they are satisfied that they will in fact meet Hong Kong's anxieties on human rights?
These are but a few of the matters which affect Hong Kong and which need decision before 1997 so that on 1st July we will transfer a Hong Kong which is in good economic shape—and all indications are that this will certainly be the case —but also a Hong Kong which will stand up with confidence in its new role as the special autonomous region, with its separate system so painstakingly negotiated in the Joint Declaration—a Hong Kong which is confident in its institutions, administration, legal system, police force and civil service.
It is in that context that I would like to touch briefly on the political problem. I have no intention of rehashing the old arguments with which we are now so familiar, except to mention that it seems doubtful that the Chinese Government entered negotiations on electoral reform with any intention to negotiate anything other than a complete withdrawal of these proposals or delay. That is certainly the case when we look at the papers and with hindsight. The fact is that we are where we are: the Governor's electoral proposals are being considered by LegCo, while the Government of the People's Republic of China have announced their intention to dismantle the LegCo elected under these proposals and to start all over again.
Here I have to differ with my noble friend Lord Geddes. I believe that the best safeguard against such dismantling would be a fully elected LegCo. The more broadly based and representative LegCo is, surely the more difficult it would be for China to tear it down. Indeed, the present LegCo, with its unhappy cocktail of appointed members, special interest members and only a small number of directly elected members, is part of the problem, not part of the solution. I very much hope that it will not eviscerate the present proposals which are before it. After all, these proposals have a great deal of support in Hong Kong. But accepting that we must stick to the agreement which we have with China on electoral procedure, it is reassuring to know that the Governor's proposals have Her Majesty's Government's full support.
I find it odd to hear still the patronising argument that Hong Kong's business is business, as if Tiananmen Square never happened—a regrettable but unfortunate lapse. Certainly Hong Kong's phenomenal success has been built on the energy and acumen of its business community. But what is sometimes forgotten is how much that success owes to the stability of Hong Kong under Britain, to the rule of law, to an independent
270
judiciary, an uncorrupt police force and a dedicated and impartial Civil Service. They have all contributed hugely to Hong Kong's achievement.
Her Majesty's Government's position on the question of what sort of representative rule they will leave behind them is a no-win situation. Whatever they decide, they are bound to be criticised by one side or the other. But I believe that their current position has been consistent both with the Joint Declaration and with their commitment to Hong Kong.
Hong Kong people, all of them, have created one of the most dynamic and successful societies in the world. Is it not almost grotesque that they should be thought unfit to decide who should represent them, who should enact their laws? In 1991 President Kennedy in his inaugural address said:
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country".
A similar question might well be put to those in Hong Kong and elsewhere who by their activities make Hong Kong's future success and security that much more difficult to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, quoted a Chinese dictum:
'Those who know don't speak;
Those who speak don't know".
I feel that the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, will confound that, and I very much look forward to hearing what she has to say.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Dunn: My Lords, since the debate in the House on 9th December 1991 about HMG's package of electoral proposals for Hong Kong, the second and final part of the electoral Bill has been introduced into the Hong Kong Legislative Council. Members are studying the provisions in detail, responsibly and sensitively. They will judge the wishes of Hong Kong people. They will judge where their best interests lie. I have no doubt that when the package passes finally through the Legislative Council it will represent a broad community consensus. I hope that both the British and Chinese Governments will accept that outcome.
It has been profoundly sad and disappointing to all of us in Hong Kong that it has not been possible for Britain and China to reach agreement on that issue. It is a great tribute to the restraint and perseverance of the Hong Kong people that over the past two years they have not allowed the noisy and debilitating row between the present and future sovereigns to distract them from building a future for themselves as part of China.
Hong Kong's economy grew by 5.5 per cent. in 1993. It is forecast to grow by the same amount again this year. We now represent about one-quarter of China's economy. We account for two-thirds of her foreign exchange. We have a large stake in China's spectacular transformation. China has a large stake in Hong Kong's continuing economic success.
Opinions will vary on where the fault lies in the highly public dispute between Britain and China. I hope that this debate will not seek to apportion blame. History will no doubt judge the two governments with the benefit of hindsight. But criticisms of the past do not

271
further Hong Kong's interests in the future, which I know is the aim of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur in moving this timely Motion. One country, two systems is a unique concept. The transfer of sovereignty is a unique enterprise. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said, no one ever expected that the long transition would be trouble free. It has not proved to be, but disagreement over some things is no reason why Britain and China should co-operate on nothing. Hong Kong people wish fervently to see a return to a co-operative relationship between Britain and China and a determined effort made by the two governments to complete the tasks that still need to be accomplished to prepare Hong Kong for the transfer of sovereignty.
Your Lordships will be aware—it was referred to by previous speakers—that China has set up a preliminary working committee. It is to advise her on the preparatory tasks necessary for the resumption of sovereignty. China has also appointed members of the Hong Kong community as Hong Kong affairs advisers. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, is entirely right that we should and must have contacts with those people. He will be reassured to know that some of those advisers to China serve on many advisory boards and committees set up by the Hong Kong Government. A few are members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. One of them is a member of the Hong Kong Executive Council. The Hong Kong Government have made it very clear that they would be pleased to provide those advisers with the information that they require in the same way as they provide information for other groups. But these bodies cannot fulfil the responsibilities which can only be discharged by the two sovereign Governments.
For example, the Joint Declaration speaks of freedom of travel and explains broadly how that will be protected. But Hong Kong people need to know now precisely who will enjoy a right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997. And they need reassurance that the visa-free access to other countries that they currently enjoy in travelling around the world will endure beyond 1997.
The Joint Declaration allows Hong Kong's existing laws to continue after the transfer of sovereignty. But some 200 of our laws were made by Order in Council. These still need to be re-enacted locally in a form that will endure under Chinese sovereignty. We need also to adapt our own 600 or so ordinances in ways that are compatible with the Chinese Basic Law. If we cannot complete that work before 30th June 1997, we will be left with damaging gaps in the law.
Likewise, HMG have extended to us hundreds of multilateral international agreements, in areas as diverse as merchant shipping, civil aviation, customs co-operation and private international law. We need to ensure that these will remain in force beyond 1997 and that Hong Kong will remain firmly locked into the network of international, commercial and financial arrangements governing world trade. We must also complete a long programme of bilateral treaty negotiations in a wide range of fields, from air services and extradition to the promotion and the protection of investments.
272
Above all, Hong Kong's fine body of civil servants needs to be reassured about its future. As the noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn and Lord MacLehose, have said, the professionalism and efficiency of our civil servants are a key factor in Hong Kong's success. They are one of the most vital elements of continuity to see us through and beyond 1997.
All these are important matters which can be: resolved only by the two sovereign Governments. And all this was foreseen by the architects of the Joint Declaration who agreed that the need for closer co-operation in the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group would be intensified during the run-up to 1997. I appeal to the two Governments to free up the log-jam that the political dispute has created in other areas by resuming and intensifying their co-operation.
Britain has done an immense amount to help Hong Kong prepare for life after 1997 when the constitutional ties to the United Kingdom will finally be cut. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, that I and many in Hong Kong pay tribute to the way in which the British Government have fostered in Hong Kong respect for the rule of law, clearly defining the relationship between the governing and the governed, without which Hong Kong could not have developed into the modern, dynamic, civilised society which I am proud to call my home. Hong Kong people expect the British Government to remain fully responsible and effective for the administration of Hong Kong until 30th June 1997. Mr. Patten is vigorously and honourably fulfilling that obligation.
But Hong Kong people also understand that they need to develop a mutually comfortable relationship with their future sovereign. They accept that that task lies largely in their own hands. And that task must begin now. Hong Kong businessmen have already demon-strated how a mutually beneficial relationship can be developed with China. I have every confidence that throughout Hong Kong all people have the desire and the capacity to develop a healthy and trusting relationship with their future sovereign.
The point that I want to make is this: just as daylight does not follow night without a dawn and sunrise, so the smooth transfer of sovereignty requires a period of adjustment. The overriding objective in these final years of British rule must be a seamless transition in 1997.
To achieve it requires two things. First, it requires putting in place the structures and arrangements of which I spoke earlier. This can only be done by the two sovereign Governments through close co-operation. Secondly, it requires a mutually comfortable working relationship between Hong Kong people and their future sovereign; and this can only be brought about by Hong Kong people themselves.
Despite all the setbacks, I remain fundamentally optimistic about Hong Kong's future. I am optimistic because the people of Hong Kong have shown in the past decades not only great courage, not only great resilience, not only great flexibility, but they have shown an ability to excel in a way which recognises their broader social responsibilities.
Several noble Lords have already alluded to the fact that Hong Kong's GDP per capita is now more than

273
18,000 US dollars a year—higher even than that of the United Kingdom. When the Hong Kong special administrative region comes into being in 1997, it could have as much as 50 billion US dollars from the fiscal reserves, the money set aside in a special fund from land sales and the Exchange Fund.
But we are a community which believes in building more than just a good bank balance for future generations. We have increased by seven times the number of students in tertiary education in the past 20 years. All our social and health indicators are better than in most OECD countries.
In the 10 years since the Joint Declaration set out for us the framework for our future as part of China, we have set about building the economic and social foundations of that future with a sense of pride, with responsibility and with great vigour. My Lords, you cannot be anything but optimistic about the future of a community that has achieved so much.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House greatly welcomes the participation in today's debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. She speaks with eloquence and authority on behalf of all the people of Hong Kong and brings to our debate a depth of knowledge and experience which few others can match—certainly to which I cannot possibly aspire.
I have been following the events in Hong Kong over recent years closely. I have many family links with that great city and enormous admiration for its people. I have visited it many times. I know that we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for providing us with the opportunity of this debate.
I have also been to China, first with the late Sir John Keswick, whom many of your Lordships knew. Your Lordships will recognise that he was a great friend of China who understood and had great affection for its people. On our tour we witnessed the first flowerings of Deng Xiaoping's reforms among the farmers of Sechzuan. Twelve years after that visit, I had the opportunity on my last visit to China, to have a look at the progress of the building of the new China bicycle factory, a vast and well managed enterprise, with products of the highest quality and very latest design which are shipped to worldwide markets. The difference between those two extremes in that period is a monument to Deng's achievement. What has happened in China is amazing.
Deng Xiaoping has shown himself to be both a visionary and a realist who has released the enormous energies and skills of his people to make them the engine of economic growth. Inevitably, the process of building up new more market-oriented enterprises and of encouraging the creation of a multiplicity of small businesses is not without its problems, strains and stresses. It is hardly surprising that difficulties are being encountered, some of which are quite serious and to some of which the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, alluded briefly. However, the overall transformation in China has been spectacular.
274
Deng has shown China the way to economic development and has brought that great country with its many millions of citizens into the mainstream of international life. He aims, so it is said, to create in China a socialist market economy. In doing so, he is determined that Hong Kong (even though it is seen to be part of China) shall retain its free market capitalism. That was further underlined by Lu Ping in the speech from which my noble friend Lord Geddes gave us a number of quotations. During his recent visit to Hong Kong, Lu Ping said that the capitalist system could last longer than the 50 years guaranteed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. China sees Hong Kong as a bridge across which international investment and expertise will flow to support China's continuing economic growth. Therefore, there is no wish to impose socialism on Hong Kong. Hong Kong's capitalism is recognised and accepted. The concept of "one country-two systems" stems from the pragmatic acceptance of harsh reality. Hong Kong has a vital role to play in the economic development of China. In Deng's view, the people of Hong Kong are fully capable of running their own affairs and so long as they do not seek to undermine Peking's ways of doing things—which in itself would be an act of the greatest folly—the people of Hong Kong should be encouraged to continue and to add further chapters to their economic success story.
That is good so far as it goes. But in my view, it misses out a crucial ingredient in the make-up of Hong Kong's remarkable performance. Hong Kong is not solely a capitalist system. It is not only about money making. As the noble Baroness has just reminded us and underlined, it is also a free society. It is in no small way because of that very freedom that capitalism has flourished. For capitalism to continue to the benefit of China, the institutions of a free society need to be in place. They do not have to be precisely on the Westminster model and, in that regard, I distance myself from the strictures of my noble friend Lord Geddes. They need to be devised by the people of Hong Kong for Hong Kong, taking into account the environment in which they will exist in the future after 1997.
But that the institutions need to be there is fully recognised, and that is clearly understood by the Governor. I have found—as I am sure have other noble Lords—greatly offensive the sustained personal abuse to which the Governor has been subjected. I know that it does him no harm but it seems to me to be very short sighted. It certainly demeans the standing and stature of a great state like China.
As Governor Patten said, there is a clear need for those institutions. That was well expressed in his October 1992 speech which was quoted by my noble friend Lady Thatcher in the debate on 9th December 1992. It bears repetition and I shall quote a small part of it. The Governor said:
"Without the rule of law, buttressed by democratic institutions, investors are left unprotected. Without an independent Judiciary enforcing laws democratically enacted, businesses will be vulnerable to arbitrary political decisions taken on a whim—a sure recipe for a collapse in confidence and a powerful deterrent to investors from overseas".
I feel sure that businessmen everywhere must understand the truth of those statements.

275
Nothing of what is being proposed in the way of development of institutions in Hong Kong constitutes any threat to China; rather the reverse. The proper representation of the people provides a safety valve for the redress of grievances and a safeguard against the curse of corruption. Corruption is already widespread in China and the Administration are doing their level best to tackle it. It must not spread into and infect Hong Kong. That is why those institutions are so critically important. That is what businessmen everywhere should openly and strongly support. It is to provide the best possible environment within which Hong Kong's free market capitalist system is able to continue long after 1997 that so much patient and agonising effort is being made by the Governor and the British Government.
The Ministers involved and the Governor are people of integrity and goodwill. They have a direct responsibility for Hong Kong. For the discharge of that responsibility they are, until 1997, accountable to this Parliament. They share a sincere and deep desire that Hong Kong, when it is handed back, will prove to be of real and lasting benefit to China and its leaders. Is it too much to hope that, having registered their strongly held objections to the Governor's proposals in some respect, the Chinese negotiators will now return to the table and help to ensure that Deng's great vision of "one country-two systems" becomes a reality?
5.06 p.m.
The Earl of Cromer: My Lords, with the very notable exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, I am perhaps the only member of your Lordships' House to have spent the majority of my life living in East Asia, the past 20 years in Hong Kong.
Most countries in post-colonial Asia have chosen political systems which have suited their own requirements and with very few exceptions, no country has elected to adopt a true Westminster-style democratic system. Most of these peoples do not have long traditions of democracy or in some cases what we would consider to be respect for the individual's rights. In general their loyalty is to the community and to the family.
An individual is expected to subordinate his own views to the general well-being of the many. Most citizens of East Asia consider the price that they pay in the form of political constraints to be amply justified by the stability that their system gives them and the tangible economic benefits which they receive from their own labours.
Of the Asian tigers, Hong Kong is of course the finest example. For most of the past 150 years, Hong Kong has been free to grow under a benevolent hands-off colonial administration. There we have created a monument to capitalism in Asia, a monument of which my forefather Captain Charles Elliot, the founder of Hong Kong, would indeed be proud; a successful city state unparalleled in modern history.
It is my view, and a view I would add that is shared by much of the community in Hong Kong, that Her Majesty's Government have embarked on a policy in Hong Kong that is seriously flawed. It is a policy that is aiming to bring to Hong Kong a political system which,
276
if other East Asian countries are anything to go by, may not ultimately be compatible with Hong Kong's aspirations. In its proposed form, it is moreover a system which has been manifestly rejected by the nation which will resume sovereignty for Hong Kong on 1st July 1997.
It is also a policy which flies in the face of an immensely painstaking and ultimately highly successful series of negotiations whose planning commenced in 1979 and which led to the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984, an agreement praised at the time by the United Nations Secretary-General as:
"one of the most outstanding examples of quiet diplomacy in contemporary diplomatic relations".
This policy was virtually guaranteed to produce a violent reaction from the Chinese. It was only after a series of very hard negotiations in 1990 that the Government were able to persuade the Chinese to accept a progressively improved constitutional framework leading to half the legislature being directly elected by 2003.
There has been criticism that these negotiations did not achieve enough, and this is clearly the view of the Government today. The view, however, of the: Foreign Office at the time was that they were down to the wire and no further concessions could have been extracted from the Chinese. The depth of resistance met by the latest package of reforms does tend to bear out that the Chinese had already gone as far as they could have countenanced.
Why, one should ask, have we put at risk a relationship with the world's most populous nation in order to offer something to the people of Hong Kong that is not within our power to deliver?
Within just three months of his arrival in Hong Kong, the new Governor had introduced his democratic reform package claiming that there was a "clear wish" for further movement towards democracy. No one has yet been able to provide any evidence that there was any such clear wish among the great majority of the people of Hong Kong. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord: Shawcross, told the House:
"Only 22 per cent. of the electorate took the trouble to vote in the 1991 election—a rather feeble demonstration for democracy which is said suddenly to exist".—[Official Report, 9/12/92: col. 229.]
Certainly there has been some political awakening in the territory over the past few years and a small number of people have turned up the political volume, but there is no evidence that the mass of Hong Kong people are behind that movement. Indeed, with considerable foresight, the late Lord Sharp told this House on 9th December 1992 (at col. 215 of Hansard) that,
"the Governor is not on as firm a ground as he may think in considering that his proposals are reflecting public opinion."
What Hong Kong people want is prosperity, not democracy, unless they can have both. But there is no choice here. The Hong Kong Chinese chairman of Hong Kong's influential Business and Professional Federation said:
"To run the risk of developing a political structure which will be dismantled in 1997 is just not acceptable to us. We should now be proceeding full-steam on a smooth transition —and this requires close cooperation between the two governments instead of a major confrontation as we have on our hands".

277
Concern must be expressed at the methods adopted by the British Government in their dealings with the Chinese Government. I have spent much of the past 20 years negotiating business transactions with organisa-tions in China. The Chinese have perfected the art of negotiation and are prepared patiently to enter into discussions which can stretch for months or years but ultimately they will only use confrontation when they no longer believe in the good faith of the other party.
The British side has now chosen a path that has led to confrontation. The Government have been at pains to play down that aspect, but the fact remains that government policy has led to polarisation with the Chinese stance frozen at a time when they hold the dominant position. In negotiations with the Chinese, defiance is always the tempting, easy route. But it only leads to intractable positions and a raising of the temperature all around. To quote the words of Sir Percy Cradock, one of the architects of the Joint Declaration:
"To be defiant at the expense of a third party, particularly one to whom we stood in a position of trust, as with Hong Kong, was … an inexcusable self-indulgence".
The Chinese Government's view, rightly or wrongly, is that Britain is tinkering with China's sovereign rights in Hong Kong as well as contravening the Joint Declaration, the Basic Law and the 1990 exchange of letters between the Foreign Ministers. When faced with provocation of that kind China will consider that it has every right to roll back the promises of autonomy to which it had earlier agreed. Although the British Government have consistently taken the line that they have not contravened the Joint Declaration in either word or spirit, it is to be noted that this is not the view of the Hong Kong LegCo. On 4th May, LegCo passed a unanimous motion calling on both China and Britain to stop violating the Joint Declaration.
At this time it is the Government's intention to press ahead with democratic reforms in Hong Kong in the face of China's demands that Britain returns to the agreements already reached. That dangerous strategy is ensuring that after China resumes sovereignty over Hong Kong it will be approaching the territory with grave suspicions that Hong Kong could become a hotbed of subversion bent on the spread of westernised democratic ideas throughout southern China and thus posing a risk to the stability of the entire nation.
The concessions won by Britain which assure Hong Kong's future under the one country-two systems policy will then be jeopardised. Britain's unilateral actions on political reform will provide China with the perfect excuse to install a completely different system from what was agreed in the 1984 Joint Declaration.
With China's economy on track to becoming one of the largest in the world over the next decade or two, it must be in Britain's interests to recover our position of trust with the Chinese Government. Now is the time for us to move as close as we can to the Chinese Government so that we can help guide them to overcome their occasionally fractious, outwardly suspicious nature, as they become more influential in the international brotherhood of nations.
278
The rapid expansion of China's trade with the outside world has whetted the appetite of the international business community. I was taken aback to be told by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Peking only a few months ago that it would be irrelevant if the present policy should lead to British firms losing opportunities in China. When I queried him on this, he stated categorically that British commercial interests in China were not material in the context of the current British policy in Hong Kong.
We are now faced with the dismal reality that China has set up a provisional working committee of Hong Kong and Chinese dignitaries charged with the responsibility of preparing Hong Kong for 1997. That is, arguably, in contravention of the Joint Declaration and appears to act with little consultation with the Hong Kong Government. It is regrettable that the Chinese Government have had to resort to such measures as it further reduces any possibility of co-operation between the Government and Peking.
On a recent visit to Hong Kong, the Director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, Peking's most senior official concerned with Hong Kong matters, did not even bother to try to see the Governor. An editorial in Hong Kong's respected South China Morning Post recently summed up the general Hong Kong attitude to its Governor under the headline "Hong Kong's Interests Neglected", by stating that:
"while Chris Patten plays political games to keep himself in the public eye and upstage [the director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office], the majority wish he would buckle down to practical governing instead".
China's flood of insults and invective previously aimed at the Governor have now given way to a certain ennui; the imperialists are behaving just as they did in the history books. We have become a side-show, seen by Peking as untrustworthy and as a subject of bemusement among the Hong Kong Chinese, most of whom are aligning themselves with the Peking Government. They are bemused because they cannot understand why Britain is so strenuously arguing for something that the Chinese have no intention of conceding.
I wonder to which gallery the Government and the Hong Kong Governor are playing? Is it the international community, which includes those in this country, which can be easily brought to applaud the actions of a government intent on standing up to a vast communist ogre replete with its security organs and its labour camps? Or is it genuinely concerned with the future welfare of the people of Hong Kong? If the latter, then there is a very real risk that a system will be installed that is wanted neither by the people of Hong Kong nor by Peking. The 1995 elections will thus be held under unprecedented pressure from Peking and the structure could then be undone by a stroke of the pen in 1997. That will then leave Hong Kong in a dramatically worse state than would have been the case if we had adhered to the agreement achieved by the Foreign Office negotiating team in 1990. That will, in the words of Sir Percy Cradock, be
"a tragedy, the greater for being avoidable".
One of our previous ambassadors to Peking has conjured up the image of the Governor becoming a kind

279
of irrelevance, a small show being played energetically on the beach while the waves come in behind him. After 150 years of British administration, we have a right to be proud of what Britain and the Hong Kong Chinese created out of a barren rock. Our last significant colonial possession has turned out to be our most successful. What a dismal shame it will be if we somehow manage to get it wrong just as the curtain falls.
Captain Charles Elliot, I am sure, would not be pleased.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I should also like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for today's most timely debate. I make no claim to be an expert on Hong Kong, least of all this afternoon with so many speakers on these Benches—and, indeed, throughout your Lordships' House—whose knowledge and wisdom about the colony is quite unrivalled. Their understanding of the human dimension, of the thrust and individuality of the people of Hong Kong and the appreciation of the desires and ambitions of the Chinese Government both today, and in the coming years as the next generation come to power in Beijing, are based on years of hands-on experience, study and analysis. I shall follow the debate with the greatest of interest and I am only sorry that a long-standing engagement may prevent me from hearing the final contributions today.
I have followed with interest, and some personal misgivings, the thrust of political development in Hong Kong over recent months driven by the initiatives of the present Governor and of course by Her Majesty's Government. These may be right; they are certainly laudable; but are they timely? Are they in the best interests of a peaceful transition? For those with commercial interests in Hong Kong—now and after 1997 —it must be difficult to decide how strongly and openly to support the Governor's intentions. What might this do to their longer term business prospects inside China after 1997?
But for me there are two further questions which strike me even more sharply. The first is: will the run-up to transition in June 1997 be completed without any shedding of blood, any uprising, any unrest, or even worries about internal security? My second question is: will the agreement to allow Hong Kong special status for the next 50 years enable its inhabitants to enjoy ever higher standards of living ahead of other parts of China throughout those next five decades? For me these two questions are very much interlinked. Much will depend on attitudes in Peking, and by how much (in support of their own political objectives and beliefs) the Chinese Government will be tempted to undermine or weaken economic prosperity and stability in Hong Kong.
Until two or three years ago there seemed to be a very favourable and shared view about Hong Kong's future. Investors (and not least the Chinese themselves) kept pouring money into developments in Hong Kong long after there could be any prospect of achieving a full return on their capital, or borrowings, before mid-1997. They and their bankers clearly took a positive view about the longer term, but why? One reason must have been that all concerned felt confident that the regime in
280
Peking, however challenged, would not wish to cut off the entrepreneurial nose of Hong Kong to spite, or save, their political face, or their antagonism to the growth of democracy in Hong Kong.
Whether we like it or not, mainland China is not yet ready to embrace democracy. Tiananmen Square and the less publicised other events bear witness to this fact. What strikes me is that the economic growth elsewhere in China—10 per cent., even 15 per cent., per year are not untypical regional figures—could lead to a very different feeling in Peking about Hong Kong's long-term importance to China's economic well-being. Not yet, but in a few years, and well within the 50 years of the special status, Hong Kong might find itself outstripped and outclassed by other Chinese regions around Shanghai, Guangzhou or elsewhere.
With its remarkable growth in its overall economic performance and with its commitment to embrace new technology—for example today it was announced that IBM is contracted to interconnect 500 Chinese cities with fibre optic cables—the regime in Peking could fund itself well equipped to engineer such unfavourable outcomes for Hong Kong if it were ever minded to do so. Many will dismiss this line of thought as too fanciful and too wide of the mark. We have the Joint Declaration; we have the Basic Law; we have the undeniable strength and vitality of the Hong Kong people. We have the confidence expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, that the PRC will keep political and economic issues apart. But what if, in the next couple of years, feelings of doubt about Hong Kong's future were to develop—perhaps pressed overtly, or covertly, by Peking? Would we be confident of maintaining internal peace and security in Hong Kong in the run-up to June 1997 in the face of such pressures?
For many years—and even less so today—we have been in no position militarily to deal with a major internal security problem. The catch-phrase "stronger for longer" does little or nothing to hide the real position. If the police and the resident force fail to contain unrest, the temptation for mainland China to move to "stabilise" the position could prove to be irresistible. It would be a humiliating end to 150 years of history of great pride and achievement. I recall our withdrawals from Aden and Singapore and the contingency planning and the many precautionary deployments we took then. I was closely involved with some of that planning. We could not today match any of that for Hong Kong. What then should we do? Should we keep our fingers crossed and be confident that wise counsels will prevail in Peking no matter what? I sense: that that is the current official view and we have little else to fall back on. But events beyond our control—for example, a change in most favoured nation status between China and the USA—could be an important influence.
For my money, I would hope that not only is there contingency planning for the speediest control of any instability before it can get out of hand, but also that we are seriously considering honourable ways of handing over our colonial interests, if necessary earlier than June 1997. Is there not something still to be said for

281
negotiating, even at this late stage, an earlier agreed transfer of sovereignty in exchange for the fairest and firmest of undertakings and practical moves by Peking to renew the strength of Hong Kong's confidence about its prospects over the next 50 years?
It will not have escaped anyone's notice that a British general election must take place before June 1997. We need a non-military fall-back position—we no longer have any viable military ones—with which to ensure a bright and lasting future for the people of Hong Kong, even in the face of Peking's displeasure with the United Kingdom. The recent return to negotiation over the airport is a hopeful sign. Let us all hope and pray that all will proceed smoothly for Hong Kong both up to June 1997 and beyond.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Vestey: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for initiating this debate. I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak here today. I shall not detain your Lordships long. I am no expert on Hong Kong but I am better informed thanks to a most generous invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and her husband to dine with them last Saturday at one of her legendary dinner parties in Hong Kong. I listened with great interest to her guests, many of whom were born in and have lived in Hong Kong all their lives and all of whom have achieved distinguished careers in Hong Kong. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her excellent speech, spoken with great knowledge and much charm. I am sure your Lordships will agree that we are very lucky to have her here in the House today.
I returned from Hong Kong yesterday morning. I should like to share with your Lordships the experience of the Order of St. John in Hong Kong. For the past three years I have had the honour and privilege to be the Lord Prior of the Venerable Order of St. John. Our order is responsible, among other things, for the running of the St. John Ambulance whose association and brigade have been active in Britain since 1877. The Order of St. John is also active in about 40 Commonwealth countries and has been active in Hong Kong for 110 years.
This was my third visit to the order in Hong Kong. As usual I was most impressed by the enthusiasm and dedication of all the people I met. Your Lordships will be interested to hear about the positive way in which St. John Hong Kong is preparing for the future.
The strength of the brigade is more than 3,000 adults and cadets. Between them last year they fulfilled over 100,000 man hours of public duty. Those duties included first aid and ambulance duties, manning beaches and swimming pools, and carrying out community service. The brigade is particularly proud of its mobile dental clinic for the elderly. The brigade also teaches first aid. Last year more than 700 courses were organised for commercial employees and members of the public, and 7,000 successful candidates received our first aid certificate.
St. John Hong Kong has already established links with the Chinese Government. In 1991 a 15-strong delegation from St. John Hong Kong visited Beijing to meet representatives of the Chinese Medical
282
Association and the Ministry of Public Health. The delegation explained their wish to maintain services to the community after 1997 and described the work of the Order of St. John in Hong Kong. The Chinese authorities assured the delegation that there appeared to be no reason why they could not support the work of St. John, and they hoped that the order would maintain and expand its work well beyond 1997.
The Chinese authorities commended the St. John members for their great efforts and the amount of voluntary work they did for the community. They even remarked that the knowledge of first aid and the St. John motto, "For the Service of Mankind", should be further promoted in China as well as in Hong Kong.
We are lucky to have influential members of the St. John council in Hong Kong who have maintained contact with various people in China; many have business interests in China. They believe there is a great future for St. John in Hong Kong.
The reason for my visit to Hong Kong this time was to attend the laying of the foundation stone by the Governor, Mr. Patten, of the new St. John Hong Kong headquarters. The building, on the site of the old, out-dated offices, will consist of 32 floors of which the organisation will use nine. The finance for the project has been provided by generous benefactors, including the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club, which has given 54.8 million Hong Kong dollars—at today's rate of exchange, about £4.75 million. There has also been generous financing by the New World Development Company, a world-wide property, development and operations company which has deep commitments both in Hong Kong and China, as have so many of St. John's benefactors in Hong Kong.
I returned from my short visit greatly encouraged by the confidence and vision which St. John is displaying. It has the will to prosper. I am grateful for all that the Governor and his colleagues are doing to encourage St. John and organisations like it to prepare positively for 1997. As some of your Lordships have said, now is the time to look forward and not backwards. I hope that the many difficulties can be settled for the good of the people of Hong Kong. It will not be for lack of trying. The Order of St. John will be there for the service of mankind.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, all of us are grateful to the noble Lord for initiating this debate. Whatever other differences we may have, nobody underestimates the importance of the issue in every way, and the timeliness with which the debate takes place.
I agree that normally there is no point in having long postmortems about what has happened. However, I believe that this case is an exception because there was a fundamental change in policy with the appointment of the new Governor. That was not the sole responsibility of the new Governor; but the policy changed at that time. I do not believe that anyone could disagree with that. That policy has now been in operation for a period during which it has evolved to involve a high degree of confrontation and new and profound doubts as to what the situation will be post-1997.

283
The noble Baroness the Minister very properly gave us a list of continuing projects with contact with the Chinese. Of course the Chinese will not become involved in childish reprisals. They want to see a healthy economy in Hong Kong as much as anybody else. That is not my problem. My concern is that I believe that we may well have moved to a point which places not us, because we shall all be here at Westminster talking about something else, but the people of Hong Kong, and possibly some elements within mainland China, in a position of direct confrontation with the authorities. This may be defeatist; but if that happens, I have no doubt as to who will lose that particular battle. We all agree that, whatever the reasons, the situation in which we find ourselves at this crucial stage of the negotiations is at least worrying and potentially highly dangerous.
Reference has been made to the visit of Mr. Lu Ping, the Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs. Elements of his speech have been quoted. That is quite appropriate and they are important. I should like to say a word or two about that visit.
Mr. Lu Ping has just completed an eight-day visit to Hong Kong. He was accompanied by a team of no fewer than 20 officials. He took the chair at a number of meetings of the Preliminary Working Committee, a body which normally meets in Beijing and which is charged with advising the Chinese Government on all matters affecting the transfer of Hong Kong. It held its meetings for the first time in Hong Kong. He also had meetings with many key local people, including senior business people and a variety of different groups. This was a very important visit. In no way was it a ceremonial occasion. It was a serious visit by a powerful person at a crucial time in these negotiations.
Quite properly, as happens on these occasions—and not surprisingly—soundings were taken with a view to the possibility of a meeting with the Governor. That would have been a very important meeting. I have no doubt that it could have taken place. The result was a contemptuous refusal of any form of meeting with the man directly responsible to the British Government for negotiating the future of Hong Kong. That cannot be a matter other than of the gravest concern for anybody interested in those negotiations. I do not wish to argue about who is to blame or to go into the intricacies of the lengthy negotiations. I do not believe that it is a question of blame so much as of differences of perception between two totally different cultures with two totally different sets of values which caused the problem. But no one can consider the current situation and pretend that they are other than surprised, sad and deeply worried. No one believed that it would reach this stage. It was never planned to happen like this. I do not believe for one moment that it would ever have crossed Chris Patten's mind—a man of considerable ability and total sincerity—that he could find himself in this extraordin-ary, crucified position.
But that is not all. On the third day of Mr. Ping's visit, and from the other end of the political spectrum, Mr. Martin Lee—one of the strongest opponents of anything connected with the People's Republic of China, a man of strong views, a courageous man and a
284
leading critic of the Chinese—tabled a vote of no confidence in the negotiations by both sides, including the British. So there could be no meeting with the Chinese representative. People who do not like China are not satisfied on how matters are progressing, either. I simply hammer the point that no one can sit and say, "Oh, well, not too bad. We'll wait and see what turns up". We find ourselves with a very difficult problem.
Worst of all, the very real progress—and it was real progress—which was made between 1979 and 1992 with difficult negotiations is now seriously threatened, at the minimum, and possibly irrelevant for all time.
It has frequently been said that we should be tougher. It has been said, "We'll show these people that we an; British". I have heard people suggest that we should not even accept that Hong Kong should be seceded to the Chinese. I do not know quite how one achieves that. I suppose that a platoon of 30 or so Gurkhas would do a gallant job. I do not know whether they would get far with 3 million members of the People's Liberation Army. The reality is that we have few cards in our hands. The skill of British diplomacy was demonstrated on the distance that the negotiators managed to go with those few cards. Those cards are, primarily, that the Chinese would dearly love to have British agreement. They want a Hong Kong that is stable; I have no doubts about that.
I should declare an interest at this stage; I had forgotten to do so. I chair a Hong Kong company which is a quoted company in Hong Kong and London. Its sole purpose is to invest in the People's Republic of China. I make visits in that connection every two to three months, and have done so for the past six years or so. We work with the Chinese on the Stock Exchanges in Communist China and they work; perhaps I would not recommend it for widows and orphans. The Chinese want that system to work, and they will pay a price for that. But it is childish to pretend that they do not have all the aces in their hands. Nothing can stop them from having what they want.
Therefore I believe that we have reached a position of a diplomatic disaster for which there are few parallels. We are in a blind alley and we do not know where it will end. We have also surrendered that which we had. We have three years to go. I cannot believe that it is too late to retrieve that situation. There is too much at stake.
The situation is serious not just for Hong Kong and the people of Hong Kong. It is serious for the stability of that entire region. The future of China is of crucial importance far outside its national boundaries. There is still the possibility of a good future after the changeover if we seize it.
I have no doubt that China today is market-orientated to an extent we would never have believed. There is a lot to be done. There are great problems. For example, there are no generally agreed accounting standards. That is important, and it is a measure of their seriousness that the Chinese are taking advice. They have consultants drawing such standards up. They have consultants working at present to draw up company legislation. The Chinese are much concerned and have backed a lot on that market orientation. They understand that the success of Hong Kong is totally dependent on an

285
entrepreneurial capitalism previously seen as complete-ly incompatible with communism. They genuinely wish to preserve that concept in Hong Kong because those concerned know that that is the position in Hong Kong. A lot of the officials quite look forward to being officials in a China which offers even more career opportunities than at present.
But there is one factor that westerners refuse to recognise. From the very beginning, over and again, the Chinese have made the position abundantly clear, saying, "We are determined to produce a capitalist entrepreneurial Hong Kong. That is what we want. We want to see the same thing happening in other parts of China. But do not challenge the Party. We will not tolerate any challenge to the Party". I do not say that that is an attractive position; I say that it is the position. It is the position that has been stated clearly.
The events of Tiananmen Square have been referred to. That tragedy arose out of the fact that young people were just demonstrating—as some of us did long ago —and as kids do in Paris, London and Washington. The authorities told them to move, and they did not move. Other people probably gave those young people the idea —they certainly gave them funding—that it will be all right, the outside world will look after them and the Chinese will never dare move in the face of American attitudes. Those young people talked and laughed with soldiers of their own age group; and in the end those same young soldiers of their own generation drove the tanks across them and killed them. It is not a game. It is not a macho issue. The Chinese will not tolerate a challenge to the system as they see it.
It is said frequently, and Governor Patten has said (I think in almost facile fashion), "All I'm doing is putting a few panes of glass in the windows, and if the Chinese want to knock them out the day after they take power in 1997, they will have the international community to answer to and will back off. My Lords, the United States Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, went to deal with the MFN agreements in Beijing. They were of critical importance to the Chinese. He raised the question of human rights. What happened? The Chinese said, "Round the dissidents up. We'll show him. Stick them in gaol again". Yesterday the question of human rights was raised in discussions with the United States. What did the Chinese do? They said, "Take a leading dissident, and charge him"—and we do not know what will happen to him. The Chinese will do that the whole time. Those young people died because they did not believe that the situation could be that serious.
It is absurd to think that the Chinese will back off from the position they have adopted. The brutal reality is that the Chinese would like to achieve agreement with the British Government. But if they cannot achieve it in July 1997, they will impose their own solutions, which will be bad for business confidence. It will be bad for people in Hong Kong; and, above all, the ghastly aspect is that it will be totally unnecessary. We have a duty to ensure the smoothest transfer that we can get. Deliberately to pursue a policy which we know will be replaced with more draconian conditions than those now
286
on offer may sound macho, may go down well in Westminster, but Hong Kong will face serious problems as a result for a long time.
I have no doubt that it will take real courage for the Government to change direction. It will involve hard decisions. If they believe that they can get a better deal, the best deal they can get, as Sir Percy Cradock said, if that is the reality, then they have a duty to follow that path. If they do not believe that that is the case, if they believe, "We will go on regardless", then God help the people of Hong Kong and many others too.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he simply saying: "Forget about human rights, forget about all those issues, just do what the Chinese want"?
Lord Marsh: No, my Lords, not at all. The noble Lord knows far more about it than I do; but all the evidence in Asia is that human rights tend to follow economic advancement and economic improvement. I do not forget about human rights but the noble Lord knows better than I that the Chinese will not at this time give a degree of freedom which exists in the West. That is the reality. If they achieve a solution in Hong Kong with an improved economy and become closer to the West, that will do more to guarantee human rights in the future than any speech made in either of the Chambers in this place.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, when we last debated the subject in this House, I supported the policy of the Governor of Hong Kong and I still do. Nothing I have heard this afternoon has changed my opinion; it has only strengthened it.
My noble friend Lord Geddes said that now was not the time for expensive principles or abstract idealism. Indeed, democracy as we know it is not suitable for orientals. I am amazed at the assurance with which he and others speak on behalf of the people of Hong Kong. But the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, gave an effective answer.
It should also be noted and remembered that the only directly elected seats in Hong Kong's LegCo were won by democrats. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to Mr. Martin Lee. In a statement which he circulated for the debate, Mr. Lee says:
"The people of Hong Kong know that we cannot face 1997 without a sufficient measure of democracy to preserve our rights and freedoms and that there is absolutely no way a Beijing-controlled Legislative Council will be able to check abuses by a Beijing-appointed Chief Executive and Executive Council or preserve the rule of law after 1997".
There is one voice of the people of Hong Kong. So what are people here doing by saying, "We know best. This is what the interests of Hong Kong are"? Those are authentic spokesmen of Hong Kong and that is their view. They want more effective local institutions in order to strengthen their position at the time when the handover takes place.
That is exactly what the constitutional proposals of the Governor are designed to do: to put legitimate political institutions in place by the time of the handover. The coming elections are the last before 1997,

287
so they are the last chance of having a broadly representative system up and running before the handover.
It has been alleged by my noble friend Lord Cromer that the Governor's proposals have breached the letter and the spirit of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 and subsequent agreements. But the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of 13th April this year concluded, on the basis of evidence of independent international lawyers, that that was not the case. The Governor decided to go ahead only after 17 rounds of talks with China proved fruitless.
Other noble Lords have suggested that the Governor should have consulted the Chinese before he made public his proposals in September 1992. It has even been suggested that, had those consultations taken place, an agreement might have resulted with the Chinese to go ahead on a programme of accelerated democracy. That may be so, but I beg leave to doubt it. Despite its fervent commitments to democracy after 1997, China wanted to inherit the colonial government. Probably there would not have been so much local pressure for accelerated democracy had the British position been due to continue. But in view of what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989, the local demand was perfectly understandable and something to which the Government had to respond. So I do not accept the view that, had all that been done behind closed doors, there would have been some satisfactory agreed solution to the problem of the transition now. I believe that that is wishful thinking.
It may be asked: legal or not, is the Governor's determination to press ahead wise, given China's hostility? The first point is that the hostility has not suspended co-operation in other spheres. For example, an agreement is expected later this year on the financing of the new airport. China has agreed to release new land for sale which should ease pressure on housing prices. It has committed itself to the continuity of the Civil Service.
Nor have constitutional disagreements dented local business confidence in so far as this is registered by business conditions or by trade relations between China and Britain. Hong Kong's extremely high growth rate —estimated at over 5 per cent. this year—continues. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, said, the Financial Secretary has just produced a budget which reduces taxes and increases social spending while adding to the budget surplus—something which is enviable. Thus it is hard to argue that the fears of the pessimists have so far been realised.
But what of the future? To me the most important justification of the Governor's plan has always been the promise to hand over Hong Kong to China with a political system which can stand up for the interests of Hong Kong. It has always seemed to me that some opponents of reform, particularly businessmen or those with business interests, have placed too much faith in their ability to protect their interests and the interests of Hong Kong business by means of informal arrangements with the power-holders in China or by so-called knowledge of the oriental mind.
288
In 1997, Hong Kong will be handed over to China; but who in China will actually rule it—the central government, or the Guangdong province, or the army? In view of the tremendous uncertainty surrounding political developments in China, it is simply ordinary prudence—to put it no higher—to try to bequeath a local government who are not subject to every shifting whim of unstable mainland politics.
People have been mesmerised by the economic explosion of the past few years. But the one thing I should have thought was as certain as anything can be in this uncertain world is that there will be no soft landing for a major communist command system in transition to a market economy. Already Peking is losing control over revenue and monetary supply; there is a growing conflict between the central and the provincial governments. There is increasing inequality between the coastal and inland provinces; the behemoths of central planning are still in place, requiring to be dismantled. The basic legal and commercial infrastructure has not yet been established because the new capitalist gangsters do not want it. The capitalist enclaves in China are running wild, like the wild west in the 19th century.
A recent article in the Far Eastern Economic Review of 24th March 1994 says about all this hectic, frenzied pace of growth:
"Job and income security are in tatters, while savings and pensions have diminished. The environment is befouled. Crime stalks the towns and highways. So do hundreds of millions of migrant peasants. Fake products poison and maim consumers, miners die in cave-ins and sweatshop workers burn in factory fires as managers cut corners in pursuit of quick profits. The overheated economy throws up a host of populist issues for ambitious politicians to seize upon: inflation, corruption, crime, pollution, and workplace and product safety".
That is all very familiar from what happened to the Soviet Union. I am not saying that the two situations are identical, but these are the problems of a transition; and there is, as I said, no soft landing.
The worst case scenario is that the People's Republic of China disintegrates after the death of Deng Xiaoping, not into old style warlordism but by the growing irrelevance of the central leadership and the deliberate ignoring of its directives—that is what happened to the Soviet Union—or the frenzy of economic development may continue, culminating in hyper-inflation and economic collapse. There may be a number of variations on those two themes. But the least likely is an orderly political and economic transition.
I come to my last point. It is argued that it is futile to proceed along the accelerated democratic path because China has promised to tear up the new constitution as soon as it takes over. The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, regarded that as a certainty. So, I believe, did the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. It could be so. How seriously one takes the threat is a matter of judgment. But the costs of doing it would be very serious. Tearing up democratic constitutions is not as popular as it once was. Chinese economic growth largely depends on its access to foreign markets and foreign capital. It relies on most favoured nation status to sell its 40 billion dollars' worth of exports to the United States. It gets £2.5 billion a year

289
of foreign investment. It wants to get into GATT. For all that it needs the good will of the international community.
Of course diplomacy should not be reckless. Risks should be sensibly assessed. But it is a hopeless business to try to calculate the effect of every one of one's actions on Chinese actions and sensibilities. In the end you have to do what you think is right and what the people of Hong Kong want. China can destroy Chris Patten's handiwork—but only at the cost of inflicting huge damage on itself. It is sensible in these situations to raise the cost to China of taking the kind of actions that it might have in mind to destroy Hong Kong's democracy. Therefore I conclude that the Government's risks have been well judged and that the Governor has shown statesmanship and courage of a high order.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the argument and conclusion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for enabling this debate to take place. We realise, by the atmosphere now, just how much the situation has changed since the debate that was held 18 months ago. I also want to say how greatly I appreciated the outstanding speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn.
I am full of admiration for Hong Kong—for its active Legislative Council; for its courageous Governor, Chris Patten; and for its energetic and thrusting business community, which has been so brilliantly successful, enabling it to have the sort of buoyant economy which must be the admiration of most of the world and which certainly provides enormous hope for China. I welcome the plans to improve the quality of life in Hong Kong by increasing public expenditure—social welfare by 8.4 per cent., health care by 6.9 per cent., and education by 6.5 per cent. It would be lovely if a British government of whatever party could have a programme of social betterment to compare with that. I also greatly admire the work and the personality of Sir David Ford and the Hong Kong Office in London.
In every way, I want Hong Kong to succeed in the difficult road that it has plotted for the next three years of independence and the years that will follow. They will be perilous days, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, in a very realistic speech. Hong Kong will need all the support that it can get from Britain, the United States, the European Union, thriving Asian states, and indeed the whole world. The world will watch Hong Kong in the future as it has watched South Africa over the past four or five years.
I say all this in deep sincerity, because what I am about to say runs contrary, I know, to the views of the Government; of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in its report on China on 23rd March this year; of the noble Lord, Lord Howe; of Sir David Ford; and perhaps of most Members of this House. I shall quote from Sir David Ford's letter to me of 9th May. I told him that I would be doing so. I agree with virtually everything in four closely argued pages which many others will have seen. However, the letter also said that,
290
"our principal concern at the moment is the outcome of the annual question of US renewal of MFN [most favoured nation] status for China. We are lobbying hard in Washington for renewal because the effect of curtailment on Hong Kong's economy would be severe … as a matter of principle, we do not agree that linking trade policy with political questions is right".
As I say, I agree with almost everything else in the letter, but I profoundly disagree with the conclusion I have just read.
The very wording "most favoured nation" explains my doubts about the whole matter. In what respect is China today especially favoured? In what respect is its behaviour so favoured as to expect the United States or any other country to give it very special privileges? I believe that President Clinton was right. If there are to be economic rewards, they must relate to some achievement by the People's Republic of China, especially in the field of human rights. At present, China brings to its importing and exporting policies the same ruthlessness it applies to its political policies in one respect or another.
China has a reputation, in the eyes of the rest of the world, for being very severe. China has the record for the number of executions and for the number of people held in detention. We saw the brutal way in which the protests in Tiananmen Square were suppressed. I was talking only on Monday to a young Chinaman who had been in Tiananmen Square. We were talking about a television programme last Saturday night. It showed again the picture of the young man in Tiananmen Square standing in front of the tanks. He said, "What you did not see were the tens of thousands of people who were behind me". I want to bring to the attention of the House —because we have to face up to the facts—what is going on in the Chinese labour camps, the Laogai, as they are called. It is a situation we have to face when talking about our relations with China.
I have had discussions and done close work with Harry Wu, who spent 19 years in a Chinese labour camp. Much research has been done by the Laogai Research Foundation in the United States; and I am delighted that a Laogai research group has now been established in the United Kingdom. The facts are very grim indeed.
There are reckoned to be between 10 and 15 million people held in prison camps, often for very, very long periods. They include "counter-revolutionaries", "class dissidents", "anti-party, anti-socialist thinkers", "his-toric revisionists", and, of course, victims of the crackdown which followed the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. One of the deepest concerns is that most camps produce goods which are exported to the rest of the world, using forced labour which is not paid. The goods produced include coal, steel, sulphur, and gold and asbestos products, as well as tea, clothing and much else. Goods are exported to the West by trading companies in Guangdong, Hong Kong, South Korea and elsewhere.
That is the China we face. Some noble Lords may have seen the television programmes recently produced by Sue Lloyd-Roberts at the BBC as a result of research she carried out in China. Today the Chinese Government denounced both her and the BBC and accused them of fabricating evidence. I am afraid that

291
they always denounce those who try to reveal the truth about what goes on in a society which the Chinese try to keep closed.
I ask, therefore, why China should be considered a most favoured nation. I am afraid that it reminds me too much of the way in which, nearly 60 years ago, the British government appeased Nazi Germany. We chose to ignore the monstrous practices of Hitler's Germany in the concentration camps because, in a sense, we wanted a quiet life. We were prepared to shut our eyes to breaches of human rights which were monstrous then and which indeed are still monstrous today. To have acted would have been interference in the internal affairs of Germany. We took the easy course, which may have been a contributory factor to World War Two. We shall shortly be celebrating the Normandy invasion. I shall be proud to be back on the beaches, as I was 50 years ago.
When we consider the great problem of China, we must ask ourselves how we contributed to the changes that have taken place in the former Soviet Union. The noble Baroness will have her own answer. Those changes were achieved not through appeasement or by granting most favoured nation status but by standing firm. I believe that China respects firm policies more than it respects people who simply go on their knees. That is why I have greatly respected the way in which the Governor, Chris Patten, has carried out his duties.
I was recently in South Africa doing some observer work and thought about the significance of UN sanctions. It was right that the world should stand out against a system which was grossly oppressive and cruel in the extreme. It was very largely because we carried out the UN sanctions that the situation changed there and people were forced to face a different kind of world.
Therefore, I plead with the Government at this crucial time not to go further down any road of appeasement. I do not think that it will do us any good. Nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, will it do us any good to look at the situation in Hong Kong in the interests of Hong Kong and blind ourselves to what is going on in the China with which Hong Kong will have to live.
I repeat that I believe we have to be firm. We have to stand up for our principles. Too often in the past we have failed to do so. I am sorry to have made what may be considered an unpopular and unhelpful speech. But someone had to say it, although it may have been better said by others. We have to find ways to influence the policies of the largest country in the world. We cannot do it on our own but must act in association with other countries. We have fought our debating battles with the Chinese too much on our own. We can do that on behalf of Hong Kong, certainly. But we should seek the support of the rest of the world. I hope that changes will be made to enable Hong Kong to fulfil its hopes and ambitions. That is what we in this House would all wish to see.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I should like to restrict my comments to one important group; namely, those British industrialists and bankers whose interests tend to be forgotten in the dispute between London and Beijing over Hong Kong.
There appears to be strong evidence of discrimination against British companies who want to do business in China, and it is causing their executives serious concern. We are told that Sir Leon Brittan, the European Union Trade Commissioner, during his trip to Beijing earlier this year received assurances that Britain would not be discriminated against on trade matters for political reasons. That is a natural response from a country which is keen to get into GATT. Those assurances came from senior leaders of the Chinese Government.
However, the picture on the ground is very different. I fear that Chinese officials at other levels, regulators in the provinces and Chinese companies clearly have not got the message or are choosing to disobey it. China's ambassador to Britain had been warning numerous executives of leading British companies that they would suffer discrimination, as:
"Chinese people are offended by Britain's stand on Hong Kong and would therefore deal with companies from other countries".
That was neatly played up in the Chinese media. I understand that the ambassador has been rebuked by the Foreign Minister. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that she is satisfied that such warnings by the ambassador have ceased?
Hong Kong-based British merchant banks learnt that political rather than commercial considerations were the reason that they failed to secure even one of the 23 privatisation mandates recently awarded in China. Despite strong track records in Chinese business, competitive bids and full commitment to the exhaustive and expensive bidding process, they will be denied a share of the estimated 150 million dollars in underwriting fees. Provincial regulators have admitted that politics were not on Britain's side when hardly any contracts for the new Underground in Canton were handed out to British companies last year. Many British companies are being advised to disguise themselves as non-British and to bid through Australian or other foreign subsidiary companies if they are to have any hope of success.
Numerous executives of British companies here and in Hong Kong despair at the dispute over Hong Kong electoral arrangements, brought in at the eleventh hour, which the Chinese have consistently said they will dismantle. It will be many years before China behaves like a mature Western democracy. Their ignorance of the West is even greater than our ignorance of them.
Her Majesty's Government have responsibility for Hong Kong until 30th June 1997. Her Majesty's Government also have a responsibility to British companies, many of whom are substantial employers who wish to win business contracts fairly in a country with a population of 1,200 million and an annual growth rate of 13 per cent. In the first nine months of 1993, direct foreign investment in China amounted to 83 billion dollars. China now attracts far more direct

293
foreign investment from OECD countries than any other developing economy. The United Kingdom economy is not so healthy that it can afford to be frozen out of so important a market.
Will the Minister assure me that the Government are mindful of the interests of those British companies when they negotiate with the Chinese over Hong Kong? Bearing in mind that, with the Hong Kong row unresolved, few people are likely to put money on a British company triumphing over a French, German or Italian one in a competitive bid for Chinese contracts, can my noble friend the Minister assure those companies that the Government believe there is little or no discrimination at any level against British companies in China? Finally, in the event of real discrimination being proven, which appears to be the case, what action will Her Majesty's Government take against China and Chinese exports to this country?
6.20 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, the position from which I speak is a plain and simple commercial one, as chairman of an engineering company whose current business in China and whose future prospects there, whether for exports or direct investment, are of great importance to it.
Like most people in industry with whom I have talked, for me the current state of relations between Britain and China arising over Hong Kong is a matter of the most serious concern. Surely two central considerations should, above all, have guided and determined our Government's actions in their negotia-tions. The first was Britain's primary national interest. Once 1997 passes, that national interest must mainly consist of maximising opportunities for British trade in China and protecting existing and future British investment in Hong Kong and China. The second consideration should have been the pragmatic recognition that, once Hong Kong reverted to China, then China would act towards Hong Kong according to its interpretation of the agreement made with us. It seems thoroughly unrealistic to imagine that anything else will or would happen.
Doubtless China's interpretation may differ from ours and it will be influenced by the way it views its political and economic self-interest. China will certainly weigh those two continually against each other. To put it more graphically, China may take the same view as someone who acquired a noisy goose which lays golden eggs. If the noise becomes intolerable they will probably shut the goose up a bit at the risk of having fewer of those valuable eggs, but they will presumably be extremely careful not to kill it or stop it laying.
A third consideration which should have influenced our attitude lies in the unique nature and history of Hong Kong. Britain started by simply pinching it, and later added to it through treaties which were hardly negotiated on equal terms. But then a combination of sensible British rule and remarkable Chinese and British ability and initiative converted it all into an economic jewel. Surely there should have been enough good will associated with the return of Hong Kong to China to
294
have formed a basis which could and should have been built on. But instead of emerging as the most favoured trading partner and long-term friend of China, as should have been our objective and as should have been the result, we ended up in a political cul-de-sac.
I believe that that happened because in the negotiations with China on future political institutions in Hong Kong our Government were influenced by two matters: first, by what they read as a very positive public attitude in Hong Kong towards democracy; secondly, by their view of political realities in Britain which they believed made any obvious U-turn or backdown to Chinese pressure impossible to contemplate.
The position our Government have taken is essentially a short-term one. After all, the course of democracy in Hong Kong will be conditioned after 1997 by China's attitude at that time and not by our Government's attitude now, which, I suggest, is a domestic political consideration that influenced the Government but was probably exaggerated by them. Far too little weight was given to Britain's own long-term national interest in China, which will be primarily commercial rather than political. That should have been the priority and it was not.
Naturally, what we in industry wanted to hear from China at this point—and it should have been the central objective of our Government's policy to achieve it— was that the British were the people with whom China most wanted to trade. We should have had the best commercial relations with China because of our involvement with Hong Kong and not lesser opportunities because of it.
Of course, those of us trading with China are also told that we have not yet lost contracts. I am not too sure about that. But that does not diminish the potential risk and in any event is surely as much due to the good sense of the Chinese, who say, and at a very senior level, that, while they will try to keep trade and politics apart, we must recognise that if political relations were better, then trading relations and opportunities would be all the better too.
In the current unfortunate situation there are many constructive and important things that can still be done. Commercially we must try to press on as well as we can with a "business as usual" approach in China. That must have all possible government support of every kind, including a positive attitude to project finance in China. Politically within Hong Kong, however strong our general sympathy with democracy may be, our words and actions should perhaps more clearly reflect the obvious reality that after 1997 it is China's attitude that will condition the democratic process there and not our Government's attitude today.
Politically, towards China we must concentrate our main effort on resolving as many of the practical issues involved in transition as possible. Incidentally, I believe that that important process would be helped if the excellent Civil Service in Hong Kong were encouraged to have a wider and more direct role, as the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, mentioned.
At the same time, however difficult it is, we must set our minds to recreating at government level a friendly relationship with China, which happily still continues

295
almost everywhere at the commercial level. Here, support for China, which Hong Kong has certainly been giving, in the most favoured nation argument with the United States is obviously helpful, as is support for its application for membership of GATT. There are many other ways of helping the situation if we just set our mind to finding them.
In the end the interests of Britain and the interests of Hong Kong can be properly served only if we can convince China that the most important matter in our relations is not the impasse over Hong Kong but the sincerity of our shared interests in and support for China's economic and political stability and development and its future growth.
6.29 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, this is a wide-ranging debate with an impressive range of speakers who can draw upon immense personal experience in Hong Kong. Surrounding me are two previous Governors of Hong Kong and of course my noble friend Lady Dunn. In my brief contribution I shall draw a vivid distinction between the economic prospects and the socio-political considerations as 30th June 1997 draws ever closer. The Hong Kong issue is about much more than a remarkable financial success story and a healthy balance sheet. It is about the hopes of more than 6 million people who actually live there.
Of course, the two are frequently intertwined, but as the columnist Hugo Young noted in the Guardian earlier this year, there is a tendency for businessmen to look at the imminent transfer of sovereignty as essentially a transfer of ownership, a business transaction, and to equate their own profits with the social good. Others regard such members of the business community, more bluntly, as little more than fickle opportunists, with poor regard for the political aspirations of the general public. Such a charge may or may not be justified, but it should also be borne in mind that the interests of the general public are importantly underpinned and enhanced by the generally accepted view that Hong Kong's impressive economic performance will be sustained beyond 1997.
"Impressive" may be an understatement. As many noble Lords have already mentioned, real GDP has shown an average annual growth of 7 per cent. over the past 20 years. Hong Kong attained more than £184 billion of trade with the rest of the world last year. It was eighth on the global list of exporters and seventh among importers. The statistics make impressive reading. From harbour to border, Hong Kong is business. At the Stock Exchange, which reported another substantial rise today, and among the feverish hordes at the Fan Ling and Happy Valley racecourses, everywhere you look, everywhere you go, people are working tirelessly to make money.
This instinct will, I am sure, not disappear when the Crown colony becomes a special administrative region under Chinese rule. Nor, I believe, will it be discouraged in any way. There is no doubt that the colony's economic prospects are excellent and that there is a strong reciprocal relationship between Hong Kong and China. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur,
296
in opening the debate, Hong Kong has a "catalytic" influence for China in the rest of the region, and as my noble friend Lady Dunn said in her excellent speech, they certainly need each other. Clearly, if it were not for the massive inflows of capital from Hong Kong, China's growth would have been substantially stunted, and were it not for the low land and labour costs in China that enabled that capital to earn handsome rewards, Hong Kong's growth would have been strangled by its own rising labour and land costs.
Hong Kong will continue to be a gateway, a place where the outside world can make sense of China and, just as importantly, where China can make sense of the outside world. Of course, the recent surge of development in Shanghai and other mainland centres will continue, but there will always be a role for Hong Kong in servicing China.
All this is very well, but I am particularly concerned for the prospects of the Hong Kong people beyond 1997 and, to this end, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for having given us the opportunity to debate the Motion this afternoon.
So, my Lords, what is my major concern? In a single word, it is freedom—freedom without which no amount of fiscal reserves can make life tolerable. Beyond 1997, will the Hong Kong people have recourse to a free judiciary? Will they be able to read, watch and listen to a free media? Will their schools be free from political interference? Will they have freedom of expression? I am talking about everyday freedoms, my Lords, living freedoms.
I am well aware that the Joint Declaration of 1984 makes allowances for these basic rights to be preserved and I can only join the Government in hoping that these commitments will be fully implemented. However, I am mindful of the comprehensive recent report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which many noble Lords have mentioned today, printed on 23rd March. In paragraph 208 the committee warned that the recent breakdown in negotiations between Britain and China had created an atmosphere where,
"fears that China may not honour its commitments to the Joint Declaration are very understandable".
The committee concluded:
"We support the Hong Kong government continuing to implement measures that will strengthen the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms in Hong Kong up to and beyond 1997".
Even taking into account the recent assurances of Lu Ping, the Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, that China would act in strict accordance with the Basic Law, I endorse the committee's view.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke about the recent publicity surrounding the issue of an alleged 10 million political prisoners being held in more than 3,000 labour reform camps, known as Laogai, which has further called into question China's credentials on human rights. I wonder whether in her summing up the Minister can say whether there have been any investigations or representations made to the Chinese on this matter. Can the Minister also tell the House whether any concessions are likely to be made to offer British citizenship to non-ethnic Chinese minorities in Hong Kong?

297
In practical terms, our options might appear limited by the fact that, come what may, sovereignty will be transferred in 1997 and, thereafter, we will have no clearly defined power over Hong Kong affairs. It is clearly of the greatest importance that we renew a co-operative working relationship with the Chinese, through which we can express our views, as soon as possible. With limited formal communication, I believe we have limited influence.
Many of your Lordships have been critical—perhaps over-critical—of the bold strategy of Governor Patten and have claimed that it has not been conducive to the presumption of talks, or, for that matter, has not been in the long-term interest of the people of Hong Kong. I would again refer to the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee which concluded that the Governor's proposals on electoral reform, which prompted the stand-off, are fully within the letter of agreements reached with China. It may be true that the Chinese are overly and unnecessarily suspicious of Britain's motives, but I do not believe it is right and proper to criticise a Governor who is already under virulent fire from so many quarters and who has set out his stall clearly and honestly to preserve the democratic rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people.
Of course we can debate the style of negotiation best suited to dealing with the Chinese authorities in Beijing. Here I speak from a certain amount of experience. I studied Chinese law at London University in 1982 and spent almost six months living in mainland China. One style might be that, while one can often differ behind closed doors, it may be best to settle for the best deal possible to avoid any public confrontation. Conversely, another style might be that on occasions it may be more productive to set out one's views initially and to stick to them, perhaps even calling the other party's bluff in the hope that they will eventually acknowledge your convictions and return to the table.
In February this year the Financial Times offered what I regard as a fair and reasonable assessment of the Governor's policy when it wrote:
"It might seem naive of Mr. Patten to have imagined that he could persuade China, by a public demonstration, to accept more than it would in private talks … [but]… at least this way he is giving the Hong Kong people the chance to experience two years of relative democracy, if they so choose—and to leave China's rulers with the responsibility of dismantling it in full view of the world, if they so choose".
That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and I fully endorse his views.
At this delicate time in Hong Kong's history, I very much hope that this House will send a general message of support to Governor Patten who is surely only striving to secure democracy beyond 1997. We may differ on his ways and means, but let us not lose sight of the wider picture. The Governor is entitled to expect our support, and I trust it will be forthcoming.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I believe that the people of Hong Kong owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for having initiated this debate because it has demonstrated something which is
298
rather important; that is the very considerable interest in and concern for Hong Kong which exists at Westminster. It is nothing new and it is a point to which I wish to return in a moment. I came back from Hong Kong last week. I travelled there by way of Singapore, where I worked 30 years ago and which I have not visited for 20 years. I was amazed at the transformation in Singapore.
I should like to mention two points which I believe are relevant to Hong Kong's competitive position. First, Singapore has become primarily an English-speaking country. Even the street names and other public notices are only in English. The educational achievements in Hong Kong are considerable, but the knowledge of English there seems to be diminishing rather than increasing. There is perhaps not much which the present British Government can do for the next three years, but I strongly suggest that China should seek to give this problem a high priority after 1997. Secondly, the quality of infrastructure in Singapore is now second to none. In one important respect it is a long way ahead of Hong Kong. I refer of course to the airport. Changi Airport is one of the best that I have been to and it has a wonderful road between the airport and the city. In terms of immigration, I suppose that two of the worst airports in the world now are Kai Tak and Kennedy. I was therefore amazed and delighted to find, when I had the chance of hovering in a helicopter over Chek Lap Kok last week, how far the new airport has already advanced. The site is practically complete. The bridge linking Lan Tao to the mainland is well underway; only the airport buildings remain to be started. I believe that agreement will be reached this year with the Government of China. I suspect that we shall find that the airport will be opened on schedule in the middle of 1997, although perhaps not until after the Hong Kong British flag comes down.
I would like to join the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, in paying tribute to the political courage of Mr. Patten. I believe that he has no personal agenda other than that he wishes to do his best for Hong Kong. I also underline —because it has been ill-suggested in certain quarters, but not in this House today—that there is no question of Mr. Patten being withdrawn from his post, whoever leads the Conservative Party. I for one neither expect nor wish to see any change in that leadership. I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, when she says that the Hong Kong people expect the British Government to remain fully effective in the administration of Hong Kong up to 30th June 1997 and I support her view that Mr. Patten is vigorously and honourably fulfilling that obligation.
I too, I fear, must say a word about the political utterances and activities of Sir Percy Cradock. It has for some while been clear that to Sir Percy, Mr. Patten and all his works are a personal affront. I was at Chatham House on 23rd March to hear Sir Percy expand on his thesis. I felt that the very fluency of his delivery bordered on the obsessional. Sir Percy is a brilliant public servant who has given many years of loyal service to this country. That some of us may feel that his judgment has now become clouded might be a matter for private grief among his friends and former

299
colleagues. But Sir Percy is seeking to take a very active public role as a commentator and adviser to China, both in public and in private. Therefore, I believe that it is perfectly fair to make one or two comments on what he has been saying and doing.
He seems to be seeking to incite the Chinese to abrogate some elements of the 1984 Joint Declaration, of which he was one of the architects. I stress that he was only one of the architects. I believe he would probably say—in fact I have heard him say—that the negotiating position to take with China is to have the best deal you can get, but you must have a deal. That was not a very strong negotiating position. I believe the reason that we had such a good deal in 1984 was that Members of the Government, starting with Sir Richard Luce and then going on to my noble friend Lord Howe, and finally to my noble friend Lady Thatcher, made it clear that there were conditions to be met without which there would be no deal. It was at that stage that many concessions were made by China and it was that that gave us as good a deal as we got.
On 23rd March at Chatham House Sir Percy said —and I noted his words at the time:
"The commitment of China to the Joint Declaration has been put under strain. We have acted unilaterally so we give the Chinese every pretext for doing the same".
He added,
"I myself think the main elements of the Joint Declaration will survive".
He then went on to claim that for Mr. Patten to have suggested that his reforms in Hong Kong are needed means that the present government are corrupt. That is plain nonsense.
The difference between pre-1997 and post-1997 is that up to 1997 the ultimate protection for the people of Hong Kong from ill-treatment and abuse from the local government of the day has always been the watchdog role of Westminster. We have demonstrated that again today in our debate. It is a fact of which Whitehall has always been well aware, not only in respect of Hong Kong but of other parts of the British Empire as well. After 1997 Peking takes over from Whitehall. But the arrangements inside the PRC do not include a Westminster. As I see them, Mr. Patten's reforms merely seek to give to the people of Hong Kong the facilities and self-confidence to draw to the attention of the world any improper or oppressive behaviour by the new administration of the SAR. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said on that. One of the real dangers for Hong Kong after 1997 is Government corruption: this I believe China would seek to avoid, and does wish to avoid.
It has already been said that it will be encouraging if there could be more personal contact between Mr. Patten and senior officials of the PRC. It must be a matter of regret that Mr. Lu Ping, the director of the Chinese Government's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, did not feel able to meet Mr. Patten—it was not a question of not bothering, but a clear decision—when he visited Hong Kong earlier this month. As a result, his visit to Hong Kong was less successful from China's point of view. I believe that Mr. Lu Ping is not only a
300
key figure in the Peking Government but is a friend of Hong Kong who understands very well the complicated capitalist chemistry of that place.
I was therefore very disturbed, as I know were others in Hong Kong, to read in the 6th May issue of the Eastern Express an article by Mr. Stuart Wolfendale. He was reporting on a lunch in the Foreign Correspondents' Club on 5th May attended by Mr. Tsang Yok-sing, who represents the pro-Peking Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong and who is also a member of the PWC. Mr. Tsang apparently regretted that Mr. Lu had not met Governor Patten, but he told Mr. Wolfendale that it was the influence of Sir Percy which had led Mr Lu not to do so. I quote from Mr. Wolfendale's article. They are his words and not mine. He said:
'This preposterous interloper had told anyone who would listen that to see the Governor would send the wrong message to the British".
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. That is a serious allegation to make of a very respected public servant. Does the noble Lord have any evidence, apart from just hearing that someone else has said that?
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I shall of course be corrected if the report in the newspaper, of which I have the original, proves to be incorrect, but to date I have not heard it being denied, and it has had a quite wide circulation in Hong Kong.
My conclusion is that the advice of Sir Percy on matters to do with Hong Kong now sends the wrong messages to both the British and the Chinese.
I obviously read with great care, as did the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose and others, the keynote speech which Mr. Lu delivered in Hong Kong on 6th May. I found nothing exceptionable in it. However, I am aware that his reference to Hong Kong remaining an economic city and not becoming a political city has caused some disquiet. I should like to suggest that that reference can have a perfectly benign interpretation. To quote Lu Ping's words:
"There are always a handful who are so naive to think that they can turn Hong Kong into a political city in order to influence the mainland in the sense of politics. If that were the case, Hong Kong would be of negative value instead of positive value to China. This is disastrous for Hong Kong".
We must never forget—this has been referred to by others —that the great imperative for any government in Peking has always been to maintain the unity and integrity of China. It is not unreasonable for China to have a very real fear in this matter. I would commend to those of your Lordships who have not read it the perceptive analysis by Gerald Segal in the February 1994 issue of the Chatham House monthly journal, The World Today.
The interpretation of Lu Ping's words about a "political city" are, I believe, substantiated by his reference in the same speech to,
"China would not want itself to be rampant with chaos."
And his rhetorical question:
"Furthermore, can Hong Kong continue to prosper with a turbulent mainland at its back?"
He went on, I believe for the first time, to reveal that in 1967 it was Zhou Enlai,

301
"who at the very last moment stopped the 'Gang of Four' sending troops into Hong Kong".
—I find that a fascinating insight.
Your Lordships will remember that following Tiananmen, there were calls from Hong Kong, backed especially by Martin Lee —who led the majority of those members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council who were directly elected in Hong Kong's first ever democratic elections in 1991—for "democracy" to be introduced into China. That was perhaps as understand-able in the wake of Tiananmen as it was in practice unwise. I am glad that since that time Mr. Lee has separated himself from that call. But I do not believe that it is at all to the interests of Hong Kong for outsiders to seek to interfere with the style of political life inside China.
That is why I do not believe it is productive for President Clinton to seek to link the renewal of MFN with human rights in China. I am conscious of what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said a few moments ago, and I support fully what he said about the deplorable situation that may exist in the case of human rights. However, I fear that President Clinton's touch in foreign affairs is proving rather uncertain in many areas including Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Singapore and even the Irish question.
It is not the application of a moral dimension in United States' foreign policy which I criticise. Indeed, I salute that. It is when that application lacks subtlety. At a time when the world is painfully climbing out of a recession which has cost many millions their jobs and self-respect, it is clearly the antithesis of all that GATT symbolised to consider the withdrawal of MFN from China. MFN is, incidentally, no special privilege for China. It is a status enjoyed by very many countries, including, for example, Libya and Iran.
Hong Kong's close links with, and interdependence on, the economy of China, would damage Hong Kong greatly if MFN were to be withdrawn. Indeed it could cause a setback in China's relations with the United States and again set back the cause, which I fully espouse, of trying to influence China over human rights. Of course one must also remember that no fewer than 900 American companies are established in Hong Kong, and direct US investment in Hong Kong is over £9 billion US dollars.
I am glad that, as we have heard from noble Lords, the threats of trade discrimination and reprisals by China against British companies have, in practice, not really materialised. My noble friend Lord Weir said that he was not sure, but he did not give any specific example.
I believe that many of those confrontations are political posturing which have understandably gathered the headlines. The realpolitik of Hong Kong is the economic and financial prosperity, epitomised by the stock market, the real estate market and, above all, the very widespread investment in Hong Kong by Chinese government institutions and family members of China's political leadership. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, told us, Hong Kong now represents one quarter of
302
China's economy—that is an astonishing figure —and two-thirds of her foreign exchange. A few years ago it was only one-third.
For China, the great priority must be to make the fullest use of Hong Kong before and after 1997 to contribute to the prosperity and stability not just of Hong Kong but of China. The time is probably now past for further political initiatives on either side. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, talked of the carriages attached to the through train. I believe that the engine of the through train is the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. Let us ensure that they remain in good order.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for initiating the debate, which has been interesting not least for the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that he endorses the present leadership of the Conservative Party and also because we have seen how polarised is the situation in this whole matter. It has been an unbalanced debate. The balance was somewhat corrected by the last speakers. I shall return to the central issue in a moment.
First, I should like to draw attention to three issues which are in some respects connected with human rights, to two of which I have drawn the Minister's attention. It goes without saying that the British Government have a special responsibility for the people of Hong Kong. There are two groups which feel—and who is to say that they are wrong? —that they are vulnerable. The first group is that of the Hong Kong World War II widows of British servicemen. The second group comprises the non-Chinese ethnic minorities. There are 52 widows of British ex-servicemen. Their ages are between 60 and 80. They have asked for British passports.
On 28th April the Home Secretary announced that he agreed to a special arrangement for the wives and widows of Hong Kong Second World War servicemen, guaranteeing their entry into the United Kingdom whenever they wished. They would be able to have a personal entry endorsement in their travel documents stating that they were entitled to enter the United Kingdom for settlement. That binds the UK Government to admit the ladies for settlement.
I should like to make a few observations on what I regard as that rather unhappy compromise. First, the guarantee is conditional. The letter makes it clear that, whatever the stamps on the permit, the widows must still be resident in Hong Kong directly before arrival in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, a person at present in the UK on indefinite leave to stay remains subject to immigration control and so may lose that status, and so may be deported, and so does not have free movement within the Community.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the stamp does not give those few rather old ladies, who are widows of British ex-servicemen, what they asked for, which is the dignity of a British passport. They do not want to come to this country. How can they come to this country? They cannot afford to. They cannot afford to establish residence here for a stay of three years. Where would

303
they stay? The Union Jack Club? The proposition is ludicrous and undignified. What they want is the dignity of a British passport. What they fear, staying in Hong Kong, is victimisation after 1997. They believe that if they had British passports, they would be likely to be better protected.
The Home Secretary has the discretion to give those passports. Why in the name of fortune can he not do so? I plead with the Minister to use her influence and to plead with him to go back on that rather mean-spirited and ungenerous decision which, as has been said, is a tacky and miserly compromise. That is the first issue that I wanted to raise.
The second is the old issue of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities. We passed a resolution in this House. We passed a Private Member's Bill in this House which was supported by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in both its last and present reports. That Bill is supported also by the Governor of Hong Kong. It is unanimously supported by LegCo. It is supported by the two previous Governors of Hong Kong. Indeed, so far as I know, only the Home Office opposes it. I think that for once the Home Office should bow to the judgment of others on this matter.
I should now like to ask a question, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred and about which I hope that the Minister will give us some information. I refer to the question of the human rights commission which the Governor has rejected. He may have had very good grounds for rejecting it. He may be quite right that if you have a Bill of Rights, you do not need a human rights commission. However, the people in Hong Kong are rightly worried about the protection of their rights after 1997. If the Governor is to turn down a human rights commission, I think that he should state what protection he is going to build in legally for their protection after that date. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that issue.
As many noble Lords have said, and as the Minister has told us, Hong Kong is spectacularly successful. It is a most splendid example of what a city state can contribute to civilisation and prosperity. In fact, it is one of the last city states to survive. There are very few in the 20th century. It is the inheritor of an ancient tradition dating back to Ancient Greece and continuing through Renaissance Italy.
However, I must confess that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, I found visiting Hong Kong in the present circumstances a somewhat melancholy experi-ence. In 1997, it will fall into the hands of a regime which, if one listens to the speeches that have been made this afternoon (whether by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, or the noble Lord, Lord Ennals) or if one accepts the words of Sir Percy Cradock, is, to say the least, a regime of brutal tyranny which is hardly worthy of governing the brilliant, humorous and sophisticated inhabitants of Hong Kong. Even if that regime understands the infinite financial and commercial importance of Hong Kong to China, which I suspect that it does, and even if it understands the value of the animal that it is about to acquire, I very much doubt whether it knows how to
304
look after that animal. Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, confirmed that rather sceptical view of the future.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble: Lord for giving way; but since he mentioned my name, perhaps I should say that if I gave him that impression, I misled him. I think that the Chinese are perfectly capable of looking after Hong Kong. It is just that they have a different approach to opposition to the system than we have in Westminster or Hampstead.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's assurance. I think that what I am about to say will indicate why I have reservations about that assurance.
The polarisation of opinion in Hong Kong about its future is as acute as it is in your Lordships' House. I have found it difficult to see how the two points of view can be brought together. They start from two totally different analyses of the nature of the problem and go on to give two different approaches to handling it. Those who oppose what I call in shorthand the "Patten policy" see it, in the words of one of them who has spoken to me, as an exercise in futility. From the position that he has adopted, they see no way out but to retreat and to kowtow—even if M. Balladur's attempt to do precisely that has hardly proved that that tactic would be particularly productive.
That is the view of the bulk of the business community—but not of all the business community. They argue that British policy changed radically in 1992 —and that has been argued here today. They argue that the Patten proposals are not in accordance with the Basic Law, the Joint Declaration or the programme of gradual and orderly progress. Beijing advocates argue, and their position is identical—oddly enough (or perhaps not oddly enough)—with that of the business community, that China is committed to treating Hong Kong differently from the People's Republic, and that it must be trusted to carry out that undertaking.
Almost the only matter on which that group and those who support Governor Patten's policy agree is; on the importance of the events that took place in Tiananmen Square. In my experience, according to both groups that was a watershed which changed relations between China and Hong Kong and between Hong Kong and China. One million people in Hong Kong demonstrated against China. In my experience, according to both parties, before the events in Tiananmen Square a rational consensus could sometimes be seen to be arrived at despite heated disputes. After Tiananmen, everything changed. After Tiananmen, the Chinese Government saw Hong Kong as a poisoned pill and as a dangerous influence on the internal politics of China against which China had to protect itself. Nonetheless, the opponents of the Patten policy go on to argue that unless we trust the Chinese to honour the Basic Law, and unless we get China's blessing, nothing can be achieved: the Patten reforms will be abolished in 1997; the transitional arrangements—which are essential to a smooth transition—will not be made, and the "through train" will run into the buffers in 1997.
The other position is, of course, totally different. The position of those who support the Governor—I am not

305
saying that it is his position; I would not pretend to say that it is his position—and even of those who go further, like Mr. Martin Lee, who has been mentioned in the debate, is to agree that Tiananmen Square was of the greatest importance, but that its importance was rather different from that which I have just described. Its importance was to shake the Beijing regime to its foundations—and I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said—and to reveal its fundamental vulnerability.
While I do not deny the impact which Tiananmen Square had on China's perception of Hong Kong, to that group, it was most important because it revealed the fragility of Deng's regime. That fragility had been caused by the very reforms and revolutionary economic strategy which he had introduced and which he supported so fervently. By going for an economic revolution and allowing people to make their own economic choices, by allowing them to receive their own economic rewards and by opting for professional-ism in management rather than party membership, the party had abandoned two things: it had abandoned its ideology on the one hand; and it had abandoned its patronage and ability to control the lives, jobs, rewards, housing and education of its children. By that patronage and control over individuals and their families, the party maintained its control over society as a whole. Deprived of its ideology and patronage, people were asking what would be the future of the party in China in the long run. Indeed, I put that question to a senior representative of, as it were, the Beijing party in Hong Kong. I asked him what would be the future of the party in China in the long run and his answer was, "That is a very good question".
In my view, the debate taking place in Hong Kong is about what will happen to Hong Kong after 1997. It has been widely reported and repeated in your Lordships' House today that it is about democracy. But in my view, to describe it in those terms is to obscure the central issue at stake. The degree of democracy which the Patten reforms would introduce is, in his own words, modest. He said that it is so emaciated as to embarrass a genuinely democratic society.
In my view what is at stake is whether, after 1997, Hong Kong can remain a centre of international commerce and finance. I believe that it can only do so if the following conditions are satisfied: first, if the rule of law obtains; secondly, if its institutions retain a measure of independence and transparency; and, thirdly —and perhaps most important—if the corruption which is pandemic in China is kept out of Hong Kong and if Hong Kong is protected from that corruption. Unless those conditions are maintained, although Hong Kong can be a prosperous Chinese city like, for example, Shanghai, it cannot possibly be a successful centre of international commerce and finance to its own benefit and the benefit of the Pacific Rim as a whole.
The Patten reforms enlarge the electorate of all of the functional constituencies. The purpose of that was made plain by Mr. Patten in October 1992; namely, to reduce the opportunities for corruption and to make the elections—I use his word—"unriggable".
306
As the recent report of the Foreign Affairs Committee records, in 1991 a person who was elected to LegCo was imprisoned for bribing electors in his functional constituency. His electorate consisted of 30 people. That is like a rotten borough. The purpose of the reform was to reduce the number of rotten boroughs. Anyone who looks at the parliamentary history of this country will know that before 1832, corruption was rife. By the end of the 19th century, this country was one of the least corrupt countries in the world. That is because we did what Mr. Patten is trying to do, successfully or unsuccessfully, in Hong Kong.
I must confess that I am not puzzled by the Chinese objections, violent and intemperate though they may have been. It is perfectly obvious that from their point of view it will be much easier to manipulate an electorate of 30 than to manipulate an electorate of 2,000 or 3,000. For that reason, I believe that the thrust of the Patten reforms is in the right direction.
Having listened to the debate, until the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, spoke, people would not have understood that the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is a cross-party committee, has just issued a report which supports unanimously, so far as I know, the Patten approach to Hong Kong. That should be taken on board. The debate that we have had here has been, as I said at the beginning, very unbalanced. I hope that the speeches in the last third of the debate will remove the impression that this House is not in touch with what is happening elsewhere.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I express the appreciation of noble Lords on this side of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for initiating what has been a fascinating debate, although I have to say that I believe that some elements of the debate have been distinctly unhelpful. I should like to know how some of those who have expressed such brash criticism of the Governor feel that those criticisms will help to resolve the very difficult position which he confronts, and, indeed, which confronts this country and the people of Hong Kong.
Two themes have been deployed during the course of the debate which I certainly cannot accept on behalf of those on this side of the House; namely, that somehow or other the people of Hong Kong do not want democracy—I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, said that—or are ill equipped to take on the role of a democratic society. I thought that that was fairly well nipped in the bud by a remarkable speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke.
Another theme was that somehow or other, overtly or implicitly, the whole question of human rights should not be allowed to intrude into our relations with China because they may bedevil business relationships. It was suggested that they, in effect, hardly add up to a row of beans. I regret that view and, indeed, resent it.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he name a few of the noble Lords who actually said that human rights do not matter and are not worth a row of beans?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the noble Lord had listened, he would have heard that a number of your Lordships hardly mentioned human rights. The whole question which obsessed them was that business interests may be damaged. That is my impression of what occurred. The noble Lord made his own contribution in that regard.
I believe that China will need special help from a prosperous and free Hong Kong. Hong Kong is in an almost unique position to be able to provide that help. That is significant when one considers the future relationships between the three countries concerned. That was a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer at the beginning of the debate.
Some argue that belated recognition of the need for democratic reforms in Hong Kong constituted an unnecessary provocation to the Chinese Government; that it might have constituted a waste of time because the Chinese Government at some stages said that they would overturn the changes when they took over Hong Kong in 1977; and that all that, therefore, was not in the best interests of the people of Hong Kong. In fact, I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who effectively said that what we fail to comprehend is that China holds pretty well all the negotiating cards. Therefore, I have not misquoted him in that regard.
Lord Marsh: No.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am glad to see that the noble Lord accedes to that view.
I do not believe that that assertion is right. I believe that such expressions of view seriously underestimate the fact that, while China is undoubtedly in a strong negotiating position—indeed, no one in their right mind would deny that—it also has a great deal to lose. China has many of its people in Hong Kong. It has invested a great deal of money in the colony, and, therefore, has a massive interest in securing the future well-being of Hong Kong. I understand that China's direct investment in Hong Kong is greater than that of the United States and Japan. It follows from that that in the long term political stability will become an important factor in resolving such problems. However, I also believe that political stability necessarily involves respect for human rights and for developing democratic process.
China must have regard to its continuing and, it is to be hoped, burgeoning relationship with other countries, notably the United States. China must be aware—and this is another point that was made at the beginning of the debate by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer —that the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act is relevant. If China were to abolish the elected legislature in Hong Kong in 1997, having spoken to an American lawyer (who is not of course the last word in all of this but is someone who is well versed in US law), I understand that there is certainly a high possibility that she would no longer be able to enjoy separate GATT membership. The whole question of the most favoured
308
nation status was something that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, did not care to introduce into the debate. He may or may not be right, but the fact remains that that status and other existing arrangements could be in peril. Those factors cannot be excluded from Chinese thinking on such issues. I put it no higher.
Additionally, if China were to seek to reverse electoral reform, I believe that it is conceivable that that would be perceived internationally as an interference with the basic rights of the people in Hong Kong. Surely it must always be more difficult—certainly for the countries that are in the least bit concerned about international opinion, and I do not believe that China is unconcerned—to dismantle something that has been created than to leave it alone. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and I have been good friends for many years and we cross swords quite happily from time to time. I know that he thinks that that is all a bit fanciful and somewhat illusory. I see that he is shaking his head.
Lord Marsh: No, my Lords; I nodded my head.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I apologise. The noble Lord nods his head. I must get it right.
I believe that the noble Lord underestimates the importance of such issues. He may be right or I may be right: only time will tell. However, is it not conceivable that China might wish to leave herself some room for manoeuvre? Is it not conceivable that that was the thought that lay behind the comments of Mr. Tsang Yok-Sing, the chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (a very strong pro-Beijing political party) when he said:
"Beijing realises that they can't cut all contacts with the United Kingdom and Hong Kong Governments and achieve a smooth transfer of sovereignty in 1997".
Then there was the statement by Mr. Lu Ping, who has been frequently referred to during the debate. Not very long ago he said:
"I believe that we can reach an agreement on the airport acceptable to both sides".
So he is prepared to consider the continuation of the negotiations about the airport regardless of the discussions that are taking place with regard to Hong Kong generally. That is quite a significant assertion. Incidentally, in parenthesis, I should like to ask the Minister what is the current state of play regarding the negotiations on the airport? I gave the noble Baroness notice that I would ask that question and no doubt she will be able to enlighten the House.
China will be strongly desirous of enhancing international trade relations and that will include the United Kingdom. China has a major programme of economic reform—a massive infrastructure programme covering transport, telecommunications and energy, which will involve billions of pounds. The Chinese will need all the expertise and skills that they can gather. Those are skills and expertise that companies and experts in this country are able to provide.
It has been said that Britain's trade has been increasing with China. But, on the other hand, I understand—and the noble Baroness will be able to correct me if I am wrong, because it is only hearsay evidence—that with some 2000 joint ventures involving international companies, British companies have been

309
involved in only six of them. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, would no doubt say that that is part and parcel of the blatant discrimination that is being exercised against British companies. But I wonder whether that is so or whether companies in this country have not made sufficient efforts to enter into the necessary consortia so as to be successful in the tenders.
If there is such blatant discrimination, I wonder what the position was before the dispute arose; that is, before 1992. Were we making strong incursions into the Chinese trade scene at that time? Was the tap suddenly turned off? What is the evidence? Further, why does the Chinese Embassy in this country and the administration make such strenuous efforts to advertise in this country the opportunities for trade that exist in China if they are so anxious blatantly to discriminate against the British as a result of Hong Kong? It does not add up. I do not think that the Chinese are in the business of wasting their money on profitless advertising. They are anxious to improve the economic conditions of their people. I also believe that they want to be well thought of internationally. They do not want to be ostracised. Of course, there are examples such as those chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, earlier, but I believe that they were short-term. They are not indicative of the situation in the long term.
Because of all those factors, should we remain silent about breaches of human rights that are undoubtedly occurring? I thought that the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Ennals was very interesting in that regard. Despite the criticisms and the allegations that have been made, is there any evidence that China is issuing any threats to the economy of Hong Kong? Indeed, the reality is—and I think we can gain some reassurance from this—that, despite previous propaganda to the contrary that Britain was somehow or other engaged in milking the last penny, or whatever the proper denomination is, from Hong Kong, all that criticism seems to have quietened down. The Chinese recognise that the first post-colonial government in Hong Kong will inherit reserves to the tune of about £23 billion. That was the prediction only the other day of Sir Hamish McLeod, the Financial Secretary.
What alternative was there to the position taken by the Governor with the support of the Government? Was it—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, put it— lacking in realism and out of keeping with the needs of Hong Kong? Or, as the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, put it, was it that the people of Hong Kong did not want democracy but the Governor was prepared to fly in the face of that deep resistance? Or was it that democracy was so totally unfamiliar to them that it buttressed their resolve not to have it? Or was it that confrontation necessarily imperils the people of Hong Kong and dissidents on the mainland, which was the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh?
Of course, it is a difficult and sensitive problem that confronts the Governor. He has to deal with it in reality. And the people in Hong Kong have to live with it. But they have made their position abundantly plain. It is the very reverse of the thoughts that have emerged largely from the business community who want to convey a
310
certain impression. I do not think those people do themselves a service and fortunately it is not the entirety of the business community who take that view. They argue that it is only by doing business with China that eventually the Chinese people and the people of Hong Kong will be released from the tentacles of despotism.
I am all in favour of doing business with China, and I have indicated that. But, equally, I feel it would be wholly wrong to insulate China from the grave criticisms that have been made by representatives of organisations whom my noble friend Lord Ennals and others have met over the past few days. It is an impossible course, I suggest, for democrats to accept the suggestion: say nothing, do nothing to offend. That is impossible. Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to concede that the Governor might have gone about things somewhat differently, the question now is: would it be faintly feasible to reverse it all? Even if the argument was conceded entirely, what evidence exists to establish that China would be more willing to accept the "through train" arrangements giving LegCo members elected in 1995 security of tenure until 1999?
What is ineluctably clear is that the Governor would have come under massive criticism in this country and in Hong Kong if he had made no effort at all to set up a representative legislature before handing over Hong Kong to Chinese rule. As I said, I believe it has been highly unprofitable to engage in the negative arguments and sentiments mirrored in some speeches in this debate. That simply deflects attention from the basic theme that has now to be pursued.
The work of the Select Committee and its unanimous report are quite excellent. I wish to refer to three of its conclusions and I should like to know whether the Government are in a position to reflect upon them today. One recommendation was that Britain should set up an independent commission to protect human rights in Hong Kong after 1997 and widen the circle of Foreign Office diplomats with a specialist interest in China. That is a useful suggestion. It does not necessarily ensure that human rights would be protected but it is always good to monitor the situation and to let the world know that it is being monitored. It is also suggested that there should be closer contacts at all levels with China and that Britain should play a leading role in trying to advance human rights by opening a debate with Peking on self-determination for Tibet which is something that worries the people of Hong Kong because they fear they might go the same way.
I wholly agree with the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches that full British citizenship should be given to 7,000 non-Chinese ethnic minority residents. I wholly agree also with the proposition that more teaching about China in British schools and universities needs to be undertaken. I would like to know whether the Government have any views about those matters that they can disclose to the House tonight. I conclude as I began by saying that this has been an excellent debate. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for the opportunity to discuss these matters which have the most major significance for the people of Hong Kong who, through their dedication and effort, have made that country very strong economically and who desperately

311
—in my judgment, on the evidence—want to make sure that they can at least have the prospect of democracy ahead of them.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, by leave of your Lordships' House I rise to respond to some of the issues raised in this important debate which has lasted for more than four-and-a-half hours. I will, of course, respond by letter on those issues I cannot cover. It has been an interesting and varied debate, fascinating for the insights provided by two former Governors of Hong Kong and particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, who has travelled so far to tell us what is really happening in the Legislative Council.
One could not have heard two more varied speeches than those of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and my noble friend Lord Cromer. Some of the speeches were highly charged; I do not consider that to be helpful at this most delicate time. But I believe that the debate has done credit to this House and I hope to reflect on the contributions made in all parts of the Chamber so that we can learn from the experience of others and make sure that we take forward the information, particularly the balanced information given by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky and the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, in their appreciation of what is going on.
I was surprised and saddened by some of the personal attacks made by certain of your Lordships on the Governor of Hong Kong. Governor Patten only went ahead with the proposals—my noble friend Lady Thatcher referred to this matter in our debate in December 1992—with the support of the Government. He only went ahead with the proposals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, said, following 17 rounds of discussions. That point was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky was also right when he said that there was no way, after 1989, that the Hong Kong people would not seek greater involvement in Hong Kong's politics. I believe that has been said to nearly all visitors to Hong Kong. This is what the Government have sought to respond to with great restraint and, may I say, with none of the confrontation suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Cromer. Britain has never chosen confrontation: we have sought co-operation. If the noble Earl were to be privy to some of the details of those 17 rounds of discussions, he would know exactly why I refer to that with a great deal of feeling. A great deal of patience was shown in those discussions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, was absolutely right when she said that there is disagreement on some issues. But that is no reason why we should not agree with the People's Republic of China on other issues. That indeed is exactly what is happening as regards the airport. I shall refer to that matter later. I believe the noble Baroness was also right to say that the Governor is vigorously and honourably seeking to fulfil the needs of the Hong Kong community. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said, it is a matter of the hopes of more than 6 million Hong Kong citizens who live in Hong Kong and for whom we have to work for a solution. We continue to work for a solution.
312
I believe it would be a real shame if, in Britain's last major colony, we rode roughshod over the wishes of the people of Hong Kong by setting up a sham democracy. If we ignored their wishes that is exactly what it would be.
There is evidence in repeated opinion polls that economic confidence is partly balanced by whether there is confidence in political stability. That is why it has been the Government's policy to allow the Legislative Council to decide. That is what it does now. As the noble Baroness said, it is now considering the second stage Bill. That addresses more difficult issues, including the question of the functional constituencies and the election committee. However, I hope to set; that Bill pass before the summer recess. I know that the Legislative Council is working to try to reach the right solutions.
Despite what was said by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who has generously given us the opportunity for this debate, I do not believe that we ever had an option in Hong Kong after Tiananmen Square in 1989 to agree with China behind the backs of the people of Hong Kong. That would have come undone in Hong Kong very early and would probably not have survived even after 1997.
Nor do I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, that the Governor of Hong Kong or indeed the British Government are being idealistic. We have always made it absolutely clear that we can only proceed if we proceed with LegCo. That is the onus of the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said that he saw a change of policy in 1992. There may have been a change of tone and style, but certainly there was no change of policy. Co-operation on the basis of the Joint Declaration was in the best interests of Hong Kong and it will remain British policy.
The Governor has publicly committed himself to taking full account of LegCo's views. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, asked about that. As your Lordships will know, the Governor instituted a regular Question Time. He has produced more openness in the running of Hong Kong, perhaps not as much as he would like to see or the members of LegCo would like to see, but it is a sound beginning. Certainly it is unquestionable that the British Government and the Hong Kong Government share the commitment of LegCo to working with China, because that is the only way ahead after 1997.
My noble friend Lord Geddes talked about a fully-fledged Westminster democracy. Certainly the proposals of the Governor of Hong Kong are in no way for a fully-fledged Westminster democracy. The Governor has brought forward a modest increase in pace, but, as I said earlier, that is in response to the wishes of the Hong Kong people. There is certainly no intention on the part of the British Government or the Governor to make a decision for LegCo. LegCo will make it for itself.
Business and politics must work together. That is; why speaker after speaker in the debate has underlined

313
the importance of the rule of law that is needed for prosperity. We have been interested to talk to many visitors, not only from Hong Kong but also from China.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, devoted much of his speech to the failure of Lu Ping to meet the Governor during his recent visit to Hong Kong and implied that it was a failure on the part of the Governor. It is interesting to note the comment of my noble friend Lord Marlesford. It is clear from research in Hong Kong that it was the fact that Lu Ping felt unable to meet the Governor which damaged Hong Kong confidence. I believe that the co-operation we are seeking to build and which the Hong Kong people want is something that Director Lu Ping will come to see is most important for the future.
I say publicly now that we hope that Lu Ping will come to Hong Kong more often and will meet a wider range of Hong Kong people and begin to understand the vibrancy of the Hong Kong economy and the determination of the Hong Kong people to continue to play their part, not only in Hong Kong but also with China in the great investment which they are making in China.
I was asked by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur about the all-important future commercial and consular representation. He may not know of the new Consulate-General building being built in central Hong Kong. I understand that it will be the largest British diplomatic post in Asia. That is because there is a most important job to be done. The commercial relationships that will be executed through Hong Kong will be vital, not only for the colony after 1997 but also for the SAR.
My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever asked about comments made by the Chinese ambassador to the Court of St. James about discrimination against British firms. The Chinese ambassador will speak for himself but any threat to discriminate against British business is in nobody's interests. It is not in the interests of the Chinese people. It is certainly not in the interests of Hong Kong, and it is not in the interests of Britain.
I can find no hard evidence of discrimination against British business. I looked into the matter before coming to our debate today. A substantial number of contracts have been signed and our businessmen are showing prudent confidence in the China market. I understand that within the past month Cable and Wireless has signed a 30 million US dollar contract to provide an undersea cable-laying facility. BP has reported a £3 million contract for exploration work in Xinjiang and has signed a letter of intent for 200 million US dollars for an acetic acid plant in Sichuan. Yorkshire Water has been awarded a contract worth £5.5 million to build a water treatment plant by the Daqing Petroleum Company. There are many other instances from last year and the early part of this year which show that there is no campaign of discrimination.
Prime Minister Li Peng has said that China will not adopt a discriminatory policy towards British companies. He has said that they are welcome to come to China, to compete on equal terms and to develop co-operation on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. Therefore, I do not believe that there is discrimination.
314
Certainly, those who lead those companies are making sure that business co-operation continues. Vice-Premier Li Lanqing assured Sir Leon Brittan in mid-March that China had no intention of discriminating against us. I believe that that was sincere.
One of our central aims must be to make sure that business can continue to work in the interests of the Hong Kong people, but also in the interests of UK/China relations. There is no doubt that the investment that is going into China through Hong Kong is a real success story. I mentioned in my opening remarks the enthusiasm which my noble friend Lord Howe found on his visit with businessmen from the agri-food industry. My honourable friend Mr. Needham, the Minister for Trade in another place, has made four visits in two years, each with businessmen. He plans to take another group very soon. The China-Britain Trade Group has made 18 missions to China this year, the biggest ever programme of such missions. China wants the trade and Hong Kong is helping China to get that trade. That trade is continuing despite the political disagreements which have been referred to throughout our debate.
The other aspect of the trade issue is how strongly the Hong Kong economy is growing. GDP increased by more than 5 per cent. in 1992 and 5.5 per cent. in 1993. I believe that investors are taking a long-term view and that trade with China will continue to boom, both directly and through Hong Kong. Certainly, the British Government will be doing all they can to increase the trade, not merely out of self interest but because we believe that it is good for Britain, good for Hong Kong and good for China. Where we have good trade links, we are more likely to have influence on other issues too. I shall come to those human rights issues in just one moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the new airport. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, gave a graphic description of the building of the new airport already taking shape at great speed. It is one of the world's largest construction projects. There is no doubt that when more than half the world's deep dredging fleet is working in Victoria Harbour this airport means business. I hope that agreement can soon be reached with the Chinese on the financing package. Lu Ping said in Hong Kong recently that he thought that agreement acceptable to both sides could soon be reached, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned. Certainly, the project is excellent value for money. Any big cost reduction would compromise the scope of the project. That is why we hope the full construction of the first-rate airport that Hong Kong so badly needs goes ahead.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lord Marlesford asked about the most favoured nation status renewal for China. Obviously, there would be an economic impact on Hong Kong if MFN status were not renewed. The Hong Kong Government estimate that there would be a reduction in Hong Kong's overall trade of about 6 per cent., a loss of up to 70,000 jobs, and a drop in the GDP growth rate of over 2 per cent. We share the concerns expressed about human rights in China. But there are ways to go about resolving those

315
issues. My noble friend Lord Marlesford was right, as I believe he said, that the United States administration should give full weight to the damage which could be done to the Hong Kong economy by the withdrawal of the most favoured nation status for China. But that does not mean that we should not be talking with China about the very real worries that we have on issues of human rights. I believe that President Clinton will be taking a decision on MFN renewal as soon as next week.
Many comments were made on the Joint Liaison Group.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. A few moments ago she gave some welcome assurances that the Governor and the Government were committed to making the voice of LegCo effective. On the subject of human rights, is there a possibility that the Governor will reconsider his decision virtually to veto the introduction of Miss Anna Wu's human rights Bill?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord anticipates a comment I was about to make. I understand that the reason that the Governor was concerned about the Wu Bill was that China has pledged to abolish any commission that would be set up by that human rights Bill. Therefore the Governor is seeking to find the best way forward to implement human rights recommendations—which may not be a commission.
I referred to the Joint Liaison Group. As we all know, the Joint Declaration commits both our governments to closer co-operation. We are determined to discharge our responsibility. But we need the support of the Chinese in those meetings. Much of the JLG's agenda is technical and legal but uncontroversial. I believe that it should not be too difficult to complete the matter on time. I believe it important to do so in the interests of individuals and businesses in Hong Kong. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, asked me about the localisation of UK legislation applied to Hong Kong. That is one urgent task caught up in the backlog. If not completed, there would be an immediate legal vacuum when the UK legislation lapses on 1st July 1997. Therefore, we are conscious of those matters and seek to work on them as soon as we can.
The noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, and Lord MacLehose, talked about the civil service and about the preliminary working committee. We very much agree on the need for continuity in the civil service, as does China. There is no question of forbidding individual civil servants having contact with the preliminary working groups. They are free to meet. But we must bear in mind that the Chinese have made it clear that the preliminary working committee is not an organ of power. The only organs of power that decide matters are the Government of the People's Republic of China and the UK Government.
I turn to comments made by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Lord, St. John of Bletso. The human rights situation is, and will continue to be, very worrying. I cannot answer all the detailed points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I can say that we are both aware of
316
them and seek ways to help resolve the matter where there is a problem. However, I believe that some issues are blown out of proportion.
On the critical issue of provision after 1997 for non-Chinese ethnic communities there is no question of any British dependent territory citizen becoming stateless. I understand the great feeling of my noble friend, Lord Glenarthur, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer and others, and the strength of comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I shall certainly bring those remarks to the attention of my colleagues.
The assurance that wives and widows of ex-servicemen will be welcome to enter the United Kingdom to settle at any time was repeated by the present Home Secretary in a personal letter to those ladies last month. I understand the wider concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Caiter. Certainly we are aware that a small number of people in that category are concerned. It is not for me to decide the matter. I shall certainly take the issue back and see what more may be done.
Several noble Lords asked about a response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report. It is a most excellent and thorough report. It stimulated great debate about further steps that are necessary or desirable to reinforce the measures already in place to try to protect human rights in the territory. We are considering with the Hong Kong Government the response that we shall present to Parliament before long. I cannot comment at present on the individual matters as it is not policy to do so.
I turn finally to the hops of co-operation with China over Hong Kong. Perhaps I may say without reservation that we want to see a successful transition to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. Our door has been open all along. It remains open for discussion with the Chinese Government. There is no reason why our inability to agree on election arrangements should mean that we cannot co-operate on all the many other matters of importance to Hong Kong.
I note the recent remarks by the leader of the pro-China party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, that Peking realises that it cannot cut all contacts with the UK and Hong Kong governments and achieve a smooth transfer of sovereignty in 1997. I hope that there is some hope in that comment. But there is plenty of evidence that in areas other than constitutional development, Britain and China continue to co-operate. As my noble friends Lord Weir and Lord Glenarthur said, there is an important relationship with China, far greater than I think the debate has given credit for. But I believe that Britain must continue to develop that wide ranging relationship with China, not only covering the vital issues of Hong Kong but all the many other aspects of the work that we are doing.
We have today ranged far and wide across the great canvas of Hong Kong's future. It is Hong Kong's future that we have at the top of our agenda in our considerations. We remain responsible for Hong Kong's administration until 30th June 1997. We shall discharge that responsibility to the best of out ability. But we

317
cannot do so in a vacuum. That is why we must take proper account of the views of the people of Hong Kong and spare no effort in ensuring that we work in full co-operation, consistent with our obligations under the Joint Declaration, with the future sovereign power, the People's Republic of China. The tasks are huge, the challenges enormous. But particularly after this debate, I hope that Britain, Hong Kong and China will prove at least equal to them. With the help of notable people like the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, I know that we shall have help all the time from Hong Kong in this difficult task.
8 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this has been a very thorough debate and I am deeply grateful to all those who have taken part. It has been an opportunity for those with much non-partisan but solid background know-ledge and experience of Hong Kong to bring their views to bear. To have two former governors, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, in one debate is a pretty good catch when we are talking about a subject as important in one sense and as narrow as Hong Kong. To have the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Cromer come all the way from Hong Kong to play a part in the debate is something for which we are all grateful.
Powerful views, legitimate views, even provocative views have been expressed this afternoon. None can be dismissed lightly; they were all put forward with considerable sincerity. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Chalker for setting the Government's position firmly on the record, for answering many detailed points so thoroughly and for providing a degree of further reassurance. I must also acknowledge that the timing of the debate has caused her not a little inconvenience but I hope that she will forgive me.
Noble Lords will not want me to repeat any of the arguments. I believe that the debate has done three things. First, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, it has shown, not for the first time, the genuine concern in this House for a successful transition in Hong Kong in 1997, let alone a more general interest in Hong Kong. I sincerely hope that it will be appreciated in the territory and understood in Peking.
Secondly, it has highlighted the fragile nature of the discussions in which the Government are engaged and of which we are interested observers and legitimate commentators. We all wish those who bear the heavy burdens of the negotiations continued success. We wish them well, not least the Governor in the difficult task he has.
Thirdly, it has reminded us of the importance of bridging our difficult negotiations with an understand-ing of the mutual economic benefits which can flow between Britain and China.
There is one other point which I should make. Despite the misgivings that have been raised in some cases, the debate has been useful in one other way. I am an optimist, like the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and I have a firm belief that we shall all look back in 20 years or probably less, acknowledge the tensions that have waxed and waned between Britain and China in recent
318
years and be thankful that out of them has grown an even more prosperous Hong Kong in which both countries can take pride.
With renewed thanks to those who have taken part, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Parliamentary Commissioner Bill
8.3 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill extends the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the parliamentary ombudsman, to cover five tribunals in the Department of Social Security's independent tribunals service. It also makes provision for future extensions of jurisdiction to be made by order. My honourable friend Gerry Malone was able, with great perseverance, to take this welcome measure through another place. I and, I am sure, the whole of this House congratulate him on his success.
The parliamentary ombudsman investigates com-plaints of maladministration against the Government, and against other bodies which have been placed under his jurisdiction. The office has been in existence for 27 years, and has proved to be a valuable and effective addition to the rights of the citizen. I am delighted that another place has agreed to this extension of his remit, and has agreed to fund its implementation, at a time when certain other effective ombudsmen appear to be under threat from the industries that they serve.
Section 110 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which came into effect on 1st January 1991, brought the tribunals administered by the Lord Chancellor's Department within the jurisdiction of the parliamentary ombudsman, but left outside it those tribunals whose members happen to be appointed by someone else. This Bill seeks to bring within the parliamentary ombudsman's jurisdiction the administra-tive actions of five such tribunals; those concerned with vaccine damage payments; Child Support Act appeals and social security, disability and medical appeals. These are all matters of considerable public interest and concern.
Primary legislation has proved to be necessary to make these small, uncontroversial and worth-while additions to the parliamentary ombudsman's remit. Clause 1 of this Bill therefore makes provision for tribunals to be added to or removed from his jurisdiction by an order subject to the negative resolution procedure, so that amendments may be made quickly and easily in future.
Clause 1 also contains provisions to clarify the extent of the parliamentary ombudsman's jurisdiction over tribunals. It does this by placing the staff of the tribunals, rather than the tribunals themselves, within his scope, and by then excluding actions by such staff which result from the express or implied direction of a member of the tribunal; that is, those actions which form part of a tribunal's decision.

319
I would like to emphasise that nothing in this Bill affects the essential nature of the parliamentary ombudsman. It does not enable him, for instance, to deal with matters that are properly the concern of the courts or of tribunals. Nor does the Bill address the concerns expressed in the report of a Select Committee of another place on the work of the parliamentary ombudsman; we shall doubtless have the Government's response to that document in due course.
The Bill has commanded the support of all sides in another place; I am confident that it will here too. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Lucas.)
8.7 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sand well: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to add a word of congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to Mr. Malone on introducing the Bill. Noble Lords may recollect that for some years the Government resisted bringing legal administration within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner since they declined to distinguish, as the noble Lord has just distinguished, between judicial decisions and legal administration. A number of us for some time pressed the Government on the matter and we were rewarded when Section 110 was included in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
I should like to echo what the noble Lord has just said by way of a tribute to the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner, William Reid, and his office in establishing great respect for the system as it applied to the judicial administration and for the work of his office in other areas.
By what I believe was an oversight, administration of tribunals other than those administered by the Lord Chancellor were, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, omitted from Section 110 of the Act. I believe that there was a suggestion that the matter should be rectified by subordinate legislation, but there then arose a doubt as to whether the power existed. The Select Committee in another place considered the Parliamentary Commissioner's report in 1993 and recommended the removal of the anomaly. This Bill is designed to do just that. I hope I speak for all those concerned with the work of tribunals in wishing the Bill well.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, there may be surprise that we have two Front-Bench spokesmen on a modest measure. The explanation is that I was deputed to say a few words of welcome, which I was happy to do. Then along came the Chairman of the Council of Tribunals in the shape of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. No one could be better qualified to add a few words. That is all that is needed. The Second Reading proposal was made very fairly and fully. I would describe this Bill as a benign piece of legislation. There cannot be anyone who will be disadvantaged by it. I have no statistics, but there may be a number of people who could in the past have been advantaged by it but whose counterparts in a like situation will be benefited in the future.
320
The concept of the ombudsman and the philosophy behind the appointment have been very successful. Sometimes we complain about the absence of "teeth", or the inability or unwillingness of people who are chastised by the ombudsman. But the office is a valuable mechanism which benefits the little man, who may not have resources and who may be petrified or frightened. The House knows that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, was for many years an ombudsman for local government; and there will be other Members of this House who have great experience to bring. From the Labour Front Benches, we give the Bill a very warm welcome. I congratulate the noble Lord on introducing it so cogently, and I wish it well.
8.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I, too, express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for moving the Second Reading of this very useful Bill. I, too, hope that it will receive support from all noble Lords.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, William Reid, drew the Government's attention in his recent annual reports to the gap in his jurisdiction. The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has also pressed for the removal of the anomaly in respect of tribunals. I welcome the opportunity that this Bill affords to rectify the position.
As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, rightly emphasised, the parliamentary commissioner plays an important role in assisting Parliament to protect the individual citizen against the effects of maladministration. It seems appropriate that his jurisdiction should be extended to the administrative actions of staff in the tribunals listed in the Bill, whose impact on individuals can be significant. I therefore welcome this extension of the parliamentary commissioner's jurisdiction. I wish the Bill a speedy passage into law. In doing so, I express what I believe is the sense of the House that Parliament has been well served by those who have been appointed to the office of the parliamentary commissioner and those who have served on his staff.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and my noble friend the Minister for the support that they have given to this Bill. I am grateful for it, and I am sure that my honourable friend is equally grateful and looks forward to receiving the Bill back in another place. I commend this Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Ex-Prisoners: Aftercare
8.13 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to provide a satisfactory system of aftercare for ex-prisoners.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name. I begin by thanking the highly qualified persons who will speak later in this debate. They are few but are enormously select. I refrain from mentioning individuals—except one whom I shall mention later and I hope that the others will not be jealous.
The question of the aftercare and resettlement of prisoners goes to the heart of all discussions. We have endless debates about criminal justice, but at the end of the day the prosecution succeeds and people are sent to prison, perhaps for years. What happens to them then? That is the critical moment. I venture to say that the little time that we are spending on this subject tonight is abundantly worth while.
It is 40 years since I was working on an inquiry into the causes of crime for the Nuffield Foundation. I then produced a book. In 1955 I opened the first debate in this House on prisons. In the same year I founded, with the help of others, the New Bridge for Ex-Prisoners, which flourishes today under the presidency of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the direction of Mr. Eric McGraw.
Not long after 1955, a dynamic young public relations officer, Peter Thompson, who has since become famous for his foundation of the ever to be admired Matthew Trust for mental offenders and people who have been in mental trouble of all kinds. He asked me to take the chair of the committee. I would have been unable to do that with any success had the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, not been available to act as the secretary of that committee. The noble Lord wrote a report which, I venture to think, had a good deal of influence on public policy. The noble Lord then went on to greater things. Today, he is president of NACRO and has done tremendous work at Grendon and in other spheres of penal reform. That is why I mention his name among all these eminent people, who I hope will not mind my singling him out.
The New Bridge for Ex-Prisoners was founded almost 39 years ago. One has to ask oneself whether things are any better now for the average prisoner leaving prison than they were then. Much has been done to help prisoners. The New Bridge has gone from strength to strength. NACRO, under the presidency of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is the biggest provider of help in its field. APEX and other bodies are doing very good work. But one has to ask whether a prisoner coming out today is any better placed than were the prisoners who aroused my concern in 1955.
In those days, of course, the attitude of the Home Office was not favourable. At the New Bridge we were told that we were considered to be a gang of homosexuals helping fellow homosexuals. It was put to the Home Office that at that time I had eight children. The response was: "Ah, we know all about that. That's just cover". That was the attitude of the Home Office to
322
start with. But in recent years it has been much more friendly, and now the New Bridge gets a substantial grant from the Home Office. We have to ask: are things any better? In a sense it does not matter whether they are or are not. We have the same duty towards them, whatever the historical calculation.
I said many years ago that a prisoner coming out of prison will probably be handicapped at least in three ways. First, he will be handicapped by the temperament that took him to prison. That is usually the case. When I say "usually", I mean that there are miscarriages of justice, but usually he has been guilty of something, and usually—at least in a high proportion of cases—he has not lived the right kind of life. That is the original handicap.
Secondly, there is a prisoner's treatment in prison. It is difficult to believe that one would want a member of one's family of whom one was fond to spend any time in prison. Some people have benefited. One prisoner I know very well who is serving 25 years for the alleged importation of drugs has become a distinguished painter. But that is rare. One has normally to assume that, on balance, incarceration—the total denial of freedom—is likely to do more harm than good. Nevertheless, the effort for prisoners should never be abandoned. It would be a sin against the Holy Ghost to say, "Oh well, it is bound to do them harm, so there is nothing we can do about it". That would be abominable.
Thirdly, when prisoners come out of prison they carry a stigma. For the most part that is irrational, but not totally so. If, for example, a headmaster had been convicted of a sexual crime against boys, he would not be appointed to the next vacancy. So to some extent one might have to consider the past record. But the emotional stigma is out of all proportion. But whether or not, we must bear it in mind when trying to help these people who, after all, are our fellow citizens and—to use the expression of the right reverend Prelates—the children of God.
So what is to be done? My first submission is that as soon as we can we should establish a statutory aftercare service which ensures that, when a prisoner leaves prison, he can turn to some authority to ask for help to find work and accommodation. Of course it cannot be guaranteed that they will be available, but at any rate he should have the right to turn to such an authority. That would be the first target to set ourselves.
Experts in this field are aware that under the 1991 Act, those who have been convicted after 1992 and have received a sentence of more than 12 months are to be supervised. But there is no obligation on the supervisors to provide them with help. In the first place we must make sure that there is an obligation on the authorities to provide them with help to the best of their ability.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. He says that there ought to be statutory provision made. He must be aware that some of the best work being done at present is carried out by voluntary organisations such as Selcare in Greater Manchester. To diminish their role would be a

323
tragedy. We want to encourage such people to stay in business by giving them adequate resources. In fact, the Government have cut them.
The Earl of Longford: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, who has done very good work for prisoners and has often spoken on these matters in this House, raised that point. There is no conflict with that in what I am saying. There should be more provision. For example, take the New Bridge, of which I was the founder. I do not think that there would be any objection there. I have not asked them but I do not think that there would be any objection. It would mean that when a prisoner came out of prison he would go to the probation officer and the first thing he might be told would be to go to the New Bridge—or some organisation in Manchester. At any rate, there would be the obligation on somebody. We do not have enough time for me to give examples, of which there are many. Let me simply say that I have spoken to relatives of prisoners who have come out of gaol and have had nowhere to go or do not know where they will be the next night. That is the situation today. There is no conflict between me and the noble Lord, Lord Dean.
I shall speak about the voluntary bodies, but before doing so I must raise the question of who will provide such arrangements. The probation service in the first place must be responsible. Undoubtedly that will mean some increase in its funds. At present, according to figures which have been supplied by the Home Office, about £40 million is provided by the Home Office to the probation service for use outside prison. Out of £1,417 million, that is a negligible sum. There can be a considerable increase in the amount provided for the probation service without interfering very much with the total sum.
I believe that not only should that responsibility for helping be placed on that service but also help should be given not only to those convicted after 1992 but to all prisoners. All prisoners, whether or not they are convicted after 1992 or have received a sentence of less than 12 months, should be entitled to look to the state for some assistance in finding work and accommodation when they leave prison.
My next point is the help of voluntary bodies—that is the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. No one is likely—certainly I am not—to be reluctant to say that the voluntary bodies are doing a great job. I could mention the one in which I am particularly interested, my own New Bridge, and NACRO, and APEX, which is the organisation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson; but there are many others. They are all doing great work. They should be given much more assistance. That is my second point.
My third point breaks new ground. This matter has not been discussed in your Lordships' House before. It is the question of resettlement in relation to aftercare. The more that people devote their lives to that issue, the more they become aware of the fact that one cannot separate resettlement, the last year or two in prison and aftercare. If noble Lords have not already done so—my remarks go beyond the attendance in the Chamber
324
tonight because I hope that many people will read my observations—I hope that they will visit Latchmere House and Blantyre House. Latchmere House is called a resettlement prison and there is another one doing excellent work also. Blantyre House is a reintegration prison. We could have a philosophical discussion about the precise difference. But in each case the emphasis is on reconciliation and helping people when they leave prison to be reconciled within themselves and to the community.
Before prisoners leave Latchmere House most of them go to work outside prison. Risks are run every now and then. One reads of those who refuse the right to go and work outside the prison. I read the Sun newspaper every day—like Lord Montgomery who used to look at a picture of Rommel in his tent in the desert. The Sun had a story today about someone who abused that right in Latchmere House. What the Sun did not print was the fact that when the Sun journalist came to Latchmere House, he was told by the other prisoners that Latchmere House was the one organisation which made it less likely that they would commit a crime. That of course was not printed. But perhaps this debate will be printed in the Sun. It is not very likely, but one should not despair.
At any rate, there it is. Latchmere House has the ideal of resettlement. It is hoped that the prisoners, before: they leave Latchmere House, will have obtained jobs which they can follow up in the community when they leave. Obviously that in itself presents difficulties. If they are in the London area, clearly they can work there and go on working outside. In some other parts of England that will not be so easy to do. It may be said —rightly perhaps—that one has to establish such resettlement units in prisons. I have visited all the places that I have spoken of. In the small resettlement units in prisons, the atmosphere of Latchmere House cannot easily be recreated.
I venture to suggest that noble Lords will not totally understand Latchmere House unless they visit it. There is there an extraordinary atmosphere of friendliness. I must be careful with what I say because the Sun newspaper might say that the regime was too cushy. Well, whatever words one chooses to use, there is, nonetheless an atmosphere of friendliness among the; prisoners and staff and also between management and the trade unions. The same is the case in Blantyre House, which was established some years before Latchmere House.
So those places, Latchmere House and Blantyre House, are models. If at times I seem to be critical of the Home Office and appear to imply that nothing good ever comes out of it, please let me remove any such impression. I admire enormously the work done in places like Latchmere House and Blantyre House. But I also have great respect in this connection for the Home: Office, which has endorsed those people, encouraged them and made it possible. I do not want to appear to be always negative in my attitude to the Home Office. But we want a number of other places like Latchmere House and Blantyre House. That is the way forward. That is my third main point.

325
I have been in touch with the Home Office. As usual, it has done its best to be helpful. In reply to my question, "What are you doing for resettlement?", they gave me a reply under 16 headings. At this time of night I cannot begin to spell those out for your Lordships. However, I am bound to say that the sums of money involved are still quite small. The largest of them is £40 million for the probation service. I think of the efforts made officially by the Government at the moment—I do not say that they are not looking beyond that point—but the fact must be faced that there are 150 prisoners in Latchmere House, fewer than 100 in Blantyre House and about 100 in another excellent resettlement prison. That is a bagatelle compared with the fact that there are 50,000 prisoners, and 19,000 prisoners leave every year. We are therefore not even beginning to solve the problem.
The Home Office started in the right direction. It has made a small timid beginning. I want to encourage it to go much further and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that it is going further.
I can sum up under three headings. First, we need a statutory obligation on the Government to provide some assistance to everyone who leaves prison; secondly, we want to provide much more generous assistance to all the excellent bodies that are trying to help ex-prisoners; and, thirdly, we need to double and re-double the number of establishments like Latchmere House and Blantyre House which do such wonderful work. I hope the Minister will be able to say something encouraging in that regard.
8.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I welcome the noble Earl's Unstarred Question and the opportunity it gives me to express some concerns and hopes in this important area of aftercare, though given the lateness of the hour I shall not detain the House for long.
The Christian community accepts that certain dangerous offenders need to be imprisoned to protect the public and that a prison sentence declares the seriousness with which certain offences are regarded by society. Nevertheless, the Christian gospel compels us to regard all people as bearing the image of God, and the rehabilitation and resettlement of the offender are practical duties laid upon us by that high doctrine of man.
In that connection I want to welcome the progress made in the time since the publication of Lord Justice Woolf's important report in the wake of the Strangeways disturbances: progress in improving conditions and regimes; the new emphasis on the role, of prison officers as "personal officers" with a duty to seek the welfare of individual prisoners; the greater flexibility in some establishments of counselling and group therapy for sex offenders; the setting up of a resettlement prison like Latchmere House near Richmond, within my own diocese of Southwark. Yet there is a danger that the current increase in overall prison population and consequent overcrowding will mitigate against the progress and advances in sentence
326
planning and implementation of throughcare targets. It is because of that danger that I wish respectfully to ask the Government three questions.
First, will the Government make provision for more establishments such as Latchmere House, where 50 per cent. of prisoners are in outside employment in the months prior to release? Secondly, what steps are being taken to identify housing and accommodation issues as key performance indicators in assessing the contribution of regimes to the rehabilitation and resettlement of prisoners? Are all prisons taking advantage of the training being offered at Newbold Revel by the NACRO prison links unit on training for officers on housing issues? Thirdly, will the welcome development of counselling and therapy for sex offenders in some establishments since the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 be extended to all establishments where such offenders are allocated? And further, will community provision be expanded to make such facilities available to prisoners on release and on re-entry into the community?
The problems of homelessness are not of course confined to those leaving prison. There is a general and serious dearth of affordable accommodation and an increase in such provision both by the private and public sector would, among other advantages, offer the possibility of crime reduction, which is one of the major aims of the current Criminal Justice Bill.
Victims at risk of attack by sex offenders returning to the community will also be helped by the knowledge that consistent and careful aftercare provisions are in place to offer social skills, anger management and the possibility of revising attitudes to women for offenders released back into the community on completion of sentence.
In genuinely welcoming what has already been done in both the statutory and voluntary sectors, I simply wish to encourage the Government towards further progress along those lines.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, before intervening in this debate I should declare an interest in that I am acting as an adviser to the Prison Officers Association.
My noble friend Lord Longford asked whether things were better. In some ways that may be the case, but it is still true that for far too many prisoners their punishment continues long after their release from prison. They leave prison in the clothes in which they stand up in, with only a small discharge grant to support them. They re-enter a world in which they have nowhere to go and where they are excluded from the mainstream of society—a society where they have to contend with discrimination against people with a criminal record. If we are serious and sincere about wanting ex-prisoners to become stable members of society, we need to ensure that they have the same opportunities as everyone else and readily available assistance to reach those opportunities.
Prisoners tend to be vulnerable people when they enter prison and the whole prison experience only exacerbates their problems. They need effective support

327
when they are released. That support will be appropriate only if it is nurtured throughout their sentence. Resettlement should start from day one of the sentence and should underpin everything that is done in prison in co-operation with the individual prisoner.
A survey carried out by NACRO in 1992 into resettlement information available to prisoners from various sources found that 9 per cent. received information from outside agencies, 10 per cent. received information from prison staff, 17 per cent. from prison probation staff, and 27 per cent. from probation staff in the prisoner's home area. Some of the prisoners surveyed received advice from more than one source. So in fact the majority of prisoners did not receive any advice on resettlement.
It is therefore encouraging to read in the 1994–97 corporate plan for the prison service published last week,
"that a constructive and purposeful regime in prison plays a significant part in preparing prisoners for release and encouraging them to lead law abiding lives thereafter".
The strategies to achieve that aim include developing community prisons, reviewing home leave and temporary release arrangements and increasing the number of resettlement units in both male and female prisons. Currently I understand that there are three resettlement prisons or wings for men but none for women. That imbalance should be redressed. There should be at least one fully fledged prison or wing in each area division based on resettlement initiatives such as those adopted by Latchmere House, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Longford and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark.
Prison officers can play a large part in helping prisoners with their plans for release provided they have the. proper training—a process that has been started by NACRO's Prison Link Training Unit. The unit trains officers to give advice on housing and employment. NACRO's Women Prisoners' Resource Centre is also holding regular advice sessions in women's prisons and arranging temporary release for women to attend job interviews and look at possible accommodation. That assistance is particularly important for women, who, because of the small numbers involved, find that they do not always have access to the most appropriate help and advice.
I want to make some specific comments about the problems facing women. Time in prison can be particularly damaging to women's lives. Prison is characterised by loss of identity. Women prisoners are often referred to as the "girls" and treated as naughty children rather than as adults. Everything is decided for them; their confidence is sapped. Yet we expect them on release to cope with the complications of existing in what is often a hostile environment. Women ex-prisoners are all too often stereotyped as inadequate and untrustworthy. They face society's general disapproval of women who commit crime. That is not considered proper female behaviour. As a consequence, they find it harder to achieve or regain control over their own lives.
Research persistently shows that prisoners have a better chance of successful resettlement after release if
328
they are able to maintain good and regular contact with their family and with their community while in prison. With only 12 women's prisons, women are more likely to be held far from their homes and families—a situation that could apply to an even greater extent to the young girls it is proposed should be sent to child gaols. Improving visiting facilities and the number and length of visits is a vital factor in the resettlement process. Howard League research shows that, despite pockets of good practice, very few prisons actively provide worthwhile schemes in this vital area. The decision to increase the number of visits from one to two a month is welcome, but 41 per cent. of prisoners reported that their families had problems meeting the cost of their visits to prisons, the procedure for obtaining financial help being too cumbersome.
Similarly welcome is the. value that is now placed on children's visits. Around half of the women in prison are mothers, 6,152 children being affected by the imprisonment of their mother. Account has to be taken of the psychological effect, on both mother and child, of separation, and compassion has to be shown. The cast: of Susan Edwards, the prisoner who was handcuffed throughout the birth of her child on Christmas Eve and who only sees that baby for three hours a week, is a clear example of the need for compassion and understanding. The Home Secretary could make good the harm which has been done and release Mrs. Edwards on compassionate grounds, enabling her and her baby to rebuild their lives.
One of the most damaging effects of imprisonment is; the loss of the prisoner's home. As many as half of the. 100,000 prisoners released each year do not know whether they will have a secure home to go to. There is a lack of affordable rented accommodation in general and few spaces in hostels and housing associations. This; problem is more acute for women with children and for those women suffering from mental health problems or with drug or alcohol dependency.
Prisons should act immediately when a woman enters prison to help her keep her tenancy or give her advice if she feels it would be sensible to move to another area on release. She may quite sensibly want to get away from the environment which brought her into crime or from her ex-partner. She would be assisted if there was more liaison between local authorities and if they were to apply the "local connection" rules more flexibly.
Hostels and housing associations are the main providers of short-term housing for ex-prisoners, but they face funding difficulties and the problems caused by lack of suitable move-on accommodation. They should nevertheless ensure that their referral and selection procedures do not discriminate and should consider accepting women with drug and alcohol-related problems, or a history of violence, on a case-by-case basis, rather than as at present automatic-ally rejecting many such women, who have then to try to find accommodation in special needs hostels. Their position is desperate since the Government transferred the responsibility for these hostels to local authorities, without providing any additional resources. Many women prefer women-only accommodation, where they

329
feel safe after a history of abuse from men, but again the small numbers involved naturally work against the adequate provision of women-only hostels.
The women who go to prison are usually among the most disadvantaged in terms of educational and vocational training. On release, some, as mothers with young children, will be unable to find work, or may have access only to low-paid part-time work which, with the high cost of child care, will not ease their financial burden. Work is essential for released prisoners not only to alleviate their financial problems but to give them a sense of identity and boost their self-confidence. That is an important step towards rehabilitation.
Both prisons and employers could do far more. Prisons could encourage employers to visit women in prison in order to give advice about job search. More "working out" schemes should be promoted and training courses should be provided in prison and be available in the educational institutions for women on temporary release. And most importantly, employers should be prepared to adopt a different attitude to the employment of ex-offenders.
Without a network of practical support, it is extremely hard for a newly released woman prisoner to find her way round all the different agencies that can help her in her struggle to house and unite a family, to make ends meet and to find a job. Prisons should continue to encourage the voluntary organisations to come into the prisons. The local probation services should consistently provide services that are suitable and where possible give women the option of a female probation officer. The Home Office must ensure that all probation services make suitable provision for women. In 1991, only nine of the 55 probation areas had policy statements which related specifically to women. Without that commitment the needs of released women prisoners can too easily be forgotten or marginalised.
Voluntary organisations, which have already been referred to, which concentrate on helping women offenders are very often their lifeline. These organisations are usually short of resources and staff. They are therefore limited in the number of women they can help. The Home Office has a responsibility to ensure that they can continue their valuable work and continue to provide a network of support for women leaving prison to complement the work of the probation service.
If we adopt these measures, we will enable women prisoners to take personal responsibility for their own lives, successfully reintegrating them into the commun-ity without stigma and discrimination, and helping to ensure that they do not reoffend, that crime in the community does not further increase and that our society has taken a humane approach to one of the many problems we face.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to speak in this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Longford, partly, but not only, because it is seldom that I chance to follow someone who is older than I am. I find it encouraging for some
330
reason. It is also appropriate because my noble friend got me into this business years ago and I shall always be grateful to him for doing so.
The topic we are discussing is aftercare. In 1960, when I wrote the report to which my noble friend referred, after visiting 100 prisoners in 10 different prisons three times each and getting some idea of what was going on, the general idea of aftercare was, roughly speaking, a goodbye meeting with the board of visitors, with a pi-jaw from the chairman saying, "Well, my man, you've been foolish. But you've paid for it and now you have a chance to go out and get a new start. Here's five bob pocket money from us and a new pair of boots so you can get away without the usual travel expenses". Whereas in 1960 it was possibly a little better than that, that had been the approach of the official people who were supposed to care for prisoners—the boards of visitors—for the previous hundred years. That is what I reckoned we were up against then, so we had to think fairly hard.
I said that I visited a lot of prisoners and there have been a number of subsequent surveys. They all showed the same general picture. What the man coming out of prison is stuck for is a home, a job and enough money to cover the time needed to find either. If he can have any of those three things, he is half-way home. The majority of the people whom I saw never had both. They never had both a home and a job; or they had a job and the money and not a home. We know fairly accurately what the main problem is for men. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, has spoken so fully about women that I reserve the right to talk about men, which will save me a number of extra paragraphs which is a good thing late at night.
In the latest survey which I have seen, of 198 men, 85 wanted help with the benefits system. That means that they did not know how to get their money because it is rather complicated. Half of the men were not married, or were married, or had forgotten, or had two wives, which makes the situation difficult. Of that number, 83 per cent. wanted help with housing; 63 per cent. had tried but failed to get work; 30 per cent. were homeless when they went to prison, and 60 per cent. had become homeless since going to prison. That was a typical group of men. That situation is almost exactly the same as the one which I found 35 years ago. There has been no very great change. I would not say that all the figures are the same, but that is still the general picture.
The difficulty as regards a home and a job is the main problem for everyone whose life is not running perfectly. For those who are less well equipped with capital funds it becomes everybody's problem. This is a problem which recurs again and again. It is a matter which has to be dealt with, but no one has the slightest idea how to deal with it at the moment. The situation is rather depressing.
The first welfare officer was appointed to a prison in, I believe, 1960 so something has happened in that direction. Now we have a full service of welfare officers in prisons. There is, for example, the probation service and other advisers. Something quite real is happening in that regard. As regards housing, Stonham housing was started about the same time in the 1960s. That is now

331
flourishing. There is a good deal of housing being made available for prisoners only which is a thoroughly good thing.
The noble Lord referred to Latchmere House. Looking after prisoners in future has to begin, as the noble Baroness said, when they first go to prison. But it will not be quite like that. The prison service has to shift itself. It has begun with Latchmere House, which I have not been to. I have been to Blantyre House, which is excellent. A man who was sentenced to three or four years and who has done three of them is beginning to think what he is going to do in future. If he goes to Blantyre House, he has about as much help as anyone can expect not only in connection with money but also for advice. That is the first step. I want to see the prison service changing. It has to do so because it is in such a mess. If there are more and more small prisons containing about 100 prisoners with specialist advantages that would be a step in the right direction.
There should be treatment for drugs. Out of the many people in prison who take drugs I believe that about half of them would be glad to stop. One cannot do anything for the other half. The drug takers in the first half are not treated at all in a proper way. They should have to work for that treatment in order to get the privilege of going to a place where they will receive proper treatment and be looked after subsequently. The same applies to all the prisons. I refer to places like Blantyre House and Grendon Prison, which I know well. That prison is concerned much more with disturbed people. They are places to which the prisoners want to go; but they cannot unless they put in an application which is then carefully looked at. They have to be accepted as people who will make proper use of the facilities.
I wish to see the prison service giving its mind to that kind of provision; but it has never done so in the past. Grendon has been a half-baked establishment for nearly 40 years. It could have been made into something much better. Everyone believes that there should be at least two other places offering such facilities, but nothing ever happens. There is a good deal of disappointment.
I want to stress that the right way forward has been suggested by the noble Earl who opened the debate; namely, that in the prison system there should be a number of reforming prisons which are better places to be in. They are more comfortable to be in unless you are a total "bolshie" and would rather stay in Wormwood Scrubs. The prisoner has to work to get in such an establishment, and when he does so he is pleased. He will find good people there to advise him. The result is the problems begin to be dealt with. I do not want to go on for very long. It is a simple point, but a very important one which arises from this debate. If we follow it up, then this debate will not be entirely wasted.
There is one last point. The Government are always on the right side, as they say, but they always allow a muddle to spoil everything. For example, we know what NACRO is. We have talked about it before and also about some of the things which it does. About 18 months to two years ago, because of switching in the arrangements made by the Government in moving from one department to another the training of individuals, NACRO had to sack 600 trained officials and lose about
332
30,000 training places. We all complained, but nobody cared in the least. There was not a word from anyone saying what an awful thing it was. They said that they were sorry and that they had to take that course. As long as the Government have that attitude, nothing is going to happen. I want to leave as a message the fact that it is no good trying to do what is right unless you make sure that what is wrong is not going on unexpectedly without it being looked at. I leave that as a message to the Government. As they know quite well, I think nothing of them. I would think a great deal more of them if they took more trouble about things which are done by mistake and not on purpose.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest which is not a pecuniary one. I am president of Selcare in Manchester which is concerned with after-prison care. It was started in 1971 under the aegis of a long-standing friend of mine, although he has now departed from this world. He was a former Member of your Lordships' House. I refer to Lord Rhodes. Selcare covers 10 local authorities and 2.75 million people.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and previous speakers painted a dream—what we would like to happen. But I have to bring us back to reality. There is no way in which this Government—or maybe even the next—could fund an enormous building programme to provide special resettlement prisons. I listened with care to the very detailed case which my noble friend Lady Gould put forward on behalf of women prisoners. But there is no possibility—although the case has been superbly made—of the Government starting down that road. My noble friend said quite rightly that the present system for women prisoners in this country is useless and outdated. We want a new system. But we know that in the immediate future we are not going to get one. My noble friend has put down a marker and perhaps people will take note.
I want to deal with some of the problems as they are at present and what we might be able to do about them. It has been said that the rehabilitation of a person starts on the first day of sentence. One would not cavil at that. But, having said that, if the Prison Officers Association is right—and I believe that it is following on my visits to Armley Prison when I was a Member of Parliament for Leeds and to Strangeways in Manchester—the prisons are today tremendously understaffed in order to carry out the normal duties. That is why we have had those disgraceful episodes at Strangeways, which are the type of thing that could break out periodically in other prisons.
The Government have been warned time and time again by the POA about the situation in prisons. That has been underlined on numerous occasions by Judge Tumim who is of course charged with inspecting prisons. Although I have a high regard for prison officers, I do not believe that the answer lies with them. They are not trained to do that type of work, although some of them are very good at it. They are swamped at present even in carrying out the basic tasks. They are overloaded and undermanned.

333
Who is supposed to look after people when they leave prison? I speak as someone who is involved with an organisation that cares for men, women, boys and girls when they are discharged from prison. I think that we do a pretty good job in conjunction with some local authorities that provide accommodation which is supervised by probation officers. It is difficult to make properties from the council's housing stock available for men or single women who leave prison. As a former chairman of the housing department in Manchester, I have to say that the housing situation in Manchester is infinitely worse now than when I left in 1974. That is due to government policies.
People in Manchester have to wait for years now to get to the top of the housing list. If I were chairman of the housing department in Manchester and said, "There is a woman coming out of Styal", or wherever it may be, "with a child, and I am sorry, you have waited 15 years but you must wait a bit longer because of her", the bloody place would be in an uproar. People outside see their priority, and quite rightly. We do not live in a compassionate world. It is right that prisoners should come out to accommodation but it must be funded extensively by the Government.
What about jobs? We all know that when men and women leave prison they do not always find people willing to give them jobs. At a time like now when unemployment is rampant, it is almost impossible to get such people placed in a job. For my sins, I was at one time chairman of a local authority building department which employed 4,700 people. They included 900 apprentices. We always had a group of young lads who were dispersed around the sites who had been in trouble. They had left prison, but some of them made damn good building managers. That does not exist any more. That building force has been decimated, because the Government decided that local authorities can no longer build houses. When blasé political decisions like that are made across the board without considering the ramifications, we are in for all sorts of trouble.
The best people to deal with the problem are members of the probation service, so long as it is funded correctly. I happen to be the president of Selcare. I am not actively engaged in its management because it is a specialist unit. It is overwhelmingly supported by voluntary contributions and voluntary labour. For instance, if it is having a new building or an adaptation made, the architectural work is done voluntarily. Those manning the homes are not doing the highest paid jobs in the world, but they are adequately paid. I believe that Selcare built one of the first purpose-built visiting centres at Strangeways a few years ago. It prevented young women who were visiting their husbands or boyfriends from having to change their children in the streets in the pouring rain and snow. It is a superb visiting centre which caters for everything. It has a crèche. Visitors can get a snack and practically everything else. But what happened when we started running into funding trouble?
I believe that it was the responsibility of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who now exercises authority over the Bahamas, which is a different scene from that
334
at Strangeways. There was a danger that the centre would have to close. When he was asked whether he would provide the funding, he was almost like Fagin. He just turned his back. Then suddenly there was a contradiction. The Government said that new prisons must have a purpose-built visiting centre. But all that those people got who slaved away for a number of years, giving their time and service voluntarily, were two fingers, and "Well, we are very sorry but you are not on the list".
I believe that it is the first time that the Minister has dealt with this problem on the Front Bench. I have to say to him that in real terms the finance made available to voluntary bodies—I have to keep referring to Selcare, because it is the organisation I know and it has been used as a pattern for others—has been reduced dramatically by the Government. That is why, when I listened to my noble friend Lady Gould and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, talk about new property, I wondered whether they were talking about the real world. It is the world that we all want, but it is right at the end of the telescope. People who support organisations like Selcare are very disappointed. They are running a purpose-built home for boys, girls, young men and young women, but they have perpetually to go down to London with a begging bowl so that they can do a job on behalf of the Government. That is pretty rough on them. The Government would do well to look at dealing with that sort of thing.
I could say a great deal more, but it is late and I believe that I have made the most important points. Prisons are overcrowded. Prison officers are at full stretch. Resettlement starts early in prison. But the overwhelming part of it needs to be carried on outside by probation officers and people with special skills.
Trying to make a success of resettling somebody is like putting a child into the education system. The more time that the probation officer—or teacher—can spend with the boy, girl, man or woman who is the problem, the more likely he is to get a result by fostering a relationship in which there is confidence and mutual understanding. Of course, all that costs money. We want a better funded probation service. We want more probation officers and we want more funding to give them the facilities to do the job.
I close on this point. One of the biggest difficulties when people receive custodial sentences is the question of visiting. The Government should take on board the fact that too many people who are given custodial sentences are sent to what appears to be the place furthest from their home. I do not know whether that is deliberate, but that is how it sometimes appears. If the husband or boyfriend is in prison, there is very little money coming into the household and the wife or girlfriend will be living almost on the breadline. That means that there is very little possibility of her being able to travel from, say, Manchester to somewhere on the south coast, the south of Scotland or in the Border country, so that she can see the person ensconced in prison. Probation officers have told me that that is one of the most demoralising aspects of prison life. The problem arises simply because visits are at an absolute

335
minimum when the locations of the prison and the prisoner's home are so disparate. That problem could be sorted out quickly and with no expense.
I thank my noble friend Lord Longford for tabling this Unstarred Question and for the way in which he opened the debate. I have tried to indicate some of the things that we could do now. The Government will have to find some money for them. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to the cut in the number of training places. What the Government have done in terms of the training facilities that were open to prisoners is nonsensical economics. Prisoners used to be able to train so that they could find a job later. At present, however, they seem to be faced with one tightening of the screw after another. I hope that my noble friend Lord Longford is happy that those of us who have supported him may be able, if not to paint a new picture overnight, at least to move the Government towards the right objectives.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Longford for tabling this Unstarred Question and initiating the debate. It is worth noting and marking my noble friend's long interest in aftercare issues. I recently reread his book Five Lives, which I bought many moons ago because he seemed such an intriguing character. It is a work of autobiography in which my noble friend said that he is known as the "prison person". I do not think that those who gave him that designation necessarily meant it as a compliment —certainly, it has not been used in that way since. Nevertheless, my noble friend's commitment to the cause of prisoners and their aftercare is a deep reflection of his Christian convictions. He has been consistent and courageous in his application of the idea that every human being is redeemable, a point that the right reverend Prelate made in his speech.
While we may be confused at the moment about the purposes of punishment and whether it is for retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation or all three and, if so, which takes priority over which, that confusion is reflected in the rather zig-zag course of penal policy over the past few years. Whatever our views about the moral or philosophical basis of punishment, the need for the care and resettlement of prisoners seems obvious. After all, half of all sentenced men and over one-third of all sentenced women reoffend and are convicted of another crime within two years. If we can do something to change that woeful statistic, it seems not only morally right, but in our own self-interest, to do so. Therefore, it is essential that we give some priority to the question of the aftercare of ex-prisoners.
The Unstarred Question also relates to the role of government. Why should the state be involved and, if it is to be involved, what form should that involvement take? The state must have a central role as it is in its name and acting on our behalf that people are deprived —quite rightly, in most cases—of their liberty and suffer all the consequential disadvantages of that deprivation. The state's responsibility, however, cannot stop with sentencing and imprisonment. We bear a responsibility for those consequences of imprisonment
336
which can be rectified and which, given the rates of recidivism which I have mentioned, it is in all our interests to try to rectify. Therefore, the state clearly has a central and unavoidable responsibility.
That responsibility devolves into two parts: first, it has a role in prison before release; and, secondly, it has a role after release in terms of aftercare. Therefore, perhaps I may say a few words about the role of government in relation to the way in which resettlement can start within the prison. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Gould is correct to say that that should start if not at day one, at least as soon as possible. But equally, for reasons to which I shall turn in a moment, my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick is also right to suggest that there is a lack of realism, given the circumstances that we are facing, in assuming that that could be achieved reasonably quickly.
As far as possible, the prison regime should be not only a form of punishment, central and important though that is, but should also equip inmates for their eventual release into the community—a point made by my noble friend Lady Gould—by building a bridge, to use the name of the charity which my noble friend Lord Longford set up, between the prison experience and the community into which the prisoner will eventually be released.
That commitment to trying somehow to bridge the experience in prison with the outside world, which the prisoner will eventually have to make, has tangible and less tangible elements. Among the more tangible elements within the prison regime, which we need to reach if we are ever to crack the problem, despite all the reservations of my noble friend Lord Dean, which I fully understand, are education and training. Many prisoners are ill-equipped in those terms. We need to provide help for short-term prisoners so that they can maintain their tenancies on accommodation if they are in prison for only a fairly brief time. They need that kind of help. There should be support for families during the sentence so that the family does not become unravelled and the prisoner then has to go out into an alien and lonely anonymous kind of world. It is extremely important to try to keep the family together.
Within the prison, it is important also to help with psychological and health-related problems, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. We need sentence planning, to make the best and most effective use of the sentence which the prisoner is serving. I saw examples of that on a visit to the Verne prison recently. That is very impressive and it captures the interest and imagination of prison officers. They are often castigated by commentators for having rather dyed-in-the-wool attitudes but particularly the new generation, although also many of the old generation, of prison officers are looking for opportunities to extend their professional-ism, scope and responsibility. They welcome projects like sentence planning but that needs to be extended because all those aspects contribute to the ability of an inmate to make an eventual success of life outside.
There should be training of prison officers to help to offer detailed advice on housing, employment and money management. That need not be terribly high grade or enormously expensive professional training.

337
As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, NACRO has undertaken work in that field. My noble friend Lord Dean may be slightly pessimistic about the extent to which prison officers are interested in, capable of and have time to engage in such activities.
Another important factor within the prison is realistic levels of pay for work, a point which NACRO made in its 1993 report. That should not be seen as a sloppy, namby-pamby approach to prisoners. Rather, if they work and earn money which they can then contribute to support their families outside prison, or alternatively to save for their own release, that would enhance their own self-respect. It would keep up family ties and relationships. Therefore, all those matters are important within prison. Obviously we cannot achieve all those aims overnight, but I agree with my noble friend Lady Gould that we should try to work towards that. We should give priority to those aims. The willingness is there, certainly among prison officers. The prisoners I met at Verne were also interested in some of those ideas.
There are also intangible elements in prison which contribute to an eventual ability to cope and resettle in the outside world without reoffending. Vitally important is the idea of treating prisoners as people with human dignity. That creates a greater sense of self respect and personal worth.
I bear in mind the worries expressed by my noble friend Lord Longford about the tabloid press but, again, that does not seem to me to be a wishy-washy form of self-indulgence. Treating people as persons and trying to respect them can be extremely exacting for both the person treating in that way and the person being treated. I say that because self-respect and human dignity are tied up with ideas of personal responsibility and taking responsibility for your own actions. In so far as prisons can try to deal more justly, more impartially and more fairly with people in order to build up a sense of dignity and self-respect among prisoners, it actually enhances a sense of self-respect and a sense of personal responsibility. All of that seems to me to be absolutely crucial and to be miles away from some idea that that is turning prisons into some kind of holiday camp. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am much obliged. Does the noble Lord agree that the main prevention to that happening is overcrowding? As long as there is overcrowding, it does not matter how good the prison staff are: they will not behave in the proper way. Indeed, they cannot do so.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I had intended to make a few remarks about overcrowding. It seems to me that the Woolf Report was committed to the idea of the just prisoner-a framework within which a sense of justice could be inculcated by prisoners being treated justly. How can we expect prisoners to learn a sense of justice when they come out of prison if they are not treated justly and impartially when they are in prison? All those aspects of life within prison seem to me to be necessary conditions for successful adjustment to life outside. We
338
must put a good deal of weight on that, but obviously it takes time and we have to do it in stages for the reasons mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dean.
So government have to play a leading role in encouraging those things within prison. Of course, they do not have to do it all themselves, but in prison they do have the primary responsibility. After all, it is the state that has sent people there. As the noble Lord who just intervened has said, a good deal of that seems to be threatened by overcrowding. That was also mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. It was also the subject of a recent debate in your Lordships' House. That is also threatened by the Government's concern with privatisation. That seems to me to be a move from the central concern with the Woolf proposals to set standards within prisons. We need to recover the enthusiasm for the Woolf proposals and not be diverted on to other things if we are to have any chance of creating the bridge between the prison and the outside world which I believe is a necessary condition of successful readjustment to that outside world.
Of course, government also have a role to play after a prisoner is discharged from prison. It is a role mainly of co-ordination and funding. First, as my noble friend Lord Dean, said, through the probation service there is already a statutory requirement to supervise after release everyone serving sentences of over 12 months. But, at the same time, given the pressures on the probation service, that statutory obligation may have meant less time for those released after shorter sentences. They may be very important people to catch early because, if they have served shorter sentences, it may be that they are rather early in their criminal careers. It is rather important that the probation service should have time to deal with them. The obligation may also mean less time will be available for those who might seek help on a voluntary basis.
While I agree with my noble friend Lord Dean that the probation service is central, we must also look at the pressures on the service and not just impose obligations on it without thinking through the consequences. There should be a partnership between the probation service and the voluntary sector agencies. There are impressive examples of that already taking place from which we should learn.
The Home Office has several roles: co-ordinating to ensure that resettlement help is available in all areas; ensuring that voluntary agencies are properly funded -a point made by my noble friend Lord Dean; and, at the same time, not being too prescriptive about the aims and purposes of those voluntary agencies. It is important in the voluntary sector that funding should be given on terms that allow the space and opportunity for innovation. It should not just be tied to government definitions of what should or should not be done.
In all those terms, the Government have a role that cannot be eliminated. They have a responsibility which they cannot avoid, and such actions must be taken. Government responsibility for building bridges between prison and the outside world seem central if we are to cut the crime rate. That is not-I repeat, not-whatever the tabloids may say, adopting a soft approach to

339
criminals. It is quite the opposite. It is to treat them as morally responsible for their actions and as people who should be prepared to assume their responsibilities to themselves, their families and to society on their release. But they can only do that, given the experience of imprisonment, if some of the sorts of things that I have tried to refer to in this speech—and to which my noble friends have referred—are in place. Help is needed to become responsible. Such a policy is not just morally right: it is also in all our interests.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this subject in the House and for giving us this opportunity to discuss the important concept of the resettlement and aftercare of prisoners in the community. While he and others have exclusively addressed their remarks to the issue in England and Wales, clearly as the Minister responsible for prisons in Scotland, much the same concerns are faced by myself and those who work in the field north of the Border. I hope my objectivity in this matter will be appreciated, as it is intended to be. I am grateful to the noble Earl and to others for the encouragement that they will have given to those who work in the prison service and the probation service and other support agencies who contribute to the work of reintegrating offenders back into society.
I shall begin immediately with resettlement. It would of course be quite wrong to assume that the work of resettlement goes on only at the specialist resettlement prisons. They are indeed achieving standards of excellence but sterling work goes on in this area throughout the prison system. Indeed, it is explicitly embedded in the prison service's statement of purpose which includes these words:
"Our duty is to look after them"—
that is, the prisoners—
"with humanity and help them lead law-abiding and useful lives
in custody and after release".
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, painted a bleak picture of an earlier age. However, I am sure he appreciates—the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, also referred to this matter—that preparation for release now starts from the beginning of imprisonment. Sentence planning has now been introduced in all prison establishments for prisoners serving 12 months and over. This process helps both prison and probation staff to identify prisoners' needs at an early stage of custody. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, that in terms of numbers this is done more frequently with men, but it applies whether the prisoners are men or women.
Significant time is spent on release preparation, as part of wider work with inmates, by prison officers and other staff involved in training, education, PE and leisure activities, religion, employment, community work and so on. This takes place as part of the sentence planning and personal officer schemes and through a range of specific programmes. These include inmate development and pre-release courses, sex offender treatment programmes—the right reverend Prelate
340
referred to that matter—anger control programmes, cognitive skills training programmes, employment and job search preparation courses and job clubs.
I hope it will be encouraging for all those who have contributed to this debate to know that the prison service is committed to extending the resettlement concept. It is proposing to establish small units in establishments best placed to allow maximum advantage of work placement and—this is a theme that came through a number of the contributions made this evening—closeness to home.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord gives an ideal picture of what might be, but that does not correspond, I am afraid, with my experience today at all.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl might be encouraged, and indeed would want to welcome, the commitment of the prison service to the extension of that resettlement concept. That is why I indicated that there is a proposal to establish small units, in the way that I mentioned. I hope that the noble Earl will have regard to what I said because he rightly commended Latchmere House, as did the right reverend Prelate and also the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for the way in which it has established a purposeful and well-ordered environment in which the staff devote their energies to preparing prisoners at the end of long sentences for successful rehabilitation.
Recognising the pressures on the prison estate caused by the rising numbers of prisoners, Latchmere House is committed to raising its roll to in excess of 175. Increasing attention is given to the importance of a. sound and effective training programme which will equip staff with the professional skills necessary for successful rehabilitation work with prisoners and their families.
Kirklevington Grange in the North East offers a similar regime for up to 96 prisoners, together with HMP Oxford, which opened in April as a resettlement satellite of Bullingdon Prison. There are also seven smaller units situated within training prisons throughout the country.
I can assure the noble Earl that it is the intention of the prison service not to lose opportunities to provide further places for prisoners to address specific resettlement issues. To that end, work is being undertaken in the East Anglia and Kent areas in conjunction with the community prisons concept. Kent has been particularly progressive in taking forward the concept of resettlement, not only for those prisoners in the last stages of their sentences prior to release but possibly as early now as the middle of their sentences. Reference has been made to the excellent unique regime at Blantyre House.
The noble Earl also referred to the work of voluntary organisations. I can assure him that we fully recognise the valuable contribution which the voluntary sector can make to the work of the probation service. For that reason, in 1994–95 the Government are making available more than £21 million for grants to the voluntary sector for work with the probation service in England and Wales.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the dreadful happenings at Strangeways the visiting centre which I mentioned was the only building in the area which the Home Office could use for the necessary remedial treatment? It was rather hard for the people who were manning that service for the whole of the Greater Manchester area to keep the establishment functioning, while the bill for the replacement of the building at Strangeways was £80 million, due to mistakes at the Home Office in not listening to the people on the site and trying to deal with the matter from London. It is rather harsh that while such large sums of money were spent, the people running that service frequently had to come to London to argue with civil servants in the Home Office for money to keep their visiting centre open. That is the type of problem that we ought to do our best to avoid.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I cannot pretend to have the same expertise or intimate knowledge of that instance as the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I can only offer him the clear indication that we recognise the valuable contribution of such organisa-tions. Despite what has been indicated in the course of the debate, a substantial amount has been paid over in grants by way of funding for the voluntary sector.
Those who have contributed to the debate will be sufficiently expert to know that there are two schemes under which grants are made to voluntary and private sector organisations: the probation supervision grants scheme and the probation accommodation grants scheme. Both grant schemes are being devolved to local probation areas. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, may have a particular interest in this aspect in view of his intervention. Probation services will in future be responsible for establishing partnerships with the voluntary and private sectors in their area and spending 5 per cent. of their budget in that way. I trust that this will indeed lead to a more equitable spread of opportunities of this type for offenders across England and Wales and help to ensure that facilities meet local needs. At national level the Home Office will retain a small budget for grants to national and innovative projects aimed at work in supporting the probation service.
The noble Earl has drawn a comparison between the £1.4 billion spent on the prison service and £40 million spent on the probation service outside prison. But this is a somewhat false comparison. The sum of £1.4 billion is very large but with good reason. Imprisonment is undoubtedly expensive because the prison system is charged with important custodial duties on behalf of the community.
I wish to emphasise that the prison service fully accepts that prisoners, be they men or women, who are better prepared for returning to the community have a much better chance of staying in the community.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord repeat that again, and more loudly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the prison service fully accepts that prisoners, be they men or women, who are better prepared for returning to the
342
community have a better chance of staying in the community. Accordingly, inmate development and pre-release courses are currently running in over 80 prison establishments, and it is the service's intention, spelt out in its corporate plan, to see all establishments running such courses by 1st April 1996.
The prison service also funds the Prisons Link Unit run by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. To date, about 100 prison establishments currently run an employment and accommodation advice service for prisoners. That number is increasing each year and the prison service intends that by 1996 all establishments will be providing that service to prisoners.
I should also like to take the opportunity to mention what I perceive to be a very successful course which the prison service is running in partnership with the Employment Service. Known as Employment Focus, the course aims to develop in prisoners a readiness to change their situation and to help them improve their chances of finding a job as quickly as possible—a point properly emphasised during the course of the debate. In particular, the course helps prisoners to find and apply for jobs and to perform well at interviews. Special guidance is included on the effects of a prison record on job application and the difficult issue of how best to disclose such a record to a prospective employer.
There are at present some 16 specialist job clubs for prisoners which provide facilities and assistance towards an intensive search for employment. At Holloway Prison, the job club is run by NACRO and funded by the Employment Service; at Pentonville it is run by the Apex Trust and part funded by the Employment Service. One initiative probably known to your Lordships which has been running for much longer is the pre-release employment hostel scheme. Under that scheme, long-term prisoners have the opportunity to spend their last six months before release in one of seven hostels run by the prison service to help them to re-adapt into society.
Working-out schemes provide an alternative for inmates who have less need of the supportive environment of a hostel. There, too, they go out to work each day and return to prison at night. That enables some prisoners to find employment which, hopefully, they can retain once they are finally discharged.
Training and enterprise councils play an important role. They are responsible for making sure that appropriate training provision is available for those at a disadvantage in the labour market, including ex-offenders. Since they took on this role, a number of TECs and prison establishments have been working closely together in a variety of ways to ensure that prisoners' needs are met. There have been many examples of innovative and successful collaboration between TECs and prison establishments.
Finally, I should like to say something about aftercare. The new early release arrangements introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 provide for all prisoners sentenced to 12 months or more to have a mandatory period of supervision in the community. Now, all those sentenced to 12 months or more will receive supervision. As part of that support, the

343
probation service will intervene to address practical difficulties, including such matters as accommodation and employment.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I intervene?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may move on.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, this is an important, an essential point. Supervision is not assistance with finding work or housing. Is the noble and learned Lord telling us that at the moment under the statute there is any responsibility on the probation service or anyone to find work or employment for ex-prisoners? He cannot do it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if I had been allowed a moment more, I might have been able to tell the noble Earl that an important part of undertaking that support is that the probation service will intervene to address the practical difficulties that prisoners confront. That will clearly involve the issues which have arisen time and time again in this debate: accommodation and employment. That is an integral part of the resettlement plan and post-release supervision. I should have thought that that would be welcomed in all parts of the House.
If supervision on release is to be effective, planning should start early in the custodial part of the sentence. To facilitate that, probation staff are seconded to all prison establishments to work alongside prison officers. December 1993 saw the issue of the National Framework for the Throughcare of Offenders in Custody to the Completion of Supervision in the Community. That document aims to clarify the roles and responsibilities of both prison and probation staff and places particular emphasis on the need for a close working relationship to be forged between prison officers, seconded probation staff and the supervising probation officers.
Securing accommodation and employment can be important factors in establishing a settled and law-abiding life style. In a joint initiative, the Home Office and the Association of Chief Officers of
344
Probation have this week issued new guidance to the probation service on employment, education and training. The guidance aims to help probation services improve the employment prospects of unemployed offenders under their supervision. Probation officers are expected to develop area employment policies which should identify the extent of unemployment locally, the services to be provided to address it and the ways in which co-operation with other probation areas and other organisations should take place.
So far as accommodation is concerned, each probation service is required to set up—and I hope this will be welcomed—a local offender accommodation forum. The chief task of that forum is to produce an area offender accommodation strategy, to consider the demand, to assess the extent to which that demand is adequately met, and to agree roles for the voluntary accommodation projects in the area.
As I indicated at the outset, your Lordships' contributions have without exception related to provision in England and Wales. We, in Scotland, have a separate criminal justice system. I am tempted to address the same issues within the Scottish context, but I hope that it will be accepted that my failing to do so is not indicative of any lack of interest or lack of confidence in the comparable development of services in Scotland. Where there are differences, I hope that we can achieve the same improvements in the system. I hope that what I have said is enough to show that both resettlement and aftercare are rightly regarded as high priority issues, both in Scotland and in England and Wales.
Much is going on. Much more is planned, both nationally and as a result of local initiatives and imagination. The importance of this work, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, emphasised, is to try to help keep offenders out of trouble. If we can reduce the rate of recidivism, so much the better. I conclude by again thanking the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  WAR PENSIONS: AMENDMENTS
  WAR PENSIONS: AMENDMENTS
  SETTLE-CARLISLE RAIL SERVICE: PROPOSAL
  SETTLE-CARLISLE RAIL SERVICE: PROPOSAL
  LOTS ROAD-CHEYNE WALK: TRAFFIC LIGHTS PROPOSAL
  LOTS ROAD-CHEYNE WALK: TRAFFIC LIGHTS PROPOSAL
  ZIMBABWE: UK AID
  ZIMBABWE: UK AID
  CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS: ALLEGATIONS
  CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS: ALLEGATIONS
  WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION: ESTABLISHMENT PAPERS
  WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION: ESTABLISHMENT PAPERS
  GROUP 4: PRISON MEDICAL SERVICES
  GROUP 4: PRISON MEDICAL SERVICES
  BROCKHALL RESIDENTIAL HOSPITAL
  BROCKHALL RESIDENTIAL HOSPITAL
  ATTENDANCE CENTRE ORDERS: COSTS
  ATTENDANCE CENTRE ORDERS: COSTS
  LOCAL ELECTIONS: VOTING HOURS
  LOCAL ELECTIONS: VOTING HOURS
  OFFENDERS' AFTER-CARE HOSTELS: GRANTS
  OFFENDERS' AFTER-CARE HOSTELS: GRANTS